As arranged, we met up with Russ Jeffreys at Higginson parkrun, in Marlow, and after the event, sat down together in a quiet local pub. Russ arrived with Paul Sinton-Hewitt, the parkrun founder. From our side, we had Will Hartley, Mary Taylor and Alexander Smotrov, another signer of our open letters to parkrun.
We started the meeting by sharing a little of our personal backgrounds in parkrun, including our personal reasons for valuing the course stats. We said we were looking for a positive way forward towards resolving the issues of their removal.
Russ stated that there was no way that the stats would be brought back, and parkrun was very comfortable with their decision. He talked about their five-year plan, that they could have chosen to stay the same size, but instead want to expand to reach more people. He explained their beliefs of the barriers to participation, of many people not understanding that it is not a race, and wishing to benefit and reach those who might not be currently active. He said it fitted in with parkrun’s ethos.
We raised the fact that so many runners feel that parkrun is not also balancing looking after the needs of its existing runners and volunteers. Russ and Paul seemed to suggest that this wasn’t as important and was not in line with their charity goals. Paul Sinton-Hewitt then went on to say that the numbers of people who signed the petition were “miniscule” and not important in terms of their bigger picture. We objected, saying that over 26,000 is significant. Russ responded by saying that even if a majority of parkrunners had signed the petition or voted, they would not reinstate the statistics. Paul then went on to say that “for each of the disgruntled participants, whether they are a runner, walker or run director, if they leave parkrun there will be another hundred runners to take their place.” They suggested that our campaign what just another in a long line of issues, such as canicross, points stats league, egg-gate, etc.
We raised the fact that our polls appear to indicate that most Bring Back the Stats supporters are longer term parkrunners, that over 90% of the BBTS Facebook group have run over 40 parkruns, putting them in the top 5% of most active participants, and that a very large proportion have run hundreds. We also comprise many current run directors, event directors and some ambassadors too. We are a group that have invested hugely in parkrun and therefore believe that adds to our significance. Russ and Paul said it wasn’t fair to say that if someone has done many parkruns they should have more of a say or weight than someone who has done one parkrun.
We asked why if parkrun was a community event, why they wouldn’t listen to their community and take on board feedback in our petition and letters. It would be a strength to show they valued their community if they acted constructively to our feedback of the importance of the stats to us. Paul stated that “we are not a community-led organisation” and “we make our decisions from the top-down, that is how we operate and that is in our charter.” We responded by saying this view would be seen as disappointing by many parkrunners.
We asked about why the stats could not be reinstated whilst continuing to promote parkrun and achieving their five-year plan goals, perhaps in a more discrete place or using an opt-in system, as Mark Purvis and others have suggested. They said they have looked into this and again referred to their growth strategy. They talked about how parkrun was a large organisation now and Russ mentioned how it was getting more expensive to run events. They needed to change the structure to suit this. Paul Sinton-Hewitt then gave an analogy of “This is our playground, we made it. We set the rules of it. If you don’t like it perhaps you should play somewhere else.” Paul said that if you want to be competitive then join a club.
We put it to them again, that we believe parkrun can present itself in the way it wishes whilst maintaining the course statistics, albeit in a less prominent way. We reminded them of the age-categories and how they gave many runners motivation and a sense of achievement, particularly older runners. Paul talked about how he wrote the code for these stats originally and was happy that they were now gone. They talked about how the organisation has changed, they are bigger now and they have to be more conscious of how they operate. Paul said parkrun is not a sport and they have always said it is not a race. He said when people have described or interpreted parkrun as a sport it has caused various headaches and problems for them over the last twenty years. He said other organisations can come in, point out sport or race features and cause problems. “Save Women’s Sport” was mentioned, and Paul said that a by-product of removing the stats was “helping to address the gender thing.” He elaborated that if the stats were returned, those protesters would then have grounds again to attack parkrun for their stance on this issue. Parkrun want to convey that it is not a sport or competitive, to avoid this amongst other issues.
Moving on to future changes, they shared various ideas that may happen at some point in the future, but without any commitments. Russ mentioned various issues they experience with data security, stalking and privacy, resulting from their publicly available results data. They have visions for the future of removing the ability to see any other runners data and results, and in only being able to see your own individual results as well as event results. You would need to log in to see your individual results. They envisage parkrun to have a social aspect where you can “befriend” or “follow” other runners, as you might on Facebook or Strava, and mutual friends could view the statistics of their friends. Russ and Paul said they could see results pages eventually becoming just a list of people, without personal details, such as gender, individual statistics, and with volunteers listed most prominently. We imagine this would mean you would not be able to compare yourself to others in your age category, or compare age-grading, within a single weekly event results page. They are also considering adding some more individual focused stats and challenges that you can see on your profile when you log in. Although all these were given as possible ideas, and not as happening at any time soon, it was clear that this is the direction of travel that parkrun will be going in within the five year plan, so we expect by January 2028.
