Bannon and Sheldon,

The stupid and ugly part are probably right on.  But no ice cream,   thats kinda low.

As I said before, I have worn my IPOD in all my running races.  If I wore it in a race that said no headphones and it was confiscated, or a I was penalized, I wouldn't complain about it, I would take my medicine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pcsronbo:

But then how would I dorwn out the voices in my head?

---

 

   Scary, aren't they....

I actually have nothing against running with music, and I just don't get why people get so incensed about this issue.  I've never raced with music, but it has always bothered me that I've trained with music and come race day I start playing head games with myself that I feel like I need it.  I was just pleasantly surprised when I finally went to the dark side and realized it wasn't so bad to be without the music after all 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mbannon:

If you re-read my post, you'll see that you and I are in complete agreement.  I only use the headphone/deafness analogy as proof that the no-headphones rule is only in place due to fear of lawsuit.  If we were truly worried about people being unable to hear during a race, deaf people would not be allowed to race.  Also, races would not be allowed near airports or other noisy areas.

Of course the race directors are worried about racers being able to hear.  But the rule is in place due to fear of lawsuit.

I agree that we agree that you agree. BUT, the deafness analogy dosen't work becuase the deaf (and the race to a certian extent) are protected from lawsuits, so the insurance company cannot use deaf as a reason not to allow them in a race. Headphones are elective, therefore not protected by law in the same manner.

As a "Reasonable Accomadation", I wonder if a race could require a deaf runner to run with someone that can hear so as to alert the deaf runner. Does anyone know if this is a requirement for any race?

I just run with a boom-box on my shoulder.