The Early Start - What is is and Who is it for?
| Author | Date | Message |
|---|---|---|
| Niamh O'Ceallaigh | Jan 22 2025, 3:05pm | The early start takes place in some longer races to allow the overall event and prizegiving to finish in a timely manner. In an early start, slower runners commence the race 30 minutes ahead of the main race start. It does not impact the results which are based on time taken (chip times). The early start is only for slower runners. A slower runner would be someone who typically takes more than 160% of the winners time in an IMRA league race. For those that haven't done an IMRA race to date, if you generally take in excess of 28 mins to do a parkrun 5k or about an hour to do a 10k race on the flat, you might want to consider taking the early start. It is important that you do not take part in the early start if you are faster than this. People intending to take the early start should notify the laptop operator at registration and will also have their number recorded at the race start line. We would greatly appreciate your cooperation in following the above guidelines. If you have any queries in relation to this, speak to the race director at the race. Many thanks |
| Kevin O'Riordan | Jan 22 2025, 3:43pm | In the spirit of getting a good bit of debate going on the forum, is it time to look at revising the 160% guideline? The 160% rule came in when I was on the committee in response to some people totally taking the mick with the early start (I remember races where I'd be barely 1km into the race and would already meet early starters on their way back to the finish). It was meant as a hard limit and generously set so as not to accidentally penalize someone where they had an unusually good run or the winner got lost or whatever. However, like all limits it's become a target for a lot of people and I keep hearing the sentiment that some people actually feel an obligation to take the early start if they're slower than 160% when in actuality I think we'd like most people to take the normal start unless they're genuinely going to be out after dark/holding volunteers up longer than is reasonable for example. The thing is 160% of winner's time, or 28 min parkrun/60 min 10k isn't particularly slow and for a lot of races it's roughly the median finishing time. I don't think we should be encouraging 50% of the field to take a different start to the main start. It definitely shouldn't be the case that we feel volunteers are being "held up" when we're only just hitting the peak of race finishers coming in. Is there any chance we can revise this to be 180% or even 200% of the winner's time? |
| Vladimir Rusinov | Jan 22 2025, 4:09pm | It also feels IMRA winners got faster. I'm usually sub-25 minutes on the parkrun but I'm often above 160% at IMRA. Or maybe I'm just not built for mountains? |
| Warren Swords | Jan 22 2025, 4:43pm | Are we really suggesting that people who take 28 mins to do a parkrun 5k or about an hour to do a 10k race on the flat should now consider not taking parting in the main race? This is going to result in two races of similar size, on the same narrow trails, all coming together towards the finish line. What is the point of that? The average Parkrun finish time is 32 mins. Are we saying that the average parkrunner is now not "fast" enough to start in the main field of an IMRA race? What kind of message does that send out? Take the most recent Marley Parkrun results. 610 finishers but the majority, 340, finished over 28 minutes. The 160% rule no longer works. I would argue we should increase that to 200% to be as inclusive as possible so everyone can enjoy the race rather than putting elitist time barriers in front of people. It's not the Boston marathon. |
| Eoin Keith | Jan 22 2025, 6:08pm | An interesting discussion for sure! The early start is sometimes provided to enable runners who might be out on the course for a long time to facilitate the volunteers by not keeping them waiting for too long. That's the only reason we have them. There are no rules about who can and cannot take an early start. Anyone can. Nobody has to. All that is being discussed here is guidelines. The guidelines are intended to help anyone who is unsure about whether they should take an early start or not. But in the end they are only guidelines and no more. 160% of winner's time is a very crude metric. It's far too crude to be used as part of a rules, but as these are guidelines it doesn't matter so much (The metric relies entirely on the performance of a single runner... basing a metric on something like deviation from median result time would be much better. But it would also be trickier to calculate. Percentage of winning time is a fairly useless statistic for all sorts of reasons.) Kevin (and Warren), personally I agree that the aim should be that as few runners as possible should be taking the early start. If it is a large percentage of the field then there is definitely an issue of some kind. These are supposed to be simple single races. Vladimir, I hope the winners are getting faster! They should be. |
