A Peace Offering
To the Angry Men in Spandex
A few weeks ago, I published an essay opining that an element of classism has infiltrated the running community, fueled by a consumerist thirst for materialism in a corporately captured culture.
No surprise, this ruffled some feathers.
Folks rushed my comment section here on Substack and over on Instagram, clapping back against one of the examples I cited as a manifestation of this trend. The example involved (my interpretation of) one runner with a distinct brand persona (allegedly) targeting another runner with a distinctly different brand persona over (alleged) illegal substance use in violation of USADA and WADA rules in a USATF-sponsored event. I cited the *opinion* that this story exemplified classism, specifically due to the ‘redneck rags to riches’ origin story of the runner being (allegedly) targeted.
Some of the folks who disagreed with my hot take said I was making a straw man argument, that the issue was simply about “doping.”
Worth noting: I didn’t take a stand against USADA or WADA, nor did I argue against athletes following the rules to advance in their competitive journey (i.e., qualifying for the Olympics). I’m actually aligned with many of the comments expressing a desire “keep the sport clean.”
But comments like “she’s not a real runner” and “she’s a nobody” that appeared across social media illuminated the elitism and arrogance (which I believe are behavioral byproducts of classism) that have seeped into running culture over the past twenty years, thus proving my essay’s broader point.
The inference behind these comments seems that, unless you’re a professionally sponsored runner, or unless you’ve landed a podium finish at a USATF event, or unless you have 100k+ social media followers, you’re not a “real runner.”
Perhaps your race fees matter, but your opinions do not.
The thing is, there’s peace in being a nobody. Most people scroll past without wasting time letting me know that my opinions are dumb and my writing is shit.
But when it came to my little essay about classism in running, many did not simply scroll on by. Instead, they contributed to a spicy debate, and as I perused these individuals’ social media profiles, I couldn’t help but wonder, who are all these angry men in spandex, blowing up my comments in the middle of the workday?
To inject some objectivity into my analysis, I climbed off my anti-AI high horse for a moment (hypocrite!) and asked an AI bot to generate a demographic profile of the individuals who commented on the original Substack essay and an associated Instagram post.
My query and the AI bot’s results are below.
My Query:
Can you create a demographic-focused profile from the commenters on this Instagram post and this Substack post?
The AI Bot’s Results:
Core Demographics (Typical Commenter Across Both)
Gender: Strongly male-dominated (estimated 65-80% based on comment patterns and ultra community stats). Men appear more vocal in both defense of clean sport and pushback against the classism framing.
Age: Primarily 35–55, with a heavy concentration in the 40–50 range. This aligns with ultrarunning peaks (many in prime career/family years but established enough for time-intensive training). Masters athletes (40+) are especially active in this debate.
Ethnicity: Overwhelmingly White/Caucasian (90%+ in trail/ultra surveys; consistent with visible commenter names and community data).
Location: Heavily United States, especially West Coast (Oregon, California, Pacific Northwest, Mountain states, and Midwest. Some international (Canada, Europe, Australia) but US-centric. Many from suburban or trail-accessible areas rather than big cities.
Education: Highly educated — majority college graduates, with a large share holding postgraduate degrees (often 40%+ in surveys). Fields frequently include engineering, tech, healthcare, business, education, or professional services. Upper-middle to affluent ($100K+ household income common; many above this). Trail/ultra participation strongly correlates with disposable income for gear, travel, races, and recovery.
Family/Relationship Status: Often married or partnered, frequently with children. Many balance family/career with serious training.
Lifestyle & Observable Traits
• Occupation: Professionals with stable, flexible-enough careers — engineers, software/tech workers, physicians/nurses, teachers, small business owners, or corporate roles. They can afford dedicated training time (early mornings/evenings) and expensive hobbies.
• Running Involvement: Dedicated amateur to competitive recreational runners in marathons, trails, or ultras. Not full pros, but serious hobbyists who complete multiple races, invest in premium gear, and engage deeply with the community. Many have masters-age achievements.
• Socioeconomic Context: Financially secure enough for race fees, travel, high-end shoes/equipment, and supplements/recovery. They represent the “core” of the sport’s participant base rather than elites or casual runners.
