By HPRS Owner and Race Director John Lacroix

PREFACE

Around this time every year I present our community with my “State of Our Sport” address. The address focuses on the realized history and predicted evolution of ultramarathon running in the year that’s passed and the year(s) to come. This address seeks to present a variety of facts, such as links to articles and news stories, to paint a picture of the trends that some of us are seeing in our sport. This is an opinion piece, an “op-ed,” that will not only discuss my opinions, but also provide evidence to back up those opinions.

I recognize that not everyone will agree with what is written, or follow the same insight(s) shared, and that’s more than okay. I respectfully ask that those who disagree with anything written below address the subject matter they disagree with by presenting their own facts in a rebuttal. Let’s have a respectful conversation about the subject matter, that includes evidence that backs up our positions, rather than simply attacking the individual providing the narrative.

The discussion herein is based on my personal interpretations of data, education, professional experience, and discussions had with various industry professionals throughout calendar year 2023. Where and when applicable, I will provide a link to source information for the reader to be able to interpret the data on their own accord. Sources, and interpersonal discussion from conferences and working groups include but are not limited to: Quarterly updates from RunSignUp.Com, Running Insight, Endurance Sportswire, RunningUSA.org, RRCA  newsletters, monthly poll questions in HPRS Newsletters, Ultrarunning Magazine, meetings with various board and committees, discussions in a couple of Race Director Groups on Facebook, and various in-person discussions with other trail and ultramarathon race directors, owners, and brand representatives.

2023 DATA

Let’s start by looking at the numbers associated with ultramarathon running in 2023[1], with discussion comparing these numbers to previous years. These numbers are for North America only. When viewing the percentage of change columns, please note that 2018 is as compared to 2017 and 2022 is as compared to 2019.

Event and Race Count Trends

Unique Finisher and First Timer Trends

Year	Unique Finishers	Change	First Timers	Change
2018	66,689	5.99%	26,292	4.14%
2019	77,703	16.52%	32,130	22.20%
2020	34,551		11,903
2021	64,665		26,283
2022	75,995	-2.20%	29,531	-8.09%
2023	86,548	13.89%	35,368	19.77%

Finish Trends

Year	Total Finishes	Change	Avg. Finishers Per Race	Change
2018	103,999	6.35%	51.18	-3.38%
2019	118,841	14.27%	52.19	1.97%
2020	45,087		39.65
2021	96,465		44.49
2022	108,021	-9.11%	42.25	-19.05%
2023	120,784	11.82%	45.67	8.10%

Participation by Gender Trends

Year	Male	Female	Difference	Change
2014	68.99%	31.01%	37.98	-4.91%
2015	67.63%	32.37%	35.26	-7.16%
2016	66.59%	33.41	33.18	-5.9%
2017	66.29%	33.71%	32.58	-1.81%
2018	66.21%	33.79%	32.42	-0.49%
2019	66.53%	33.47%	33.06	1.97%
2020	67.81%	32.19%	35.62	7.74%
2021	66.56%	33.44%	33.12	-7.02%
2022	66.77%	33.23%	33.54	1.27%
2023	68.12%	31.88%	36.24	8.05%

Number of Races by Distance and Total Finishes By Distance Trends

Distance	2023	2022	Change	2023 Total Finishes	2022 Total Finishes	Change
50k	945	903	4.65%	59,393	51,815	14.63%
50-Mile	337	331	1.81%	17,414	16,109	8.10%
100k	175	177	-1.13%	7,467	6,521	14.51%
100-Mile	239	228	4.83%	11,231	10,305	8.99%
200-Mile	15	9	66.67%	424	324	30.86%

Number of Races By Distance Trends 1

	50k	Change	50-mile	Change	100k	Change	100-Mile	Change	200-Mile	Change
2018	839	9.25%	289	4.33%	138	6.98%	175	8.03%	6	-14.29%
2019	886	5.60%	321	11.07%	168	21.74%	188	7.43%	11	83.33%
2020	406		135		77		98		3
2021	750		282		147		193		8
2022	903	1.92%	331	3.12%	177	5.36%	228	21.28%	9	-18.18%
2023	945	4.65%	337	1.81%	175	-1.13%	239	4.83%	15	66.67%

Number of Races By Distance Trends 2

	6-Hour	Change	12-Hour	Change	24-Hour	Change	Backyard	Change
2018	135	18.42%	142	10.08%	103	14.44%	11	22.22%
2019	151	11.85%	163	14.79%	126	22.33%	30	172.73%
2020	75		85		62		26
2021	143		154		121		56
2022	178	17.88%	187	14.73%	139	10.32%	75	150%
2023	181	1.69%	202	8.02%	141	1.44%	81	8%

Finishers By Distance Trends 1

	50k	Change	50-Mile	Change	100k	Change	100-Mile	Change	200-Mile	Change
2018	55,339	4.45%	17,284	1.38%	5,753	9.83%	9,278	9.09%	264	15.79%
2019	62,697	13.30%	19,044	10.18%	6,916	20.22%	10,168	9.59%	306	15.91%
2020	22,011		6,232		2,866		349		18
2021	44,811		14,780		5,302		8,616		130
2022	51,815	-17.36%	16,109	-15.41%	6,521	-5.71%	10,305	1.35%	324	5.88%
2023	59,393	14.63%	17,414	8.10%	7,467	14.51%	11,231	8.99%	424	30.86%

Finishers By Distance Trends 2

	6-Hour	Change	12-Hour	Change	24-Hour	Change	Backyard	Change
2018	1,517	10.49%	3,371	1.72%	3,614	5.80%	492	45.56%
2019	1,705	12.39%	4,132	22.58%	4,450	23.13%	1,047	112.80%
2020	779		1,857		1,516		743
2021	1,550		3,719		3,714		1,640
2022	1,594	-6.51%	3,893	-5.78%	4,457	0.16%	1,916	83%
2023	1,971	23.65%	4,366	12.15%	4,487	0.67%	2,435	27.09%

To see Colorado’s numbers specifically, and the conversation I’ve already had discussing Colorado, please see my previous post HERE.

[1] Source Ultrarunning Magazine at https://ultrarunning.com/calendar/stats/ultrarunning-finishes?distance=&country=USA

*It should be noted that Ultrarunning Magazine does not publish data for 48-hour, 72-Hour, or Multi-Day ultras. They also do not publish data for non-binary participation. Data published by Ultrarunning Magazine we have also found to not be completely comprehensive; there is a margin of error. Data presented on the Ultrarunning Magazine stats page will continue to change as more data becomes available to the magazine. We are not responsible for errors in data.

DISCUSSION

For reference, HERE is a link to my 2022 State of Our Sport Address

2023 DATA:

In last year’s address I opened our discussion with the following, “Based on the numbers shared above and considering that I believe our sport has rebounded and recovered from the Covid-19 pandemic, the data highlights that the sport of ultrarunning is in an “ebb pattern.” I understand that the optimists in the room want to believe that everything is just fine and we’re crushing it, but the data shows that we are in fact not crushing it. While the sport of trail running is indeed growing, data indicates that it’s the shorter “non-ultra” distances that are thriving; ultrarunning is in a downturn.”

