With marathon season in full flow, Boston and Tokyo down of the majors, London calling this weekend, perhaps the biggest debate in the event organising world in 2026 has been the Paris Marathon’s decision to remove single use plastic and paper cups from the course except for runners on pace for sub 2:50.
Regular runner Hannah Sprake and multiple marathoner and ultra-marathoner Edward Ferrari-Willis had their say.
Running is, for me, one of the most inclusive sports. Anyone can put on their trainers and head out the door. Even events are inclusive in the truest sense — the same start line, the same course, whether you're an elite athlete, a club runner chasing a PB, a charity fundraiser, or someone simply out to prove something to themselves. That shared but individual experience is what makes running so special.
So, when a rule change applies differently depending on how fast you run or why you're running, something feels off.
The Paris Marathon's decision to ban single-use cups and bottles is a bold sustainability move, and the principle is sound. But its implementation, for me, is not inclusive, and sends the wrong message about how we value the breadth of runners within the sport.
Elite athletes can effectively queue-jump to a pre-prepared drinks bottle. Faster amateur runners are requesting the same special treatment given their sub-2:50 performance related goal. Meanwhile, everyone else must adapt — carrying hydration packs or collapsible flasks and queuing to refill at stations along the course.
For me, this unequal implementation is not too dissimilar to what I've seen in school sport. The sporty kids often get the better kit, days out of school for competitions, and special recognition for their performance achievements. However, those who participate for the fun of it, or who take part without reaching the performance levels of the more talented athletes, are typically less celebrated and not afforded the same privileges. It's this disparity in treatment that can lead people to drop out of sport or form a negative association with it. We should always be celebrating both groups equally and treating them with appropriate fairness that shows everyone is valued.
So, if the sustainability argument is strong enough to change event operations, then the implementation mechanism should apply to everyone. You can't bring in a change that treats performance runners differently to participation runners without devaluing what participation means. A rule that isn't fair for everyone, in my opinion, isn't ready to be a rule at all.
I think it was a big mistake. Having said that, I'm actually not totally against the idea of having a cut off where pre-made water bottles or cups give way to a slower, more sustainable solution. Marathons can be very wasteful, and addressing that with bold solutions deserves credit. However, I think their 2:50 cut off was way too extreme.
Something like four and a half or five hours would better reflect the fact that runners after those cutoffs have time to slow down built into their race, in fact are almost certainly doing so, or are mixing some walking in with their running. In that sense it's equitable rather than equal, treating runners differently but not disadvantaging people. Rather it's reflecting that at slower paces, there is time to meet your goals and be more sustainable, that stopping and restarting when you're running 10 minute miles or above is easier than when you're running 7 or 8 minute pace. At those speeds, maintaining cadences or mile times make having to substantially slow down for water extremely irritating. And in close proximity to that irritation lurks danger. If I were pushing for a PB and slow water stops were likely to jeopardise my pace, I might well, in the literal heat of the race, skip a water stop that I really should be taking. And having seen plenty of people run themselves into ambulances through overheating or dehydrating, that's not something you take chances with. The problem is likely to be even worse among groups of non-core runners, who increasingly are tackling marathon distance but without as much experience understanding how much hydration their body needs at different distances and paces.
Sustainable solutions are workable, and in fact already working, in plenty of trail races or ultra events. When I run backyard ultras for instance, I'm perfectly happy to bring my own water and for the event to provide sustainable refilling solutions between laps or to wear a hydration vest. I know on sign up that I cannot accept outside water or fuel mid-loop (it's part of the rules). But ideas like this just aren't built for events on the scale of and with the accompanying bottlenecks of big city marathons.
It's such a small drop in the ocean as a sustainability effort too. Much better to charge an extra £5 for a donation in your name to a sustainability charity.
Frankly, if I'm paying what are now substantial entry fees for a big-ticket marathon, I expect the event to support me as best as possible to meet my goals, wherever possible. That includes things like pacers, correct mile signage, start and finish line facilities, and hydration is probably top of the list. If sustainability or a day going slow and taking in the atmosphere is top of my mind, then of course giving me a refillable cup in the race pack is great, just as giving me info on how to travel to the race sustainably, or a more premium t-shirt that's less likely to be disposed of, or options to offset my carbon footprint would be welcome. But when it comes to something that's risking my safety or time goals on the day, that's not the time to experiment or compromise.
