By Andy Kirkland Ph.D.
Introduction
The athletics press including Athletics Weekly, Runners World and then a whole host of people have been ‘up in arms’ about suggested equalisation of XC race distances by UKA (I’m Scottish and I know Scotland has already done so). Interestingly, some top female XC runners past and present have released a statement outlining their views opposing potential changes. As with most emotive debates, the press loves to ‘whip up a storm’ pitching one side against another. There are claims, counter claims and a whole host of opinions posted on social media too. It is 2021 after-all. The reality, however, is that not all opinions are equal. Just because a governing body or an elite athlete presents an array of arguments, it does not mean that these arguments are underpinned by expertise, or that they are valid.
The difficulty with questions relating to sex or gender is that they are typically complex, without clear answers. In such circumstances it is important to explore solutions, considering pros and cons. Regardless, because there are multiple people with conflicting opinions, some are likely to end up unhappy. Additionally, when new solutions are implemented, there are likely positive consequences for some and undesirable consequences for others. These consequences are often used by unhappy parties as ammunition to attack the decision makers.
A good example of a similar situation was when there was a policy diktat from sport funders to British Cycling. They had to change their policy in BMX racing to prevent pubescent and pre-pubescent children from racing internationally. This diktat was backed up by sound evidence and expert consensus. Despite this, all hell broke loose in which I was aware of a group of parents getting together to consider legal action. The situation was poisonous. Things were made worse because of flawed consultation and communication processes, particularly in how changes were implemented.
Therefore, the purpose of this article is for me to provide a commentary on the current situation, in which I propose a few solutions based on my expert opinion.
What Problem Do We Need to Solve?
I am going to start with the premise that equality between the sexes in sport is non-negotiable. That doesn’t necessarily mean treating everyone the same. Rather, it is to argue that male and female athletes must have and must be seen to have equal opportunities to achieve their performance potential. The problem is that this is not currently the case in XC.
In sport, and in particular athletics, there has been a long tradition that men have been allowed to compete over longer distances. For example, women were not allowed to run the Olympic Marathon until 1984. Whilst we have moved towards greater equality, XC is one of the few running disciplines in which women are not allowed to run as far as men. Many people, including me, perceive this to reflect inequality between the sexes. Others argue that this reflects nothing of the sort, suggesting that many women prefer shorter races anyway. Unfortunately, spurious arguments are used on ‘both sides of the fence’. For example, arguing that shorter races are less meaningful than longer ones, or running further could result in a greater prevalence of eating disorders.
To address the XC debacle, I suggest that there are three options, to:
1) Maintain the status quo.
2) Have a standard distance for both males and females: e.g. 10-km.
3) Have long and short-course races for both males and females.
The first option is probably untenable. There are too many people who believe that the status-quo reflects inequality in sport. Throughout history, women have been perceived to be the weaker sex, in which gender inequality still pervades most sports at every level. The fact is that women have historically not been allowed to race the same distance as men.
It is a ‘red herring’ to suggest that some women prefer shorter distances and quite frankly wrong to suggest women do not have the physical capabilities to run longer. I also agree that shorter races are no easier than longer ones. In fact, for many, they are perceived to be harder. But that is not the point. The point is that women are not allowed to run the same distance as men despite having the capability to do so.
I must also tackle a few arguments for maintaining the status-quo. Firstly, I have not seen any evidence to suggest that running a few extra km will result in more eating disorders. Of course, the prevalence of eating disorders in endurance running is unacceptable. However, the reasons are complex. These reasons include poor coaching beliefs/practices, it being culturally expected for young girls to wear skimpy running gear and flawed beliefs surrounding nutrition are common. Another argument posits that longer races take longer to recover from. This may be the case for running a marathon but it is questionable if this is true for distances under half-marathon, particularly for athletes training 60-120km or more in a week.
The second option is my preferred one, equalising distances between the sexes. Quite simply, doing so demonstrates gender equality. Of course, this will not suit everyone, but within a few years it would become the ‘new normal’.