In looking at the 2023 data, we can clearly see that we have indeed returned to 2019 “pre-pandemic” numbers, which in many cases we have now surpassed. In 2023 we set all-time records for most unique finishers in a year, most first timers in a year, most cumulative finishes in a year, most events with an ultra distance present in a year, and most ultra distance races in a year. As we begin 2024, we can indeed say that our sport has realized a full recovery from the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, and race directors can no longer use the term “covid recovery” as a reason for lackluster numbers. Ultrarunning has now returned to, and surpassed, pre-covid numbers.

As compared to 2019; in 2023 our sport saw an increase of 11.38% in the number of Unique Finishers of ultramarathons, and a 10.08% increase in first time finishers of an ultramarathon. Yes, any increase in participation is good, but this percentage of growth over the course of 5 years, in these two areas specifically, validates my assessment from last year that we are indeed in an ebb pattern. This is what I would consider to be “average” growth percentages as compared to growth in other years, especially if we are to look even further back than 2018. So while we are indeed hitting new records for participation and number of events out there, I wouldn’t say that indicates our sport is still growing at the same feverish pre-covid pace. Total finishers in 2023 is only 1.64% higher than it was in 2019. While finisher numbers are still slightly above 2019 numbers for the 100k (7.97%), 100-mile (10.45%) and 200-mile distances (38.56%); finisher numbers for the 50k (-5.27%) and 50-mile (-8.56%) distances are still below 2019 numbers.

While we are still down 5.27% in the number of 50k finishers as compared to 2019, there are 6.66% more 50k races on the calendar. While we are still down 8.56% in the number of 50-mile finishers as compared to 2019, there is 4.98% more 50-mile races on the calendar. Running in general saw a modest surge in participation in 2023. This years RunSignUp.com 2023 Market Report showed us that there was 9% growth in registration numbers as compared to 2022, across all of running in general. It should be noted that RunSignUp.com has a 40-45% market share of all running events using its platform for registration purposes. So while running as a whole has returned to 2019 numbers, and we can see that ultrarunning is hitting records, the fact still remains that we are not attracting a sustainable increase in new runners who would typically participate in the 50k and 50-mile distances, nor are we attracting a sustainable increase in total number of finishers. We’re still below 2019 numbers in these regards.

This is a continuation of the trends as discussed in last year’s address. To me this could spell long term disaster for the future viability of the longer distances in our sport. As the timeline of participation for those currently participating in 100k or longer distances runs out, I believe we’ll start to see a decrease in participant numbers for those distances. I attribute the increase in 50k races on the calendar because more and more events that have historically not provided an ultra distance as part of their event are adding that distance as an add-on to their festivities. See the Marine Corps Marathon for example, who randomly added a 50k distance to their road race event in 2019.

When looking at the 100-mile distance, I see that there has been an increase of 27.13% in the number of 100-milers on the calendar as compared to 2019, but only a 10.45% increase in the number of 100-mile finishers considering the same years. Naturally, when the 100-miler you created is not crushing it as you thought it would, you add a shorter distance to pick-up the slack in participation. I believe most of the new 50-milers on the calendar are indeed a result of 100-mile race directors scrambling to generate more revenue for their event. Last year I stated that this is the worst time to be bringing a new 100-miler online, yet we still saw a 4.83% increase in new 100-miler races in 2023. I said it last year and I’ll say it again this year, “When it comes to 100-milers, I’m just going to come out and say it: STOP IT. We do not need any more 100-mile races in North America.”

The race director of a 100-mile race in Colorado that was cancelled in 2023 stated the following as one of the reasons for the cancellation, “Unfortunately, sign up rates for 2023 were not high enough to move forward with the event this year. The course is very remote and the demands on our volunteers out there too challenging with so few participants (2-3 hours between runners through the night potentially) to feel comfortable hosting the event this year. We are looking into alternatives to show off this area in the future, but it appears the demand is not there for another 100 miler.” This statement coincides with the realities I have highlighted above; instead of race directors pausing for a moment and considering that the supply of 100-mile races more than meets the demand, they are adding new races anyway. When their race fails to perform they either cancel their event outright or add a shorter distance to help boost workable revenue. This isn’t new, it’s always happened. What is new is that fewer race directors and potential race directors are doing actual market research to determine if a need exists for the event they propose to host, or when and where would be an ideal time and place for that event to transpire. The 100-mile landscape is not sustainable.

The other place I am looking at the influx of new-comers is in timed events. The 6-hour timed event saw a 15.6% increase in finishers for year 2023 as compared to 2019; but just a 5.66% increase in the 12-hour and 0.83% increase in the 24-hour. I think it is fair to say that a large number of the recorded “first timers” are coming out of the 6-hour numbers. I’ve never personally been one to consider a 6-hour event an ultra, but with a 23.65% increase in 6-hour finishers in 2023 over 2022, I think it is safe to say that most of our first timers are in the 6-hour bucket merely dabbling into the sport. I can only hope that those who are indeed dabbling into the sport of ultra via the 6-hour events will ultimately find their way into the other distances, but until that transpires I hold on to my reason for concern and commit once again to our sport continuing in an “ebb pattern.“

Considering the data we can see that while our sport continues to grow and set new records for participation, the level of that growth is modest if not minimal at best. We are still hovering around pre-pandemic numbers of 2019, and in some cases we are below pre-pandemic numbers, which at this point should be reason for concern. I strongly believe that now is the best time for our sport to take stock of what races currently exist and determine what events will stay and which ones will have to go based on a supply and demand/needs based analysis. I do not think it is a good time to start new races or to further complicate the calendar when we have a host of issues we need to sort out prior to our sport experiencing another surge in growth. Ignoring the numbers and continuing to forge ahead “at all costs” will only further degrade the roots of our sport that so many seek to continue to celebrate and foster, and will only further thrust us into the corporate greed machine so many spoke out against in 2023 (see below).

Friends, as we continue to add more races to the calendar and as we increase the number of finishers completing them, we must also see that we are increasing the need for volunteers while also decreasing the number of individuals available or willing to volunteer…

THE SINGLE GREATEST THREAT TO ULTRARUNNING

When I first got into the sport of ultramarathon running in 2005, I had the benefit of being mentored by a handful of veterans. These veterans didn’t mince words when clearly relaying the importance of volunteerism as a condition of your participation in ultrarunning events. Nearly 20 years later and I believe that the single greatest threat our sport is faced with today is the lack of volunteerism; specifically the lack in acknowledgement of how important volunteerism is, and the lack of veterans willing to carry the torch in continuing this guiding principle of our sport’s ethos by echoing its importance and encouraging volunteerism as a condition of entry.

