The dilemma

On Sat, April 22, I actually encountered the situation I posed as a question to some friends of mine after watching a Prefontaine movie/documentary. If you were at the Olympics, would you have done what the coach (Bill Bower) advised or would have done what Prefontaine did?

I went to the Stampede 5k, where the top 3 overall & top 3 overall masters were recognized. 3rd place, either category, had the smallest trophy & 1st, naturally, the largest. Also, 1st got a $50 gift certificate. I assumed that the three fastest runners in the race would be rewarded the greatest. I forgot about the old adage of what happens when you assume.

Like Pre (Steve Prefontaine), I gave my all and missed 2nd overall by 9 seconds, thus placing third overall. By doing that, I received the smallest trophy & no prize.

As a master runner, if I followed the coach (Bill Bower), I would have slowed down to place 4th overall as strategy to be placed as 1st master. This effort would have been rewarded with the largest trophy & the $50 gift certificate!

I informed the race director that the incentive procedure discourages runners from doing their best but he was so dumbfounded as to what I was trying to say, I wound up just leaving with the sour taste of victory & a still perplexing situation.

Now I pose to you, if you were in my shoes, what would you have done, go pre (time) or coach (incentives)?