Many of the arguments around maintaining the status quo relate to females running a bit slower than males. Therefore, longer races for females could not be fitted into short winter days. It follows that doubling the size of the race programme by taking the third option is impractical. The option has potential to dilute the quality of race fields too. Of course, it may work for events that do not include full racing programmes for youths through to veterans.
Of course, others may wish to disagree with or add to these options. I've got a good understanding of how NGB's operate, I know a thing or two about performance and wider issues in sport. But I'm not a race organiser or competition administrator and have not got all the answers. That is why it is important to consult with multiple stakeholders and listen to different opinions.
How Should a Consultation be Conducted?
I did not see the UKA survey questions, so I cannot comment on their validity. A wider question I would ask is “what is expected to be the outcome of any consultation and how will the results be used to inform the decision-making process?” Unfortunately, consulting the masses on divisive subjects rarely results in a consensus that everyone accepts. Brexit is one example. Rather, a consultation should be about listening, but it will not necessarily include democratic process. It should also be about understanding contextual factors which will influence how a change strategy will work towards achieving desired outcomes. The consultation should include identifying challenges and barriers to successful implementation. Ideally, there should also be consideration of potentially undesirable and unexpected consequences resulting from change. The consultation should include:
A clear remit for the desired outcome, in this case demonstrable gender equality.
An expert working group to represent key stakeholder groups, in which members are recruited through transparent processes.
Wider consultation with the masses to identify opinions, barriers, challenges and facilitators of change. Analysis of these opinions must account for the fact that many opinions are factually wrong or misguided.
Clear communication processes with all stakeholders, including outlining why certain decisions have been made.
Wider Challenges in Endurance Running
The sporting landscape looks very different to how it did even 20-years ago. The original role of NGB’s were to administer the sport through providing competition structures, supporting clubs, providing training for coaches and officials, providing basic performance pathways and selecting athletes for major competitions. Whether they were ever good at doing so was another question. However, with increased funding has come increasing demands from government and its associated quangos. This means that their remit has grown to focus on participation strategies to target the health of the nation. The sporting ‘market’ is primarily composed of three ‘worlds of athletes’ as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The three different sporting worlds (adapted from Collins et al., 2012)
Government policy has encouraged NGB’s to focus on elite success (ERE group) and grow participation levels in the PPW group. Whilst relatively successful at the former, they have been expected to achieve unattainable goals for the latter. The PRE group, which is primarily composed of club athletes, has been neglected by NGB’s across sport as a result. This group includes people who are the mainstay of sport: the ones who join clubs, act as volunteers, become coaches and join NGB’s. However, potentially as a result of government policy, traditional NGB members are feeling more alienated and ignored than ever. This is wrong and needs addressed.
Additionally, PRE athletes have far more opportunities to try different types of events including Parkrun, trail races and commercial mass participation races. But fewer people want to join running clubs, a pre-requisite for competing in XC. There are no easy transitions from doing the local Parkrun to a local XC either. XC race organisers may argue that longer races may result in fewer female entrants. This may very well be true. One reason is that for sociological reasons related to gender inequalities, they do not have the confidence to do so. However, there are far greater social barriers to participation including elitist club structures which fails to support PPW and PRE athletes well, particularly juniors who are not fast enough to run at least at regional level. Coaching in clubs tends not to be very good (I accept that there are many notable exceptions) with coaches having less opportunity to develop than many other sports. Additionally, traditionalists see events like Parkrun and trail races as a threat rather than an opportunity to engage with new members.
Conclusions
Why am I saying this? Well, it is to highlight that equalising race distances does not present an existential threat to women and girls participation and performance in XC. Rather, I am suggesting that the sport faces many other structural challenges that need to be addressed. Fighting to maintain a traditional status-quo is not helping the ongoing development of the sport. Rather, everyone needs to work together to support gender equality. The evidence would point towards race distance equalisation to do so.