BELL LAP #39

THE INCOME CONUNDRUM (May 2, 2001)

Both American marathoners in the last Olympics, Rod De Haven and Christine Clark, have full-time jobs. De Haven is a computer programmer, Clark a medical pathologist. Is this--the fact that the top male and female marathoner in the U.S. last year didn't depend on running to pay the bills--a coincidence?

From what I've read about De Haven and Clark, both have gone to Herculean lengths to make their dedication to elite competition mesh with their professional, not to mention family, obligations. Neither has the luxury of a full-time running career, the way runners in the modern era are supposed to. But both, somehow, have managed to carve out a niche of dedication in which their running has thrived.

Is there a lesson here? If there is, it may be that no one reaches the top rung of the marathon ladder without major sacrifice. Sometimes the sacrifice is the pain of intense daily workouts, the kind that produce sweat, aching muscles and the occasional full-throated retch. And sometimes the sacrifice is more personal, in lost time and professional stress.

And maybe there's another lesson. Maybe someone with sufficient income has a kind of security, a confidence that, no matter what the sacrifice, financial ruin is NOT just around the corner. The athlete can work hard, take chances, and make decisions that have to do with athletic excellence, not income.

I mention this because the Road Runners Club of America is about to announce another class of "Roads Scholars," post-collegians who receive $4,000 grants to help pay bills, medical costs, travel to competition, or anything else they need to survive and continue chasing their dreams. This year, $24,000 will be paid out, bringing the total amount since the program began in 1996 to over $100,000.

So here's the question: If you have $24,000 to give to athletes, what's the best way to divide it up? In small grants, to give some support to as many runners as possible, or in larger stipends that would really make a difference in an athlete's total income?

This is the conundrum faced by Carl Sniffen, who Chairs the RRCA's Roads Scholar Committee. To date, after consulting with committee members and athletes, Sniffen has decided to stick with the program's original plan, awarding smaller grants that reach more athletes. This year, six athletes will each receive $4,000.

"Although $4,000 may not seem like a lot of money, it does help," says Sniffen. "We've heard from athletes who were able to travel to different races, help with rent, or pay for needed physical therapy or medical treatment. The grant also provides a psychological boost to the athlete."

Todd Reeser, an RRCA Roads Scholar in 2000 who went on to improved success later in the year, was asked on Runners World Online if the award made a difference in his running life. "Definitely," he answered. "The confidence in knowing that people out there think you have a bright future, that was the main thing for me. And certainly, the money doesn't hurt. It's a great program."

No would claim that $4,000 will give a developing elite athlete the same underlying financial assurance that someone in a full-time profession might have. But runners can be amazingly frugal, making a little money go a long way.

In looking back, the golden age of American marathoning was clearly in the early '80s, when hundreds of Americans ran times that now only a few dozen manage each year. Few of those '80s runners had healthy incomes, but shoe companies did provide a slew of small stipends. And for runners already accustomed to sacrifice, that money made a big difference. Maybe now, a little boost given to a lot of runners can help fuel that kind of success again.