| Warren Swords | Jan 22 2025, 7:41pm | Where is the 28 mins park run time coming from though? Guidelines are fine but if we going to fundamentally alter how races are ran and suggest what start times people should consider based on 28 mins, there has to be a rationale behind it before announcing it on the forum? That’s 5.36 min/km pace. That’s pretty good running by most measures. We seem to be doing the opposite of what park run is doing when it comes to participation. Speaking for myself but I’d happily stay on course for all runners to finish. After all, you have to be there for the early start anyway, so why not just put the 30 mins to end the of the race where daylight allows. |
| Stephen Brennan | Jan 22 2025, 7:54pm | I often take the early start because of tight cutoffs In longer races |
| Niamh O'Ceallaigh | Jan 22 2025, 8:20pm | Hi Warren, There is absolutely no intention whatsoever to change how races are run. This post was just intended to help inform people of how things are and have been for the past number of years. The guidelines of parkrun times and 10km times are simply designed to help runners who are new to IMRA to make a decision. This gets them started and then people can make a more informed decision about where they belong. |
| Niamh O'Ceallaigh | Jan 22 2025, 8:32pm | Warren, a large percentage of park runners are in fact walkers so average times simply do not translate. It's a completely different cohort. Personally, I would be about 27 mins for a 5k and around 56/57 mins for a 10km. In an IMRA race I would be around 180%+. Perhaps the 160% guideline should be increased but sure, will we see how things go for the upcoming races and then consider a review? |
| Eoin Keith | Jan 22 2025, 8:35pm | I'm guessing what is meant here is that the change to how races are run is the early in and of themselves alter the nature of races. Races generally involve people starting at the same gun time and racing head to head, with everyone facing the same issues (such as course congestion) at the same time. You can see your competitors and react to any moves your direct competition makes. An early fundamentally alters that, and removes the head to head nature of the racing, instead turning into a time trial against unknown competitors you cannot see, who may benefit from less course congestion etc. So early starts very much do change how races are run, and fundamentally so. |
| Warren Swords | Jan 22 2025, 8:36pm | But how did you come up with 28 mins? It’s very specific. |
| Kevin O'Riordan | Jan 22 2025, 8:49pm | I appreciate you're just the messenger in this situation Niamh and are just relaying the situation as it as evolved. I think we do need to challenge this situation that has evolved of people "belonging" or "not belonging" on the main start line. Everyone should "belong" on the main start line by default. I appreciate IMRA has some unique circumstances such as after work races with limited daylight in remote environments where we need to make exceptions for safety purposes but for the most part we should be encouraging everyone to run together in my opinion. You can say things like "28 min parkrun time" are guidelines not rules but repeat it often enough and people are going to feel unwelcome starting in the main race. I've heard this already from people and even at the AGM there was a story about an F50 category winner "being forced" to do the main start to claim the prize as if the main start was somewhere she didn't belong. From a volunteering point of view on weekend races, makes no difference to me as a volunteer whether I have to show up 30 mins earlier or stay 30 minutes later. Also personally speaking if I was eligible for a category prize I'd like to be able see the people I'm racing for that prize rather than crossing the line first only to find out a faster runner ran earlier that day and is getting the prize instead. |
| Elaine Casey | Jan 22 2025, 9:05pm | Jumping in here as a person who always takes the early start and even if it's raised to 200% I'll still be an early starter. For me having the early start is about feeling included in the races, not feeling like I'm always paddy last finishing at the back (if you think I'm exaggerating just look at my results). There is nothing so disheartening as always being last/nearly last, and don't bother coming back with 'its the taking part that counts' coz that doesn't help! It's so nice to feel like I'm part of the pack, part of what it's all about and not holding the volunteers up too long at the end. I might be last but at least I'm not the last person crossing the line every time. Honestly, if there wasn't an early start I'd probably not participate in some of the races as I know I'd just be out on the hills at the back on my own feeling sorry for myself knowing that the leaders are probably already home with their feet up watching TV by the time I cross the line. It's bad enough as it is with most of the goodies already eaten and most people gone by the time I see that finish line. You can tell me 'thats a you problem' and yes, it is, but I'm not the only one that feels like this. The early start is part of what makes IMRA more inclusive to all levels, something that not all other organisations have. |