I also feel like some race directors, maybe a decade or so ago, saw the need to encourage volunteerism in our sport in recognition of this growing into a bigger issue downstream. Those race directors implemented mandatory volunteer hours as a condition of entry into their events, primarily for the 100-mile distance and longer. Some race directors require you to complete 8-hours of volunteer trail work as a condition of entry, some require 8-hours of volunteering at any other ultra, and some will except 8 hours in either form. Some race directors will even allow you to “buy-out” of the volunteer requirement by way of a size-able donation to a non-profit who benefits from the event.

When these volunteer requirements first came into play and started to quickly spread in popularity amongst race directors, there was indeed a large number of runners who complained about the new conditions of entry; most stating that they don’t have time to volunteer on top of training and racing, and others who wanted to argue the definition of the word “volunteer” and how “forced volunteerism” wasn’t true volunteerism. If you have time to train, you have time to volunteer. If you have time to race, you have time to volunteer. If you have time to complain about volunteering, you have time to volunteer.

Whenever I hear someone complaining about having to volunteer, I recognize that I am looking at someone who cares little about the collective success of an event or our sport as a whole. It was beyond me when people complained about volunteer requirements when they were first introduced, and it now sickens me that anyone would continue to complain about volunteerism when it has become such a critical issue.

Over the years many 100-milers still have a volunteer requirement as a condition of entry. It has been suggested to me by a handful of our runners over the years, that we consider mandating volunteer hours as a condition of entry for ANY ultra distance. I’m not there yet, nor do I think the sport is either. This is to say that if runners are intimating this as a possibility, it is a possibility indeed. All in all, I don’t see that the general ultra-community sees volunteering as a necessity, nor do they truly understand how a lack of volunteerism threatens our sport. Nor do I see race directors willing to do anything logical about it, as the logical solution is to not add more races that would need the help of even more volunteers.

Something’s gotta give and the outcome I see coming in the future is one with a greatly altered ultra experience.

Without volunteers to support successful and safer events, here is what I think will happen if we don’t act:

• A lot more races are going to go under. This is already occurring.
• The experience of the runner is what suffers the most. This is already occurring. If you want an example, head on over to Walter Handloser’s Facebook post about his experience at the Canyonlands 100 in October 2023. That entire report highlights what happens when a race director trudges forward with an event without having a community of volunteers surrounding it.

• “Point-to-point” and “one-giant-loop” type courses are going to start to dwindle in number. These types of events require the most volunteer support. Without sufficient volunteer support, race directors will be forced to host more “multi-loop” and “out-and-back” type courses where they can host a successful event with fewer volunteer needs. This is already occurring.

• Race entry fees will climb significantly at races/series where race directors resort to hiring staff (on payroll) to ensure an adequately staffed race. This is already occurring.

• Some races will forge ahead without volunteers and instead will alter race logistics. In this case you’ll see aid stations much further apart. Instead of seeing one every 4-6 miles as has been the case over the last 5 or so years, we will resort back to aid stations being 8-10 miles apart.

• Some races will resort to mandatory gear lists to support a more “self-supported” race experience. Aid stations will be for tracking and safety purposes only with minimal offerings regarding food and water. Runners will end up carrying more of what they need and want in order to endure the race with much less volunteer support available.

• With fewer aid stations, and more mandatory gear requirements, land managers will be looking closer at safety protocols within an event. Most notably, live runner tracking will become a condition of permitting for many events. Live runner tracking technology is not even CLOSE to being able to keep up with the demand. If companies who can provide this technology cannot get up to speed, or if more companies don’t come online, many races will be unable to acquire necessary permits… and will ultimately go away. Those who can acquire live runner tracking, will end up charging the runner for the service, which could run anywhere from $100-$150 per runner/per race.

Here is what I believe we need:

• A (re)commitment from all veterans to take newer runners under their wing and show them the ways of “grass roots” running events, and the importance of adding volunteerism into their yearly “race calendar.”

• A commitment from all runners to add volunteerism to their yearly calendar. In general, previous polls suggest that runners feel they should volunteer at one race for every 3 that they run in.

• Race directors need to take a step back and look at the economics of the race schedule in their area. Understanding that if there is already a 50k on Saturday, June 40^th for example, by building your own (new) 50k on the same day 5-miles away as the crow flies dooms both race directors. Not only are you fighting over the same pool of prospective runners, but you’re also fighting over the same pool of potential volunteers. The more folks who are running in two separate events on the same day, the fewer are available as volunteers. We cannot be fighting over customers AND support. We must wake up as a collective and see that race directors are the primary cause of this issue and not the runners.

• All races of 100k in length or longer should require 8-hours of volunteer service as a condition of entry. This requirement should include volunteerism at races and not just through trail work efforts.

REVISITING GENDER

It was 2016 when the gender gap became a hot topic of discussion within the sport of ultrarunning. It was 2017 when groups like Trail Sisters were born out of a desire to bridge that gap and to increase female participation in our sport. Seven years after the discussion first started and the data suggests that these efforts have stalled if not been deemed mostly ineffective altogether.

In 2023 we had 68.12% male and 31.88% female participation. This is the largest gap in these numbers since 2014 (68.99% male/31.01% female). In the data provided above I included gender numbers from 2014-present, If you go to Ultrarunning Magazine’s stats page you can see that the gender gap had always been getting closer together since the record is kept starting in 2000; there is no data present that supports the idea that the efforts of Trail Sisters or other similar groups/initiatives have actually been successful at bridging the gender gap. In fact, the data supports an analysis that since the discussion arose the gap trend has only been widening. We have regressed to the numbers of a decade ago; a regression that began after 2018.

Also, it should still be noted that Ultrarunning Magazine does not publish data for runners who do not identify on the binary, and groups like Trail Sisters have yet to provide insight on how they define a “woman” and/or if trans-women are part and parcel of their efforts as well. By not recognizing runners who do not identify on the binary, and by not truly supporting all women, these groups are (perhaps unintentionally) discriminating against others. I feel like our sport’s collective inability to recognize and support runners of all gender identities is ultimately pushing all efforts in reverse. The more we engage in a toxic approach to gender issues in our sport’s culture, I believe the further we will widen the gap. While these conversations are needed and they are indeed difficult to navigate at times, we must find a way to be inclusive of all genders and not simply championing causes that only focus on ONE gender over all others.

This isn’t to slam those groups as I think we can all agree that their efforts are admirable and still very much needed. While I do believe there is much that can be done to make women’s participation in ultramarathons more enjoyable, better supported, and an all around better atmosphere; I also feel like some of the suggestions, while still necessary for equity, are not necessarily things that will ultimately attract more women into the sport.

