Discussion: Illegal iPod

If you think the controversy about using GPS while orienteering is bad, check this out.

Seems a wee bit extreme

Very reduculous. I often get bored while training alone and running with music helps. It's just a way to make it more enjoyable.

Whoa, Nellie. Don't get me started with this one. She was in contention for a ca$h prize, competing with the elites, and she is supposed to play by the rules. You may like them, you may hate them, but in order for it to be a fair contest and a level playing field, you can't have some of the elites obey all the rules and a select few disregard some.

If you tolerate some violations of the rules without punishments, it's a slippery slope from that point to situations where someone cuts the course, takes a *tiny* little bit of performance enhancing drugs, hops a ride on a moped for a mile or two.

It would be more effective to discuss, "Why does USATF have only the single penalty -- DQ -- for this rule violation? Why not have a judges-imposed variable time penalty instead?"

If you have to run with your headphones, you can always feel free to run *outside* the elite division, not eligible for prize money or awards.

And don't anybody mention takeout fast-food coffee and product liability. Oooh.

Im not sure if there is any scientific evidence to back this up but I think music actually makes you go faster. Whenever im running the music distracts you from from your breathing and your tiredness.

You do have to follow the rules- but this is a ridiculous rule..

like they said there- everything we use is a performance enhancer be it are shoes, are clothes, are food, are drinks you can't ban all these things! And if you're going to disqualify 1st technically you should disqualify the rest of the field who used i-pods too
Its not the kind of thing easily monitored.. are you gonna check every single runner for their i-pods at the start and finish? don't think so

I always thought that ipods were banned on USATF courses because it was a safety hazard. But if that were the case, then I would imagine everyone would be banned from using them, not just elite.

If it were actually a safety issue then I can see a DSQ, even if that seems extreme. But as a performance enhancer? Not so much.

A watch is a performance enhancing device. I bet all the elites wore them.

Is an iPod a performance enhancer? Maybe--I don't really care. Certainly nothing like GPS in orienteering. But, it was a rule, albeit an arbitrary one, as many are.

I have even heard about that rule and I am not an elite marathoner. I'm sorry, but I have little sympathy.

I have definitely run races where they made it clear that the ipods (and similar devices) were banned as Cristinah says, for being a safety hazard. They specifically stated that it is an insurance thing, and that it was prohibited by the insurer, and would invalidate their insurance. This is possibly true for all USATF races, though I'm just speculating here.

A runner with music absolutely does not hear cars as well as one without.

And I agree, a rule is a rule.

Despite the Gizmodo headline, the link to the USATF rules info talks about safety, and not performance enhancement. I don't question the enforcement in this situation, but the rule itself as it appears to be stated seems to have questionable merit. However, since I was not involved with the deliberations associated with its enactment, I can't speak authoritataively about that. I'm just sayin' that this is a level beyond what is going on in terms of orienteering controversy.

A rule is a rule. An arbitrary rule is still a rule. But some arbitrary rules are stupid, and should be fixed. Like USOF rule 29.2 (that's the second rule 29.2, not the first one or the third one). Technically, some people would probably argue all courses for both days at the Boulder Dash should have been thrown out. Every single control was in blatant violation.

I'm pretty sure Cristinah is right, the rule was introduced for safety. Problem is, how do race officials enforce it, especially at the big marathons with thousands of entries? At a WRE orienteering race with maybe 200 entries max, all starting at 1-2 minute intervals, officials can police the 'no gps' rule comparatively easily.

And like j-man, I have little sympathy. Sorry Andrew and Cillin, but surely running - especially orienteering training - is a totally enjoyable activity by itself. You have the environment and its sights, smells and sounds (whether natural or urban), your body, your thoughts, reflections, plans, what you are going to record in AP, meditation, daydreams; masses of things in fact to make the activity a complete thing in itself, so why the need to add music (if what some people listen to can be called that)?

This rule applies for the USATF insurance I get for our trail race.
No baby strollers either!
This arguement may disolve into the young vs. the old on this matter, but either way you have to wonder why some one like this doesn't know the rules.

For me, music is a great distraction from being tired. This is especially true with workouts. When I'm actually orienteering, though, I often find myself singing a song in my head. I know this is true for many orienteers and I do think that it helps.

thats what you get for being a punter running with an ipod

A music player could definitely be used as a performance enhancement, at least for road running. As simple as a click-track with the right pace for all parts of the race. Then throw in some hypno-mumbo-jumbo and voila: zombie speed runner.

I saw a guy biking in the Philly Tri last year with a headset on, which was illegal and vocalized at various points pre-race. Really really stupid riding a bike with a headset, particularly a closed-ear set like he was wearing.

Is it legal to have a watch doing pacing (clicks)? I doubt it. Same thing. Enforceable? Difficult. But so is enforcement of performance-enhancing-drugs in races at these levels, which I presume are illegal too.

What if I plug my ears so that I don't hear anything, like nothing at all, and improve my PRs that way or god knows win something! With no distractions coming my way, I can focus on my stride and such... would that be illegal too?

What if you're deaf?

That's where I was getting to... is it an unfair advantage in the context of the sport? Back in a day when I was into CX skiing, we had a darn good guy who was completely deaf, nothing seemed to frazzle him while he was flying uphill.

If the ban on i-pods is due to safety, it should apply to all runners, not just to elites.

In the Pike's Peak marathon and Ascent, i-pods and similar devices are banned, for good reason, because on the mostly single-track trail, it's important to be as aware as possible of people around you, especially people who may be passing you. Not a good place to be "in your own world" surrounded by tunes.