| Rachel Cinnsealach | Jan 22 2025, 9:06pm | I have always been a slow runner. In primary school despite being super skinny I would come last in races by a large percentage. My strengths lie in endurance, I managed a marathon in 4 hr 13 min 12 sec, so fairly average. I have done some longer races LC and IC and an ultra. I joined IMRA in 2003 and I absolutely love the organisation. One of the things I love is the inclusivity. I have had times where I’ve been faster but for the most part I’m one of those people that takes more than 160 %. On my most recent race in Brockagh I was 227 %. I finished this race on a high. I got out, I did exercise, I met all my friends and I was so happy. My main concern would be not to have marshals out waiting for me. I was delighted to take the main start in Brockagh because it was such a short distance. If I can take the main start I will. I agree with all the points raised so far, and I absolutely agree that the early start is not for those who just want to get home earlier. I often feel if I was fitter I would “enjoy” the race so much more and it would not be so tough, this is not true because if I was fitter, I would run faster and the race would be equally tough. The people at the top are battling it out for positions, but so are the others racing in the field. Although I do the early start, and each time I say I’m not racing, I’m just going to run, this is not true, I do race, I tried to get ahead of the person in front of me. I try me best not to let the person behind me pass me out and I have the same feels to many otherwise further up the field. While many people claim there are not competitive, I believe everyone is. I was so so pleased when I heard that a decision had been voted upon at the AGM so that early starters were not listed at the bottom of the results because honestly, if I thought someone slower than me had done the main start and placed higher, just because they had done the main start, I’d be so pissed off and I would be inclined to do the main start the following race. My ONLY reason for doing the early starts is not to keep marshals out all night long. I also acknowledge that runners may say, well if your not able for the race don’t do it, but having been with IMRA for over 20 years, I have made so many friends. I absolutely love IMRA with all my heart, some of my biggest achievements have been IMRA races, navigating through mist and fog, Running Connaught champs, Racing Carrauntoohil, Stone Cross to Lug, Glacier Laces relay, I can honestly say these have been some of the best times of my life. So from an early starters point of view, I thank IMRA for allowing me to race and for allowing me to start early so that I don’t keep marshals waiting. |
| Conor Murphy | Jan 23 2025, 10:02am | Debates on the use of poles, cut offs, early starts etc obviously involve consideration of inclusion, athletes with disabilities, older athletes, tackling ableism, ageism, sexism etc. And Trail Criú is the group leading the way in these debates in Ireland. They held the National Conference on inclusion and diversity in trail running, they work with advocates and support/representative groups here, overseas, politicians, they have featured in national media. If there is a debate/review of the matter, the National Executive could write to Trail Criú for their advice and input. |
| Warren Swords | Jan 23 2025, 10:34am | Rachael makes some good points about concerns about having volunteers out “waiting for me.” I think this is where the problem lies. My putting out an arbitrary time standard guideline, this is going to make others feel that they are now delaying volunteers if they don’t take the early start. Again speaking of my own experience, if I’m volunteering, I’m there till the last runner comes in. This happens in every single race outside of IMRA. IMRA is now an outlier in promoting two separate races depending on your standard but then collating both races into one result. Can we even call it a race? Outside of daylight concerns, it makes no sense to have an early start when the volunteer time commitment is the exact same. I would like to ask where has this decision to change the rule from 160% come from? I don’t believe it was discussed at the agm? |
| Miriam Maher | Jan 23 2025, 10:56am | Morning All Thanks Niamh for raising awareness of what to consider when taking the early start in an IMRA race, where that option exists. Thanks all for your inputs and thoughts. For the avoidance of any doubt, there is no change to the existing practice of having early starts for some races. Niamh's guidelines are to help people decide on what's the right choice to make for them and in the general spirit of why early starts exist in the first place. We agreed at the AGM as part of the discussions held on the motion raised by Niamh over the recording of results for early starters, passed by those present, to use the early start option in the spirit of what is intended and for this to be highlighted. As Niamh said and she's fully supported by the committee on this, let's use the early start option with all this in mind. If there is a need to review guidelines as the racing season progresses, we can, of course, do that. All the best Miriam |
| Warren Swords | Jan 23 2025, 11:05am | "there is no change to the existing practice of having early starts for some races." Other than telling people with 28min 5km times that they should consider not taking part in the main race. It's a fundamental change to what is a race. |