• While I personally believe that it is essential that all podiums and awards are equal between men, women and non-binary runners; I do not personally believe this is something that will encourage more women or non-binary runners to get involved in our sport. I believe it is something that only benefits the more talented 1% of the field;

• While I personally believe that it is essential for women to have space on the starting line; I do not personally believe this is something that will encourage more women or non-binary runners to get involved in our sport. I believe it is also something that only benefits the more talented 1% of the field;
• I personally believe it is imperative for races to have a clear, fair, and equitable Pregnancy & Postpartum policy, and also a policy for spouses of those who experience a complicated pregnancy that acknowledges not all spouses as inherently male identifying;
• I personally believe it is essential to have Menstrual Products at Aid Stations; as well as items that can help support those who are actively transitioning, and those items be accessible without someone revealing their gender identity;
• I personally believe that it is essential to have Women’s Specific Apparel & Swag;

• I ultimately believe that policies that indeed contribute to a more welcoming sport for individuals of all gender identities is a vital piece to our future success, and a lack thereof is a vital piece to our future failures.

One of the biggest issues raised by women as a barrier to participation in our sport was their inability to adequately train while also caring for their family. If we take this to heart, extending cut-offs removes the focus on performance and affords more women an opportunity to belong by getting whatever training in that they can, and perhaps walking/hiking on a course rather than running it. After all, this sport was once known as “ultra-pedestrianism” and it’s okay if we return to more of that feel if it means increased participation and belonging.

ADJUSTING THE EXPERIENCE AND EXPECTATIONS
But there is more that we can and should do as well, and those things focus more on the enjoyment and encouragement of all runners, especially those who identify more with the mid and back of the pack. In the data provided above we can see that average finishers per race was at 45.67 in 2023. This is a 12.49% decrease from 2019’s number of 52.19%. Ultrarunning Magazine has data as far back as 2000. The highest percentage of finishers per race was in 2002 at 69.86%. This number has declined slowly ever since with just a few years here and there were there was a slight increase for 1 or 2 years before continuing the downward trend. I’m making note of this because the 12.49% decrease is the largest percentage decrease in finisher percentage over any 5-year span over the last 23 years. Meaning, the number of people finishing per race has been in a period of all time low over the last three years.

I think it’s time everyone considers that the average pace of runners within the sport of ultramarathon running is slowing down. I strongly believe that most folks who are participating in ultrarunning today, do not care about “the race.” Most folks are here for belonging, camaraderie, and the experience. If this is true, then we can do more to attract people of all identities and abilities into our sport by extending cut-offs. We can do this by either affording more runners the opportunity of an earlier start, or by just making the final cut-offs more generous. Hey.. let’s face it, the less someone needs to train to simply be able to participate in an ultra, the more that we’ll increase participation from those who give all that they have to give even if it’s simply not enough to “perform.”

Take Leadville for example, with a 30-hour cut-off their current finishers rate is around 44%. I believe that increasing their overall cut-off to even 32 hours would increase their finisher rate closer to 60% or greater and would attract an even bigger demand to the race as more folks view it as “possible” rather than merely “impossible.” After all, “impossible” could very well equal “waste of money.” Case in point; When the Silverheels 100-mile had a 36 hour cut-off, we averaged around a 50% finisher’s rate. By increasing our cut-off to 38-hours, we shifted to an average finishing rate of 75% immediately.

I am also seeing a trend where races that are void of “ego” are attracting the most diverse field of runners, and is where the gender gap between male and female participation is closest together. If this is true, than it could also be true that most women do not care about their place on the starting line, and though they may appreciate equal representation on the podium and through prize monies, it’s something that truly affects less than 1% of the field. If we are going to bridge the gap and make a sport that is truly inclusive, accessible, and equitable to all genders then we must focus more on the experience and the ways in which we support our runners.

The experience will include an increase in volunteerism, getting rid of podiums and prize money altogether (more on this below), extended cut-offs, opportunities for early starts, affordability of entry fees, and an experience where belonging and the collective is at the forefront of the event. This in concert with policies that afford everyone apparel, swag, and amenities they will actually wear, use, and enjoy; policies that support a runner’s (and their partners!) life choices outside of the races; and policies that show a genuine care and concern for a runner’s health and safety will always be the way to go in encouraging an increase in participation as well as a bridging of the gender gaps.

In 2023 HPRS realized participation percentages of 56% male, 43.5% female, and 0.5% non-binary. While the sport has continued to move further apart in bridging the gender gap, HPRS has been moving the needle closer together since 2018 with our biggest moves occurring over the last 3 seasons. I believe it is our ego-averse framework that excludes podiums and prize monies, our pregnancy deferral policies, our non-discrimination policies, and our focus and commitment to our community first mantra that has ultimately shaped the experience of belonging at our events; that is ultimately the cause for our success in this regard.

Take a moment if you will and entertain the following: If we get rid of prize money, if we get rid of podiums, and if we get rid of even publishing Gender Identities in the results for races… would the many toxic conversations we are having around gender even matter anymore?

Recently, GU posted on their instagram account that as a sponsor of The Western States Endurance Run, they have 2 sponsor entries to give away. They choose to give those entries to “runners from historically excluded and underrepresented communities (e.g. people who identify as BIPOC, Trans, Adaptive, Etc.)” As I dove into the comments, the division within our sport on the subject of gender was on full display. One comment stood out; @runningwithgraciebell stated “To fix the gap in opportunities and underrepresentation we need to first fix the gender gap.” I strongly disagree as we do not need to fix one problem before we start fixing another. Again, since the issue of the gender gap was first brought into our collective discussion and initiatives to fix the issue were implemented, we have been moving in the exact opposite direction. Perhaps the only ways to fix the gender gap is by either no longer discussing it, or by treating all runners as HUMANS without genders first? A trans runner, someone who identifies by something other than on the binary, represents less than 1% of those currently participating in ultra. Compared to women who make up 36.24% of the field, I think anyone can clearly see how much Trans runners are underrepresented in ultra, and therefore why GU’s choice should be commended without debate.

I feel it is time for our sport to stop treating runners as gendered beings, and to start treating all runners as PEOPLE. We need to find ways to be more welcoming of all PEOPLE; all genders, all religions, all political affiliations, all sexualities, all colors of skin, all languages. It is time that we stop cherry picking what genders, what sexualities, what color or ethnicity we’re going to champion our efforts for; and choose to champion efforts that include ALL peoples regardless of the social constructs we seek to peg each other into.

For GU to announce that they are going to give their entries to individuals representative of groups who have fewer participants than even women, and then for that conversation to devolve entirely into a conversation revolving around “but what about women?” We clearly cannot see that the toxic conversation itself is hindering the efforts of those trying to be inclusive of all peoples regardless of their gender. We can and must do better, we must stop waging war on gender within the sport of ultrarunning and remember that this is a hobby, we’re here to have fun, and the playground is open to all kids who want to play with us… PERIOD. For the vast majority of us out there running, someone else’s gender has little to no bearing on our run at all.

THE FUTURE

Recently, Strava of all companies released a “Year In Sport Trend Report, Showing What Makes and Breaks Motivation Across Generations.”

“As part of the highly anticipated report, Strava conducted a global survey of 6,990 active people drawn from both Strava’s global community of over 120 million athletes and a random sampling of active people both on and off the Strava platform. The findings, coupled with activity data from Strava in 2023, give new and unique insights into the trends shaping the world of exercise and exploration and tease what we might expect to see this year.

