Remember that day in 8th grade when you showed up for gym class only to find that you’d been matched against Fred, the 6’2 195 lb. Armenian exchange student, clad with a full beard and a less than welcoming look in his eye, in the wrestling drills for the day, and all you could think, aside from “damn,” was “is he really 13?” I don’t, because I never wrestled and never knew an Armenian named Fred, but you should get the picture. We have all had those moments when we wonder about somebody’s age and whether they should be allowed to compete against a younger (in a bad way) crowd.
It seems to be a common theme for many people to claim about the unfair advantage that “all those darn foreigners” have because of their supposed age advantage. After all, it’s often said that distance runners don’t really begin to hit their aerobic peak until age 26. Regardless of whether “those darn foreigners” are too old or not, you don’t hear much about other athletes who receive certain age exemptions.
The NCAA allows several service exemptions to the “4 from 5” rule via bylaw 14.2.1.2. This bylaw allows anybody who spends time in the armed services, on official religious missions or with recognized foreign aid services of the U.S. government, to be exempt from that time counting against their eligibility.
It’s hard to see a two year hiatus in the military being very beneficial to your proper athletic development, given the mental and physical stresses required to military duty, but what about the mission trip? Could it be argued that a mission trip allows an unfair training advantage? Even though it’s not military service, a mission trip is not a walk in the park and requires strict adherence to the rules; something we may not always consider. Take Miles Batty, for instance. Miles hardly had the opportunity to train during his two year break and actually returned to BYU very out of shape. So does the age advantage outweigh the training detriments, vice versa, or do they balance? Should other athletes be given another option short of military service?
Watch more video of 2009 Brooks ISU Pre Nationals on flotrack.org
Personally I wasn’t ever very affected by the rule, and thus I don’t have a very strong opinion on the matter, but I don’t think that any one individual should be granted an advantage over another. Do mission trips provide and advantage? Just remember to try and be understanding of Fred, even when he has you in a crossface cradle pin while simultaneously smearing your puny face into the mat. It’s not really his fault that he’s a monster of a child with two years on you, just as it’s not the fault of anybody who qualifies for rule 14.2.1.2, but a fault, if any, of the system. Thoughts? We would love to hear from folks who have firsthand experience with balancing (or not) a mission trip with running.
Disclaimer: This is not meant to attack mission trips, what they stand for, or the people who take them; this is meant to rouse discussion of the rules.
Updated on May 3, 2013, 8:32pm

I also served a mission in South America. I had a few mission companions who I could convince to go out to the street with me...they would sit on the curb and I would run 100 meters down the street and back. (One mission rule is that you have to always be able to hear and see your companion). There was a month here and a month there where I got about 5-10 miles in a week. I honestly don't think I ran more than 50 miles in that two years. The exercise time allotted to missionaries is from when you wake up at 6:30 till 7. By the time you go to the bathroom and get out the door you've got MAYBE time for 3 miles. (if you have a companion who is willing to go with you.) The mission is a very stressful time because you feel very responsible for how hard you work. You are walking/biking/driving around and teaching lessons from 10-9. You are physically and mentally exhausted at the end of each day... so even if you have a companion willing to go sit on the curb while you run, you probably won't have much energy for it anyways. I raced at 150-155 lbs before my mission, got to a peak of 183 while I was out there, and have been home for two years now and still unable to get back under 160. Taking two years off interferes with development of a runner and your body type has the potential to change tremendously. So I'm not sure if the age advantage could outweigh what happens to your body in those two years of poor exercise and diet. Obviously it will affect some more than others. I don't want this to sound like a mission is the worst thing ever for a runner. I have no regrets about serving a mission. But for me at least, it has taken a while to get healthy and find my form again.