| David Power | Jan 23 2025, 11:43am | A few points 1. Inclusion and safety are important for all events, and often factors limit what's possible in an ideal world for everyone. We live in a world of trade-offs. Encouraging people to enjoy the mountains is important. How we divide start times and collate results are the operational details. IMRA allows flexibility in this regard. The AGM motion was specific about ranking of results, it wasn't about removing early starts (although a broad ranging discussion did take place). 2. Many sports, including athletics, have multiple start times. Track races have heats, due to lane capacity. Marathons often have wave starts, due to safety and congestion. Triathlons have wave starts, or rolling starts, for the same reason. Many sports also separate men & women in heats/waves/distances. 3. Rather than speaking for what we think others might experience when they join IMRA, please imagine a world that is different to how you look at it. The reality is the majority of members are not following the minutiae of forum discussions like this. Most people sign up, show up, do their race and go home. 4. Updating the Beginners FAQ might be one suggestion to explain a bit of this, as it's not mentioned at all now, so how would someone understand the guidelines? 5. While some volunteers are willing to stay out til last person is finished, that's not practical when bad weather or darkness put competitor and marshal safety at risk. 6. To say that winners are getting faster - should a rising tide not lift all boats??? |
| Peter O'Farrell | Jan 23 2025, 11:45am | Can I first state that I am both aware that all website changes are carried out by a volunteer team. And thanks to those volunteers. I am open to correction on this but; It sometimes seems to me that parts of how our races operate ends up becoming accepted practice as a result of website changes- and not as a conscious decision by any sub committee to organise races in any particular way. Take the early starters and the 160% rule. The website solution on the results page was to place all the early starters after the main field and so that became accepted practice. Another minor gripe of mine was and is the 5 year categories. These were rought in by Tom Blackburn for very good reasons. These 5 year categories now apply to every race results page - despite the fact that the majority of race run with 10 year age groups as prizr giving would otherwise go on forever. It's only a minor gripe but on the very odd occasion that I was the first M40 home I didn't get my greedy little hands on the voucher as the website/computer spits out the first man over forty as the winner, not me as I am M45 on the system. It's a minor gripe but another example of the tail wagging the dog. The website is an amazing resource but it sometimes dictates in a way that's not very obvious and I feel that's possibly where this whole early starter motion and debate originated. If you want to be in a race for a prize you should be on the same start line as the competition. IF everyone in the age group can agree to all start in the early start that's a good solution. |
| Eoin Keith | Jan 23 2025, 12:43pm | Hey Peter, Thanks for saying you were open to correction, as that's what I'm hoping to do. The decision to rank early starts behind main race starts in the race results was a motion that was passed at an AGM (I can't remember the exact year). As I recall there was a short constructive discussion around various options, and then a vote was taken to rank all early starters behind all main course starters. (I remember contributing to debate on what was technically reasonable to implement, in the interest of ensuring that any motion passed was realistically do-able!). It wasn't a random decision by any of the web development team. The only action the webteam did was to implement the AGM decision voted by the membership (There may have been some time-lag involved). The most recent AGM voted to basically reverse the older motion, and that was implemented by the webteam shortly afterwards. And again... there is no 160% rule. There is only a guideline. |
| Conor Murphy | Yesterday, 9:17am | Some great contributions by David Power and Peter O'Farrell above. Inclusion, safety and the volunteers should be 3 crucial considerations in all races. And then the trade off can be assessed. It's clear 2 of those are always considered. Alan Ayling obviously does a very good job, as is evident from IMRA's safety record. However, apart from a race that Niamh O'Ceallaigh organised, we really don't hear about inclusion and accessibility. I'm not aware of any Officer, any policies etc. Again. I think it would be good if IMRA drop Trail Criú a line for advice and guidance. |
| Mick Hanney | Yesterday, 10:14pm | I admit I haven't read every post in this thread as the discussion veered between guidelines and rules etc. so apols if debate was had on this point.... I do think its odd to see results for Carrick - didn't know whether it was best to post here or there - where early start results are mixed in with the main starts. So you could be behind someone in the results that wasn't in your start? A bit like a virtual race. One answer could be to have the results to have a filter for Main Start, Early Start, or All Starts. Perhaps one for the IT backlog if there was merit in it. |
