The Boston Marathon 80-plus cohort did not vanish. The BAA statistics page shows 21 entered, 20 started, and 15 finished. [1] The problem is that the numbers live as extractable table data, not as a public aging-and-safety narrative.

On Sunday, this paper described the 80-plus field as a transparency artifact because the BAA had not surfaced the older-runner story. Monday changes the charge. The data is not absent. It is buried in plain sight.

That distinction matters. A results database satisfies timing and recordkeeping. It does not satisfy explanation. The BAA results portal and race results page let a persistent reader find the cohort; they do not tell the public why 15 finishers over 80 should be read through aging, safety, training, medical support, and race design. [2][3]

This is not a scandal story. It is a service-journalism story. The marathon has the numbers. The question is whether a public institution with those numbers should make them legible before the internet turns absence into suspicion.

The best version of the story would not shame the BAA. It would show older runners what happened, what support existed, and what the finish rate means. Transparency is not only disclosure. It is interpretation for the people most affected.

-- NORA WHITFIELD, Chicago