Across generations, Strava athletes say their number one reason for exercising with others is social connection. Over half of Strava athletes say they’re most motivated by friends or family members who exercise – and 77% of Gen Z athletes say they feel more connected to others when seeing their friends or family’s activities on Strava. At the bottom of the list of motivators? Celebrities and influencers – even for Gen Z and Millennials.“

Uh-ohhh! Look out everyone. Gen Z and Millennials don’t care about Celebrities and Influencers! In my January 2020 State of Our Sport Address I said, “The Culture Shift Is Beginning: Our sport has started moving away from ogling the elite for their performances and are instead caring more about who the elite are as humans. Candice Burt stated, “I believe that we are indeed seeing a shift in the Ultrarunning world, one toward adventure and exploration and away from the other side of the spectrum that is growing into increased commercialization and larger companies getting into the sport, tight competition, sponsorships & professional runners. Nothing wrong with that- it’s good for all of us to a point, but it’s not the ideal I hold as important.” This survey completed by Strava validates the assertion Candice and I made 4 years ago, and shows definitively that at the bottom of the list of motivators… THE BOTTOM… is celebrities and influencers. This should put to bed the age old argument that having someone like Killian at your race drives up registration numbers. Celebrities are not a draw, haven’t been for years, and that trend will continue into the future when considering the thoughts of our Gen Z runners.

In last year’s address I wrote in depth about the motivations of the younger generation. This year I want to take a slightly different approach.

Generations	Born	Current Ages
Gen Z	1997-2012	12-27
Millennials/Gen Y	1981-1996	28-43
Gen X	1965-1980	44-59
Boomers II (a/k/a Generation Jones)	1955-1964	60-69
Bommers I	1946-1954	70-78

I want to also share with you the breakdown of participation by age group at HPRS in 2023; while this is the snapshot for HPRS, it also closely aligns with the overall snapshot of ultra participation historically.

In 2023 HPRS was mostly populated by those who identify in the “Millennials/Gen-Y” generational group. The oldest Millennials are 43, and the youngest are 28. Since I came into ultrarunning in 2005, and up through present day, this same graphic (or something very similar) has been representative of the age breakdown of participation in the sport. If we are to take this literally, it highlights that Gen Z will be part of our largest age group within the next 3 years if not sooner. It highlights that we currently cater mostly to Millennials/Gen-Y.

Last Year HPRS formed a Focus Group whose mission it was to take a deep dive into the operations of HPRS and who we are as a community, and to make recommendations on how to bring our series more in line with the needs and wants of today’s runner. One of the focus areas of this group was of course DEI. After one of our meetings, a member of our community spoke up and said something to the affect of “I wouldn’t get too bogged down with this DEI stuff. You don’t want to end up like Bud Light. Remember who has buttered your bread all of these years.” My next question was, “You mean like.. Gen X and Boomers? WHERE ARE THEY?!”

I asked the question because I recognize that Gen-X and Boomers are now aging out of our sport and they no longer represent the market share of participation. The market share of our participants are indeed in generations Y and Z, with Z coming in hot. It is Gen Z, and what is important to them, that will ultimately shape the future of our sport. I strongly urge race directors to not “wait and see” how that all pans out, but to instead do the research or listen to the research that already exists. Listen to the experts and organizations out there who continue to provide evidence of what is important to younger Millennials and Gen Z runners, and get started now on crafting a race experience and community that is reflective of the values of those who you ultimately serve; who you serve today, and who you’ll be serving tomorrow.

Now, in being a member of race director groups on Facebook, I am privy to the many discussions and points of view that are out there in race director land. We are a stubborn lot that’s for certain. Over the last two years, a handful of survey’s have come out from Strava, ISPO, Running USA and others that speak specifically about the motivations, values, and ethos of runners who identify as Gen Z or Younger Millennials. They all say the same things:

“A look at the motivation for running provides insights: “Running is much more recognized as a health sport. The personal factors of health, fitness and stress relief are now the top three motivations for running,”

And “A side effect of the “newcomers”: Relatively speaking, the number of competitive runners is declining. Gone are the days when 80 percent of survey participants also competed. In the current reader survey, 58 percent said they had taken part in a running race in 2021 – the lowest figure in the history of the survey.”

“Unlike Gen X and Boomers, who were interested in running to remain fit and healthy, Gen Z is different. For them, exercise isn’t about fitness, it’s about fun and purpose,” said Derrick Feldman, Managing Director of INFLUENCE|SG.”

I regurgitate these quotes to you today to double down in addressing my fellow race directors. Based on the research on motivations for the participants we currently serve, more pointedly to those who make up the largest portion of our fields today and in the very near future, it is time to let go of old ways of thinking. It is time we part with age group awards. It is time we start to consider getting rid of prize money altogether. It is time we downplay the importance of the podium and start working towards events that focus more on the motivations of those who are coming to us. Those motivations are health, fitness, stress relief, fun, belonging, and purpose. In every survey being completed there are few mentions of “the race” or competition; there is very little discussion about PRs, awards, accolades or the like; we are even now seeing that the next generation of runner is specifically telling us that they don’t even care about those who DO perform, be they elite celebrity athletes or influencers.

Change is always hard. A shift in the way’s we’ve always done things is hard. Many times I have read the comments of my fellow race directors who assert that “a lot of runners care about age group awards.” Every time I ask them, “How many is “a lot” though? Are we talking that you get 10-15 emails or conversations about it, or is it hundreds? And what percentage of your field does 10-15 runners make up? Is it 10% or 0.1%?” Every time, there is not a race director out there who answers the question. Every time they use broad generalizations with the use of words like “a lot” but if they actually dug into their own data, they would find that it’s actually just a few. Sure, we take age group awards and podiums away and it pisses some runners off. Some will start to ask you, “Then is it even a race?!” I promise you, they’ll still be there. They’ll keep coming regardless. Even if they don’t come out anymore, the increase in participation you’ll see from those in the age groups we primarily serve at this time, and will serve in the years to come, will fill the gaps left behind from those who leave.

These decisions are not the things that will destroy your race or business. These types of shifts are the things that will open doors to even more runners joining us. These are the types of shifts that will make our sport more welcoming, more inclusive, more accessible, and less intimidating to those who are still looking in from the outside, and who may be afraid to join us because they don’t want to be judged by those who fit an antiquated ethos on motivation. I feel that the races who continue to ignore the motivations and values of generations Y and Z, races that sit and wait for the cultural shift to be more prominent if not louder, will be the races that ultimately suffer in the long run. There is nothing wrong with being inclusive. There is nothing wrong with becoming ego-averse. While there is nothing wrong with age groups and podiums, its just something that remains at the forefront of minds in generations we are serving fewer and fewer members of. Food for thought.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
I don’t think we need to relive or re-write the narrative about what occurred in 2023 with UTMB/Ironman in trail and ultrarunning. If you want more information I did two podcasts on this topic which I will link to here:
HPRS Podcast Episode 37: Understanding the UTMB-IM Fiasco And Why Everyone’s Up In Arms
HPRS Podcast Episode 38: Ultra’s Turning Point. Where We Go From Here

I also invite you to listen to the interview I did on The Adventure Jogger Podcast on this subject as well.