For most training runs on roads, I definitely feel they are a safety hazard, as they make you much less aware of cars. For running an organized road race, where presumably traffic is much less of a factor than doing training runs, it's not as clear to me that i-pods are a significant safety hazard.

So, as others have put it, rules are rules -- but this rule (banning i-pods for elites but not for the rest of the field) doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

music is a great distraction from being tired

That is precisely why I don't let my runners use MP3 devices on workout days. Since the races have such a large mental toughness component, we need to train for that as well as the physical component. On recovery days, I let it slide.

Safety is the reason that I don't let my runners use MP3 devices on those extremely rare days that we are on the roads.

On a related note--I'm not sure about A Child's remarks. I generally would discourage having a song in your head as I think it could really impede concentration. I.e., running through what you see/expect to see. I can only keep so many things in my head at once, and I've found that if I have a song there, I have worse concentration.

I sing when I run and orienteer (so long as no one is in earshot :)), and certainly always have music in my head if not singing (without need of an ipod). As others have said, it clears the mind and helps keep rhythm. It may even be a safety hazard. Are they going to ban that as well?

I think Naked and Barefoot Marathon would be perfect - no potential hazard and very easy to control. Same as it was many years ago

For road races, the insurance coverage (and safety) is the main reason for banning the headphones/earphones. The marathon I'm associated with, the Huntsville Marathon, is disqualifying people at the finish line for this. Reading the article about the race, however, shows that it was a matter of someone else getting disqualified for breaking another ticky-tack rule, and then they said "Those other people are violating rules too!" (AKA why I hate the HS jewelry/uniform rules).

The USATF rules are more concerned with performance adjustment/enhancement in field events (looking at video/ communication with coaches during competition is the main concern). Although I did disqualify some woman at the HS state championship two years ago for walking through the high jump previous to hers, obliviously talking on her cell phone.

krechet: I love it. Orienteering, too. :)

no please not orienteering!!!!!! The scars and scrapes would be unbearable. Thats just taking it one step too far :)

I remember when the RoadRunners clubs adopted the no mp3 policy a few years ago. Those who favor the rule swear it is about safety but those who like to use them think that is BS. I am mostly with the BS group even though I rarely use an mp3 and never in races. Could be that I keep the volume down low so the argument that I would not hear things did not carry much weight with me.
I always wondered what the rule would do to to races like the Rock&Roll marathons with bands on every corner. If an mp3 is unsafe then that would be unsafe and cheering crowds along the course should be prevented as well.

The girl who this year won Australia's biggest road race, Sydney's City to Surf, is deaf. Should she have been disqualified for being a safety hazard ?

if you think about it for long enough anything can be considered a performance enhancer or a safety hazard..

obviously the people who made the rules thought about it for to long!

If an mp3 is unsafe then that would be unsafe and cheering crowds along the course should be prevented as well.

In Washington State, it's illegal to drive a car with headphones on (RCW 46.37.480). The difference between having a device like a car stereo play music (or having bands play while you're running by) and having earbuds in your ears is huge; earbuds are designed to block out a large amount of ambient noise and are more successful at that than people think.

I do agree with you that people should be able to run with or without music, but that's because I think people should be able to do what they want. If you can afford the entry fee for one of these races, you can afford a music player, so everyone has access to them, and I don't see that using one gives one an unfair competitive advantage.

I always understood this to be a safety issue not a performance issue. As in someone who is completely oblivious to the many people around them who subsequently causes some sort of collision or pile up, say, in an aid station. That happens too often already with people who aren't using an ipod.

In other races I have seen marshalls actively enforcing the no outside aid (spectators/spouses handing water bottles, gels to racers) rules but only in the top 50 finishers. I was 49th at the time and the 45th place guy (or so) got dq'd halfway through a marathon because smeone gave hime a gel or something. In that case the assistance could reasonably be expected to enhance his performance which in turn could reasonably be exected to influence the age group standings and someone may have been deprived of a prize, lame as it would likely have been, but deprived nonetheless.

There is a paralell here in that ipods or outside aid for the 1000th finisher matters less to most people than it does for the top ten. Any elite runner should know the rules and abide by them but any race director with a brain larger than a peanut should know that DQing the masses that overpay for races and make big events for elites to win possible is bad for business. Perhaps an on course warning to remove the offending device with a dq to follow for non-compliance is a more balanced approach. We can still make our insurers happy while not alienating the participants who certainly deserve better than that.

But isn't a pile-up at an aid station much more likely with the mid-pack runners (since there are far more of them) than the elite runners?

I agree that the use of mp3 players in a race can create some hazards, and thus I think it can be appropriate to ban them, but I don't see the logic of saying how they are safety hazards for elite runners but not for middle or back of the pack runenrs.

I don't subscribe to either the safety or the performance-enhancement arguments. Instead I think it is a question of dignity and respect for the sport. If you are competing at an elite level, in front of an audience, then it is respectful to be engaged and aware. (If you are in a race where people are dressed up as hot dogs or whatever, this argument no longer holds)

The arguments above would seem to support golfers, bowlers, most track and field athletes, swimmers, even baseball outfielders wearing headphones during events - but interestingly this controversy seems limited to long distance running.

Another issue here is that many marathons are offering prize money for the "elite" race winner, but are not attracting "elite" level fields. Did you see what the winning time was for the marathon in question, after the first two women across the finish line were DQed? 3:02:50! Hardly elite-level female times.

A somewhat similar controversy erupted at the San Francisco Marathon last year, when a female runner in the "regular" portion of the race ran a faster time than all the "elite" women. Details here