Beyond the distinct profile that emerged from this analysis, one of the most fascinating aspects of the commentary was the chauvinistic tone of so many voices, offended as they were by some “nobody” daring to share her opinion on the internet.
“Just what do you think you’re doing?” one person asked via direct message.
Then there was the derisive “don’t get your panties in a knot” comment on Substack. (Can I admit I’ve always hated the word panties? Guy really got me on that one.)
Then, of course, there was this gem, which I perceive Instagram flagged and removed, but not before I captured a screenshot.
According to that creative commenter’s Instagram profile, he’s a triathlete and endurance coach from Boulder and Richmond. Pictures on his profile show him riding a bike that costs between $2,480 and $14,750, “depending on the model, frame material, and components,” according to the internet. Maybe he’s worked his ass off for said bike. Maybe he’s sponsored. Who knows; who cares!
Because, according to commenters, this entire conversation has nothing to do with classism and everything to do with ensuring a clean sport!!!
And so, as a peace offering, I’m activating my nearly 20 years of experience as a communications and marketing strategist and offering a hypothetical messaging framework to help these impassioned individuals more effectively achieve their stated goal of cleaning up the sport.
Framing their messaging as an industry-wide problem with a specific, actionable solution may convey objectivity and sincerity, while lessening or altogether eliminating the perception that any one runner is being targeted based on background, ideological, or lifestyle differences. Framework below!
Hypothetical Messaging Framework
Situational Overview: (e.g.) Banned substances like growth hormones, peptides, and TRT are becoming increasingly accessible and mainstream, to the extent that high-profile athletes are publicly discussing their usage. To maintain USATF compliance with WADA and USADA rules, USATF-sponsored events should begin systemic testing of all podium placers at all USATF events.
Proposed Solution: (e.g.) Test all competitors across all genders and age groups (yes, even those ages 19 and under) who land a podium spot in USATF-sponsored events. If someone tests positive, they don’t get to claim the spot.
Associated Costs: (e.g.) There are approximately 90 podium finishers in the Eugene Marathon, representing the top three runners in both the male and female divisions across 15 specific age brackets.
According to Triathlete.com, organizations like the International Testing Agency (ITA) state that an elite anti-doping test costs at least $1,000. For example, the World Triathlon corporation Ironman reports that its individual out-of-competition testing costs range from $700 to $4,000 per sample, with an average of $1,600 per test.
A conservative estimate of $1,000 per test would result in an increased $90k cost for a race like the Eugene Marathon. Considering that approximately 9,000 runners completed the full and half marathons in 2026, these costs could be covered by increasing registration fees approximately $10 per entrant, which is relatively nominal if you’re rocking $200 kicks, $80 shorts, the latest $350 Garmin, and $200 headphones.
Risks: (e.g.) Operational costs, time and staff requirements, chain of custody dependencies, increased entry fee costs, reduced number of participants, lack of adoption, refusal to comply, etc.
Benefits: (e.g.) Fairness; strictly enforced WADA and USADA compliance.
Why the proposed solution matters and will work: Reinforce why the proposed solution is the best solution.
Obviously, I put this together quickly, using Google to research potential costs associated with a hypothetical testing scenario. Imagine what the industry’s “core” changemakers might achieve with a little expert consulting, research, and a specific, actionable proposal—anchoring the conversation in terms of an objective problem/solution and reducing the risk of perceived agenda, motive, or personal attack in the process.
It’s worth noting that, whatever the solution, stringent rules require strict enforcement, which will inevitably increase operational costs and registration fees. But at least the sport will be perceived as clean for all the “real runners” who care—and I sincerely hope the endeavor brings them peace of mind.
As stated in my original article, the rest of us can always lace up our crusty old runners and hit the roads for free. Maybe find a big rock along the way and carry it up a hill for an extra challenge.
Whether you’re clocking one mile or one marathon, corporately sponsored or motivated by something deep inside whispering that you’re capable of more, when you tap into that miraculously free source of motivation and divine determination, you discover it’s a channel for pure joy that cannot be denied or controlled by anyone but you.
The run belongs to the runner, and nobody can take that away.
They picked the wrong woman to “put her in her place”!