As a result of the UTMB/IM fiasco, there have been numerous calls across our sport for runners to boycott all UTMB events “until something changes.” Including the podcasts I did on the subject above, there is no shortage of conversations on this specific topic across blogs, vlogs, race media sites like iRunFar, and the personal Facebook Pages and Profiles of countless trail and ultra athletes.

None of these discussions are new. I have personally been talking about the realities associated with a more corporate sport since LifeTime Fitness purchased the Leadville Trail 100 in 2009. I have personally talked about these realities again when Spartan Races got involved in trail and ultra, and more-so still since Ironman partnered with UTMB. Those of us who spoke out about the dangers our sport faced with this encroaching tide of corporatization were vilified more than supported. Literally everything predicted by those of us who spoke up has been realized. Literally every cross roads we said that we’d come to, we have arrived at. While scores of you said we were just being negative, tearing down others to build ourselves up; you called us assholes and blowhards, fear mongers even, or outright ignored us… it was nothing short of an insult when a wave comprising the majority of runners in our sport suddenly woke up to the reality of a corporate race landscape and what that might entail, and ultimately stirred up emotions on what that truly means for the future of our sport.

Here’s the issue. YOU’RE LATE

It’s too late. This is one of those moments in life where we have let the genie out of the lamp and there’s no stuffing him back in. The amount of money that has been invested in this new corporate structure of ultrarunning is enormous, and it is here to stay. Here’s how I know…

In the early 2000s a man by the name Dean Karnazes wrote a book about Ultramarathon running. At the time he was the most vilified person in the history of our sport, some even referring to him as “Dean Dean the Marketing Machine.” Countless members of our sport at the time were enraged by the potential ramifications of Dean’s book, and what it meant to the historically low participation numbers and the fact that you could still register for any race with cash on race day. Runners predicted the increase in lotteries and sold out events, rising entry fees, and all the like. They were told to be quiet, that change is inevitable and to either go along for the ride or jump ship. The predictions of the veterans who were concerned about the influx of such exponential growth were not wrong, all predictions came to fruition. Today, Dean has published a handful of other books, writes monthly articles in Ultrarunning Magazine, and is one of the most celebrated and well known Ultrarunners of all time.

In the late 2000s a book came out known as “Born to Run.” This was another time in our history where there was a division within our sport, pitting those for progress against those who had a disdain for exponential growth; most of the same reasons given for hating Dean were again given for hating the book “Born to Run” and the man who wrote it. It was this book that thrust ultrarunning into a period of growth that is unmatched in its entire history. As many people know of the book “Born to Run” as those who know of Dean. The book is what ultimately led to LifeTime Fitness buying the Leadville 100 and associated races, and started the largest period of growth in our sport to date. It also started the forward movement of permanent corporatization of our sport. Since then, McDougall has written other books, one of which you probably read. More runners have read “Born to Run” than not, and Leadville is on everyone’s bucket list with most runners proclaiming that it is the biggest, hardest, and best 100-miler in the country (when none of that is actually true). It is also the first time in our history where “corporate races” are not only surviving but thriving.

Also in the late 2000s, the oldest ultra in our nation raised their rates to astronomical levels. What once cost $70 to enter, instead cost $150 to enter overnight. Runners dug into the financials of the non-profit that oversees the JFK 50, and discovered the enormous salary being paid to Mike Spinnler as the race’s director, which was also publicly published. A large portion of the sport called on Mike to resign as the RD of the JFK 50, or at least take a considerable cut in pay. There were loud calls to boycott the race unless they lower the entry fees. Today, the JFK 50 is still one of the most populous 50-milers in the country, even at a price tag of $200-$250, one of the most expensive 50-milers in the land. Mike Spinnler has been the RD of the race now for 30 years and there has been no slowdown in their participation numbers.

In 2013, LifeTime Fitness struggled mightily to direct a safe and successful Leadville Trail 100. You can still dig up blog posts and articles written about the fiasco that ensued that year. There were calls at the time to find a new race director of the event with a handful of well known race directors and elite athletes even throwing their name in the hat. Hardrock removed Leadville as a qualifying race for their event. Countless runners called for a boycott of the event until things got fixed. In 2013 Leadville saw 943 starters in the event. In 2014, that number dropped to 672 (-29%). Since I started HPRS in 2014, Leadville has seen at least seven different race directors of the 100-Mile race. By 2019, and again in 2023, the Leadville 100 returned to starting close to 900 runners on race day, despite the fact that there are still reported issues associated with a race that seems to only care about the bottom line more than the collective experience.

So while there are countless calls to think about the future of our sport, to consider boycotting UTMB and instead supporting the races that have always primarily made up the very fabric of our sport, the races that held on to our roots… I am here to tell you that nothing is going to change. We should have been talking about this and thinking about it years ago, over the years, not at the eleventh hour when it is entirely too late.

There will be no boycott. Sure, I think UTMB’s numbers will see a bit of a dip in 2024, at least here in North America; but UTMB and Ironman have so much money, as well as an enormous amount of money invested in their partnership and the sport as a whole, that any kind of small boycott won’t affect them at all. Within a few short years, their numbers will have rebounded to where they were in 2023 if not better (See Leadville). The only way we change this trajectory for our sport is if sponsors back out on their support of UTMB/IM, if other race directors like Karl Meltzer back out of supporting UTMB (but he got paid so that ain’t happening), and if fewer than 200 runners sign up for each UTMB event in 2024. I just don’t see a situation where these shifts in support occur, and without these massive shifts in support this is our new reality.

What occurred in Whistler with Gary Robbins and UTMB is not new in our sport. It happens regularly in every corner of the United States. Let me give you a few examples here in Colorado. In 2022, Aravaipa created their new Ram Party event in Colorado Springs. They scheduled this event on the same exact day as a Mad Moose event and an HPRS event, both of which are 5-10 miles away from the Aravaipa event as the crow flies. This year, Aravaipa bought the Bobcat Trail Races from Mad Moose Events, then scheduled it on the same day as Revenant Running’s Bridge Burner event in Cañon City, 30 miles away as the crow flies. A decade ago most race directors accepted and respected the unwritten rule that you don’t build a race on the same day, in the same geographic area, as someone else’s. Today, there is so much money involved in ultramarathon running that race directors see each other as competition, and some even seek out ways to deliberately be disruptive.

