How Edward McClellan annoyed the hell out of me

I hate this guy. His name is Edward McClelland, and I hate him. I want him to fall off his mile-high, pompous horse, and shut the hell up. He wrote this article, the one that's linked to above, entitled "How Oprah ruined the marathon," which, if you don't feel like reading it, basically says that amateur runners, who are running for any reason other than competitive glory are ruining the competitive spirit that America used to have, that the elite runners who are there for said competitive glory are being dragged down by "the pack," and that all of our fancy gear has turned us into a bunch of slow, lazy couch potatoes who have no business on the road.

This article pissed me off so much, in fact, that most of the time that I was reading, I was basically sputtering incoherently at my screen. Since when is it not okay to run for your personal best, or to achieve a lifetime goal? Since when are the accomplishments of the few in any way taken away by the desire of the many to participate in what is basically the holy grail of running? Did Paula Radcliffe ruin her pace by running in the same race that Jane "I used to be a couch potatoe" Doe did? No, of course not. The fact that the New York marathon is now more popular in no way diminished the fact that she ran it in 2 hours, 23 minutes (between a 5 and 6 minute mile, for 26.2 consecutive miles). So why, exactly, does McClelland feel like a "middle-aged woman hauling her flab around the District of Columbia" has destroyed the marathon (by the way, that is his characterization of Oprah. I don't really know anything about the woman beyond what everyon else knows, but that's a douchey thing to say)? Well, aside from ruining America's competitive spirit and destroying the times of our elite runners, apparently the glory of the marathon is somehow diminished. Sure, that makes perfect sense. Something like 1/10 of 1% of all people have run a marathon. So, if you run one yourself, I'm pretty that this particular statistic ensures that you're still pretty glorious for doing so.

And another thing, because I'm not done ranting yet, how is it wrong to get up and move your body when so many people in this country are obese, or diabetic, or just plain out of shape? Isn't that a good thing? Isn't the "hauling" of "flab" therefore a noble goal? And do you know how much money is raised for charity by all of the "normal" people running marathons? I don't either, but it's a lot. Edward McClelland, how dare you criticize anyone for doing something good for themselves. If you're so damn concerned that America's running elite aren't making such fantastic times anymore, that they're wearing wicking fabric and shock-proof sneakers instead of "cotton T-shirts, drooping socks, and Tiger racing flats," take it up with them. Leave the rest of us to run to our own versions of panting, red-faced, sweaty glory. Last I checked, you yourself admitted to being on the "wrong" side of 4 hours in the very article in which you criticize everyone else for trying. When you try again next spring for a little competitive glory of your own, I hope that you don't drag everyone else down with your pace. So, here's to you, and your bum knee. Break a leg.