Paul then said “parkrun are not committed to (providing) a time.” He said that is something taken for granted, but providing a time was not a core element for them. Unlike viewing data, they said they do not plan to remove the times as part of their five year plan; however, Paul insisted to us they had the right to remove it if they wanted to. They mentioned that a 3rd party app might be developed in the future to use the data to create stats that people wanted, but this would only happen if they gave their permission.
Russ complained that he has had some abuse and attacks online on himself personally which is not nice, and although he accepts it comes with the role and didn’t think we were personally responsible, he wanted to raise this to our wider group. Paul S-H agreed with this saying it was out of line. He also said there were “foul mouthed emails” sent to volunteers and staff at parkrun HQ that were not okay. We said we were sorry that this had happened, that we did not condone this, but reminded them that this is not a reflection of the approach of our Bring Back the Stats group, but down to the small number of individuals involved.
Russ also expressed that he was unhappy with our group continuing to apply pressure after the meeting was arranged. He said that our group had the power to harm parkrun, that we could cause them to lose sponsors and funding with our continued actions, which would ultimately harm parkrun for everyone.
As the meeting concluded, we made suggestions to ascertain what parkrun would be willing to commit to. Russ said he was happy to commit to better communication. For future changes, they would provide more data and communication. He was happy to commit to the concept of involvement for parkrunners in decision making, but we ran out of time for him to elaborate on how this would work.
In conclusion
It was really disappointing that parkrun show no intention of seeking a way to continue providing the course stats that meant so much to so many. It is clear that they wish to present their reason as it being in keeping with their ethos and aims as a charity, but it’s also clear that, to an undefined degree, they have felt it necessary to make this change to avoid being classified as a sport or race. Paul conveyed that he has been fighting for twenty years to avoid the consequences of being considered a race, from many places, and the fairness for women’s sport is one of the current issues. We would welcome as clear clarification as possible from parkrun to the wider community, to understand fully the balance of the various reasons behind their decisions, in order to have a chance of understanding the rationale.
It was also disappointing to hear that parkrun view us as easily replaceable numbers, and is a top down organisation - if you don’t like the decisions they make, then go elsewhere. This is perhaps a safe suggestion for them to make since they don’t currently have any real competition. It would be an easy choice for many to make if there were an alternative currently available with course stats. Perhaps in time an alternative will emerge.
The direction of travel for the future is to have less public information and comparison stats between runners, and more individual stats only, for the various reasons given. We imagine they will make these changes with the same confidence and conviction they have shown so far, with the attitude that even if a majority of parkrunners disagreed with it, they wouldn’t alter their decision.
Ultimately, we are all individuals who will respond to this information in our own way. I imagine some may wish to accept the decision as final, and now move on, and make the most of what is left, although it may not be as good for them as it was before. Some people will make the choice to leave, following those who have already gone. Some may choose to continue supporting their local events, but whilst making their peaceful protest, be it with T-shirts, not scanning their code or not finishing, and promoting our cause to others. Some may continue to make their views known online, or take a more active route in continuing to challenge the changes, both current and future.
Whichever path you chose, know that you are more than just a tiny statistic to us. We value and care for each and every one of you, every story and the detrimental affect the change has had on you personally. It feels very sad that parkrun do not appear to value us as individuals. They wish to state they are listening, but to them, this seems to be the act of physically being present as we explain our case. The deeper meaning of listening, to really listen, is to seek to understand and empathise, displayed by validation and responding constructively. It is hard to agree that they are truly ‘listening’ when they open a discussion meeting with ‘the stats are never coming back’.
We look forward to hearing your thoughts via the Facebook group should you wish to join the discussion. We do think it is right and in our best interests to keep our case as respectful and impersonal as possible to parkrun, although we completely share your passion and upset at everything that has gone on. Russ was polite, friendly and spoke respectfully during the meeting, and although we didn’t agree with everything he said, our case is not a personal attack on him, but a passionate disagreement with the new policy. Equally, we naturally have huge respect for Paul, as the founder of parkrun. His demeanour was rather hostile and outspoken in parts, and I do hope that he might see through our complaints as not being attacks on our beloved parkrun, but with the removal of the course stats alone. As we have said all along, our aims have never been to damage parkrun, but to return the course stats for those who benefited from them, since for us the justification for their removal has always fallen short of adequately supporting the change.
Thank you to Russ and Paul for taking the time to meet with us for the 90 minutes. We feel this account is a full and fair overview of what was said, but if either of you feel there are any significant omissions or misrepresentations, please do let us know and we will be happy to share these additions with our group.
Finally, and most importantly, thank you to you all for your support. We are sorry we cannot bring you more positive news, but we do hope it gives you some useful insight into why the changes were made, and the changes we may expect in the future.