If you are one of those who took a stand against UTMB/IM for pushing Gary out of Whistler, and stealing his event date and course; I strongly believe you should also stand up against the other corporate bullies in our sport like the above example in Aravaipa, who are deliberately being market disruptors by creating new events in locations and on dates that specifically disrupt those who were here before them. Aravaipa now has enough revenue that it can afford to gobble up countless smaller races across the country and tie them into their portfolio, which they are doing. To be outraged by one and not the other is the clearest form of hypocrisy I can think of; and highlights even more why I don’t think anything is going to happen with UTMB, nor will there be a boycott. As a sport we have chosen to vilify the corporation with deep pockets that is bullying the little guy around simply because we don’t know nor can we see the man behind the curtain. All while ignoring other corporations that are buying up and bullying the little guys around simply because we can put a face to the name and we “like that guy,” because he’s also a talented runner. I call bullshit. This is just another example of selective outrage, where we pick and choose who we’re outraged by while ignoring those who display similar behaviors.

In my twenty years in ultramarathon running I have finally realized the biggest trend of all. While most ultrarunners are out here seeking change within themselves, they often times fail to consider the big picture ramifications of their choices, who and what they support, and the affects of their decision to choose the side of inaction. UTMB/IM is not going away, whatever small boycott you can muster up or not. They will see the same thing play out as Dean K, Born to Run, Leadville, the JFK 50, Spartan Races, and others. They’ll see it because you’ll either forget, don’t care, or would rather hang on to your romantic version of the truth as opposed to the actual truth. To some degree, we’re cowards.

Those of us who have warned you over the last 10 years were not wrong. You just chose to not listen to us. You chose to vilify us, shut us up and shut us down, while many of you continue to discuss the future of our sport, the future you claim you don’t want to see… is already here. You are failing to recognize that what you fear for our future is where we are today. Once this much money is involved, there is no turning back. I still believe that companies like UTMB/IM and Aravaipa are some of the biggest threats to our sport today; yet I also believe that no one truly cares about how they’re going about their business. People will still sign up, people will still buy their swag, people will still collectively give them the green light to proceed as they are.

There have been few moments over the last 20 years where the collective majority in our sport spoke up and out about the perils we face by corporatizing our sport. From time to time, the majority has grabbed their torches and pitch forks and demanded boycotts and/or people step aside. Each and every time, those torches and pitch forks ended up back in the barn as quick as they came out. Each time, the race at the forefront of the topic has recovered and quickly with little if no change. Each time, runners have continued to vote with their wallets by continuing to support these events. Why? Because no one truly cares.

As runners we have always stated, “We vote with our wallets.” The whole reason $450 continues to be an acceptable entry fee for a 100-mile, and $1,500 continues to be acceptable for a 200-mile; is because you’ll pay it. You’ll go so far as to making sure that a lottery is even needed to gain entry into the event with those price tags. When you give permission to the few who charge these amounts by paying it, you signal to the collective that its okay for them to charge that amount too. Go take a look at what Aravaipa is charging for their 100s, with Javelina reaching heights of $500, Jigger Johnson reaching $400, and Cocdona reaching over $1,500! I assure you as one of the race directors who is top three for most ultras directed in United States History, there is literally ZERO justification for charging these rates. They only continue to charge higher than average fees because you’ll pay it. Go take a look at what UTMB wants for the Desert Rats 50k in Colorado, it’s outrageous!

We have voted with our wallets. We have made our statements regarding what we care about and what we don’t care about. Most runners participating in ultrarunning today have no idea what the definition of old school is, or how it is even defined within our sport. The old school aspects of our sport many of us heralded and celebrated for many years, was lost long ago. This is no longer a niche sport. The corporations are here to stay and a lot of runners actually love and seek out the experiences those organizations are providing; mostly because they don’t know anything different, nor do they care. The problem everyone is failing to see, is that it will only increase the trends in increasing entry fees, and our being nickel and dimed for everything from parking, to race day packet pick-up, and VIP aid station experiences. You didn’t speak up when the time to fight was before us. It is now too late, this is who we’ve become, and the old school, grass roots, low frills races will be seen as nothing more than the Walmart version of races the corporate giants make us look to be. I’ve already seen this first hand, where a runner assumes that the race with the lower entry fee is providing a “cheaper” experience; where the actual reality is that the experience at the cheaper race could (and likely is) more professional, welcoming, and quality than that which you receive at the more expensive offering.

What we have now is a sport with a corporate structure. Race directors no longer talk, work together, or support one another. Race directors no longer consider how creating a new race will affect races that already exist. Race directors focus more on revenue, profit margin, future financial growth, and how they can do it better now more than ever. Many race directors are scheming up ways to disrupt their competition or get them to move out of the way. Race directors no longer consider the available number of runners in the customer pool, or how many are left to hop in as a volunteer. Ultramarathon running is a business. The business needs money in order for it to work. The money is here. Those who have it have lots of it, those who don’t will eventually struggle to find it. Our lack of volunteers is altering the race experience, but instead of fixing the issue by slowing our roll and deciding to one again work together, we’re going to forge ahead in a survival of the fittest scenario. Congrats everyone! ::dripping with sarcasm::

Speaking of money, I have argued that prize money is not something that will indeed promote or grow our sport, and there isn’t a person out there who will provide any evidence that it indeed has. Prize money has led us to needing drug testing, and policies on what happens if a trans-gender runner wins, and debating if marijuana is a performance enhancer or not (turns out its not), and the need for more corporate sponsors to pay for buy-in, which in and of itself continues to drive the corporate narrative we find ourselves in. Prize monies have also driven up entry fees, especially where a race provides prize money but no sponsors have signed on to cover the cost; instead it’s the runners who do. We need to also admit that prize money is at the forefront of the conversation revolving around the topic of gender, and at the forefront of the new corporate landscape. Someone please display the pros and cons of prize money in our sport, specifically how it has helped our sport grow; because I don’t see it, and the new generation won’t care about it.

ADVOCACY

Earlier this year I posted an article about the USFS’s new cost recovery proposal. The long and short of it is that the USFS proposed new cost recovery rules for permits like those that need to be acquired by race directors for ultramarathons on USFS lands. The new rules would increase permit fees by 400% overnight. This kind of permit fee increase would hit stand-alone/one-off and new races the most, and those with a history or multiple races the least; mostly on account of the fact that series and those who are established tend to have more revenue to work with in paying these fees up front.

If I go back to the example I provided in my original article on the matter; a race with gross revenue of $8,500 where it is one of multiple permits within a specific ranger district, the cost of our permit would increase from $255 to $1,274 not including any additional administrative fee(s). THIS WOULD BE A 400% INCREASE FOR PERMITS!

How will this ultimately affect trail and ultrarunning events? Guess who pays for the increase in permit fees? The runner does. At current, if my permit costs $255 and I had 100 runners in the event, your share of the permit cost is $2.55. Under the new rules (not knowing the initial admin fees) expecting that our permits costs will increase 400%, your share would be $12.74. To some of you this equates to a $10.19 increase in registration fees. To others we see the door open for a race director to charge you $20.40 more if not higher. A lot of this money would be due up front, and a lot of race directors do not have the revenue available early on in the permitting process to pay up. This would also certainly slow the growth of new races coming online, at least on USFS lands, greatly.

