From Road Race Management, October 1997

In the May 19 issue of The New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell borrowed a sociology term, "learned helplessness," to examine the worldwide predominance of black runners over white runners. Among other things, learned helplessness posits that members of a group can develop a self-fulfilling defeatism when they notice that members of another group consistently outperform them, in math tests, 100-meter races, or what have you.

As the foreign onslaught at the front of most prize-money races has grown exponentially during the last few years, an element of learned helplessness seems to have afflicted many American road racers. This has led race directors to devise varied approaches to encouraging and rewarding American performance. Some offer American-only money, some offer performance bonuses for top places, some do nothing. Which is best?

"We want to be sure that Americans who run well against the competition get some compensation," says Rich Sherman, of the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Falmouth Road Race. "Because of the strength of the foreign field, it’s possible that someone could bust his butt and do well personally, but not make a penny. We try to get some money to American runners so that they can continue to compete." So Falmouth has a double prize structure: 15 deep in the open division, 10 deep for Americans. Place in the top 15 as an American, and you draw from both pools. Says Sherman, "This is a very good way of having a first-class field and at the same time saying to Americans, ‘We want you here.’"

Who Owes Whom What?
But doesn’t Stewart, as an American race director, have a responsibility to help his country’s runners? Says Rodgers, "Our athletes represent our country. You have to look after your own people. Most nations do that to some degree. But we seem to have this pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps mentality." Adds Sherman, "If you want to see the sport get better in terms of American performance, you should put something toward Americans."

Counters Stewart, "I’m not sure that’s our mission as race directors. That’s what the national governing body is supposed to do." Besides, he adds, it’s not as if the top runners at Cherry Blossom are running significantly faster than when Rodgers used to win the event. Indeed, as recently as 1991, American Bill Reifsnyder took second at Cherry Blossom, running 46:30. This year, Kenyan Peter Githuka won in 46:29. "Where are the 47-minute Americans?" Stewart asks rhetorically. "The important thing is that American runners need to go against anybody."

The Bolder Boulder 10K thinks that it has hit on a way to encourage that type of attitude. Its cash purse runs to 10 places, with a slot’s amount doubled if it’s won by an American. This year, Libbie Hickman maxed out the format, winning the women’s race and $20,000, twice what a foreign winner would have received.

"Twenty thousand is a pretty good payday," laughs Bolder Boulder’s Bill Reef. "But what got the press more excited than that was that an American said we can take on the best on the world, and she went out and did it." After the race, Hickman cited the prize-money format as an incentive, saying, "Americans can win races if we focus. I decided last year to make the Bolder Boulder a focal point."

Three weeks earlier, the Lilac Bloomsday 12K used the same format with its 15-deep purse for the first time, and had a similar result. Kim Jones won the women’s race, and left $14,000 richer. Says the race’s Don Kardong, "We were looking for something that would potentially help American runners. We think they should be in races like ours. We debated how to benefit them in a way that we’re comfortable with."

Why not a separate U.S. purse? "I’m kind of offended when someone is 15th and gets a big paycheck," answers Kardong. "I don’t think a dual circuit or the basic tendency to stay away is good for anybody. At least in this system you have to compete with foreign runners." Reef concurs, saying, "We tried guaranteed money, where we paid to the first three Americans, regardless of place. That doesn’t make sense. That’s not an incentive to compete against the best."

For his part, Rodgers doubts that Bolder Boulder’s approach is much of an incentive, either. "Double prize money for Americans is more pie-in-the-sky than incentive if you’re bringing in 19 altitude-born Kenyans to your race," he says. "Also, I don’t think a lot of race directors get the connection of what a few thousand dollars means to a runner from a second-world or third-world country compared to an American." This year at Bolder Boulder, Matt Giusto was the only leading American on the men’s side. He ran with the leaders through 2 miles, then fell back and placed 10th, the last prize-money slot, and won $1,000.

Sherman also cites the relative draw of a few thousand dollars as part of the reason behind his separate purses. "Our format says to the American runner that we realize that the competition is tough, that a lot of your competition might have the advantage of a lower cost of living back home. History has shown that some runners don’t peak until past age 30. If you’re out of college and struggle for the next two years, you’re probably going to give it up sooner. But if the top 10 or 15 Americans have a means to stick with it, they can develop. That longevity is important for the sport."

Kardong admits that his format might not be as effective on the deeper men’s side. At Bloomsday this year, the first American male was 25-year-old Teddy Mitchell, who placed 13th and won $600. Still, he says, "this was our first year with this format. I think we’re going to stick with it, so maybe in another year or two, American men will see that they can place in the top 15 here. It seems that a lot of them have just plain given up. I hope that our structure tells the ones that want to mix it up, like Teddy Mitchell, that there are rewards to that."

Kardong concludes, "I’m not 100% convinced that this is the right way to go, but it’s worth sticking with it for a few years."

Return to Article Index