USFS lands is not the only place where permit fees could be on the rise. Ask any race director who uses state parks for races within their state, and they’ll likely tell you how much the fees for use of State Parks has increased since Covid-19. The increase in permit fees is staggering, alarming, and not small. We’re talking huge jumps, sometimes hundreds of dollars more than the year prior. We’re having to pay incredibly steep prices for permits in order to make our events happen.

But the real issue isn’t the increase in fees, it’s the fact that so few race directors are speaking up and advocating for our sport. I wish I could say that I was shocked at the realization of just how few race directors who use USFS lands for their races, actually knew about the new USFS Cost Recovery proposal. Myself and representatives of Runners for Public Lands spoke to a dozen race directors on the subject and literally NONE of them (zero = 0) knew about the proposal.

I also sit on a number of other boards and committees where I am often the only representative from the trail running community present. As an example, one of these committees was working on re-writing Colorado State Law that sought to protect private land owners in the event someone gets hurt on their land. I invited at least 6 other Colorado Race Directors to join this committee in order to help speak up and advocate for changing the Colorado Recreational Use Statute, and not one of those race directors replied. Not one of those race directors reached out to the non-profit, not one of those race directors asked how they could help or even offered to help. We even asked Leadville to get involved because they indeed had an issue with acquiring permission from a private land owner to access a historically significant section of their course as a result of the issues present with the statute. LifeTime Fitness, the parent company of Leadville, denied Leadville 100 staff the opportunity to assist us or to even share their logo in a sign of support. (Imagine that, a corporation doesn’t care about the issues that affect us all!)

There are so very few race directors paying attention to the many issues that our sport faces today, and a lot of those issues revolve around permitting and permissions to use private lands and permitting and the cost of using public lands for our races. So many of us use USFS lands or private parcels for our routes, or main gathering areas, that you would think these issues would be passionately fought over and for. Yet, there just isn’t. The lights are on, the door is open, the invitations sent… and no one is home. I hope that collectively runners can get to work in pressuring race directors to get involved in advocacy efforts in order to protect our ability to run, explore, and adventure in these places that we love and to do so afforadbly. If you are truly worried about the cost of entry increasing even further, not just because of corporatization but because of the realities we face in the struggles of permitting, than you must be an advocate for the race directors to do more. You must advocate yourselves!

NEPOTISM
Finally, I want to take a brief moment to discuss this word. Nepotism is defined as “the act of granting an advantage, privilege, or position to relatives or close friends in an occupation of field.”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepotism)

I’m walking way out on a limb with this one, knowing full well that by even bringing it up it will be one of the big things folks comment on wherever this may be shared and/or discussed. I really believe we have a nepotism issue in our sport and it is in plain sight. It’s in plain sight but many refuse to see it, many refuse to call it out, some are afraid to call it out, and to be fair some just don’t care.

During the UTMB/IM fiasco in Whistler, many in our sport took to social media to call out the likes of publications like Canadian Runner Magazine or Trailrunner Magazine because they realized that they are in some ways in bed with UTMB. It is no secret that these publications have a considerable financial interest within their involvement of UTMB, so naturally most of their reporting on the subject was skewed, almost entirely supportive of UTMB and their explanation of events and/or take on the subject matter. I really commend our sport for speaking up to the BS, highlighting the conflict of interest, and taking a stand. It was cool to see. But once again, you’ve cherry picked your outrage. It is my hope that more individuals in our sport will take a closer look at the nepotistic circle existent here in the United States. The same stories, articles, videos, photos, etc.. they all revolve around the same group.

No, I’m not at this time going to give you examples of what I am talking about. I have learned better than that. Consider me one of those who is still afraid to share with you my perspective on this subject, but not so afraid that I’m unwilling to call it out. Not so afraid to ask you to look deeper at the relationships on display in our sport and how they all revolve around one another. I am asking you, to do your homework. Then to have a feeling on what you find, to see it for yourself and craft your own opinion based on the information that you gathered. These are the main questions I want you to ask: Do these entities see and understand the tremendous power they possess over shared growth in ultra across the entire nation? Do they use their power responsibly or are the abusing it? Do these entities truly care about what the collective majority wants and feels about specific topics? Do these entities truly care about a better ultra community as a whole or are they singularly focused on their own community? The people who are capturing the story and sharing it with us, are they seeking to lift all ships or just lifting the ships they’re crew on?

A year ago I told you that, “I believe the state of our sport is “Critical.”

I also said, “I know many out there who read this, if you read this far, don’t have a care in the world about anything I’ve just said. True to form over the years, you’ll say that this is hyperbole or me just adding drama to a sport that doesn’t need any. To you [I said] that this is very much the reality our sport lives in right now based on the evidence and reasoning I have provided, and it is absolutely something we need to be talking about. Fixing these issues after they break will be too late. We must get ahead of these issues for the future preservation of our sport’s roots. We have major issues with the supply and demand of races, the cost of entry, and corporate shenanigans. Our sport is more a business than it ever has been before, and greed is still guiding the decisions of many, while we walk away from and ignore our roots and traditions and the many responsibilities bestowed upon us.”

In 2023, I say the following: I believe now more than ever that the state of our sport is indeed “critical.” We are at the precipice of losing our roots for good if we haven’t already.

You can scoff at me again and tell me I’m wrong or full of hot air. That I only write this address as click-bait and to get you to check out HPRS. The things I have discussed in these addresses over the last ten years are not new. I have sounded the warning multiple times only to be either ignored, or cancelled, or called a blow hard or bully. In 2023 the proof was in the pudding. As Ryan Ploeckelman stated to me on the Adventure Jogger Podcast when talking about the UTMB/IM fiasco, “I can almost say you’re a prophet, because you had a post years ago that people can dig up that is very prophetic about the direction the sport was headed.”

Today is the day. Not tomorrow… TODAY. Today is the day that we either choose to accept our sport for where we find ourselves in this moment, or we are going to collectively turn back the clock and steer our ship back in the direction of a grass roots community that actually gives a shit. We can choose to let the corporations win and for those with the money to push the little guys around. We can also choose to vote more with our wallets and stop feeding the beast. We can once again choose to have a sport where all comers are welcome, where “the race” is only a small part of the equation, and where every event feels like a family reunion. We can also continue to be a place of siloing, egotism, discrimination, and pecking orders. To this point in our history the choice has become clear, and I fear that our sport will never look as it once did ever again.

Grass roots ultrarunning still exists out there. There are many races and directors who are doing the good work advocating for a more inclusive, accessible, all around diverse, and equitable sport for all. There are some who are fighting for our public spaces, and fighting to keep entry fees down. I implore you to run with those people. Support them with your wallets. The alternative may not at all be what you want or hope for. The more the alternative gets your money, time, and attention… the further away from our roots we run. While the choice is ours, I can clearly see that the majority of the collective has already chosen. They’ve chosen to not care, to pay whatever, to run or don’t, here there and everywhere regardless of what is good, just, or reasonable. We got what we’ve paid for. This is who we’ve become, and I fear there is no turning back. Welcome to the new age of ultrarunning as a business.