❌

Reading view

There are new articles available, click to refresh the page.

The first woman to complete the Boston Marathon is now 78 and runs most days. She shared 3 tips for getting fit at any age.

Composite image of a woman running, wearing a vest that reads, "Kathrine," and a black and white photo of a woman in front of two men having a tussle.
In 1967, Kathrine Switzer became the first woman to officially run the Boston Marathon. A race official tried to stop her (right).

Kathrine Switzer/GALE Partners

  • The first woman officially ran the Boston Marathon in 1967, despite an official trying to stop her.
  • Kathrine Switzer has dedicated her life to making running more accessible to women.
  • She thinks anyone can get fit at any age and shared her tips for doing just that.

Kathrine Switzer was the first woman to run the Boston Marathon as an official competitor, despite a race official trying to physically stop her. Since that day in 1967, she has dedicated her life to other women experiencing the same feeling of empowerment from running, regardless of their age or ability.

In the run-up to the race, Switzer, at the time a 20-year-old journalism student at Syracuse University, trained with her college's cross-country team for a year (it was against collegiate rules for a woman to compete in the sport). She couldn't keep up with most of the men on the team, so the assistant coach, Arnie Briggs, began training with her separately as he recovered from a knee injury.

"We got better and stronger," Switzer told Business Insider. "We got up to five miles and then seven and then 11. The guys on the cross country team wouldn't come out with us after 20 kilometers, but that's when I could keep up with them because they didn't have the endurance I had."

On their runs, Switzer and Briggs discussed marathons β€” Briggs had run the Boston Marathon 15 times but didn't believe that a woman could run that far.

"But then he said, 'Look, if any woman could, I would believe it was you. But you would have to prove it to me, and then I'd take you to Boston.' I said, 'Hot damn, you're on,'" Switzer said.

They did a trial marathon and ended up running an extra five miles at the end because Switzer suspected the course was shorter than the required 26.2 miles and still had energy.

She and Briggs paid the $2 entry fee and signed up for the 1967 Boston Marathon. (The entry fee was $250 for the 2025 race.)

About two miles into the race, things went awry.

Three images of a race official trying to stop Katrine Switzer running in the 1967 Boston Marathon.
At the 1967 Boston Marathon, a race official (in black) tried to stop Kathrine Switzer (wearing the number 261) from running.

AP PHOTO

The race manager pulled up in a bus and ran after Switzer. "He grabbed me by the shoulders and threw me back. He tried to pull off my number bib and screamed, 'Get the hell out of my race and give me those numbers,'" she said.

When the official grabbed Switzer by the shirt, her boyfriend at the time, who was training to compete in hammer throw at the Olympics, charged at him and sent him flying off to the side of the road, she said.

As she kept running, the press hounded her, asking if she was a suffragette and what she was trying to prove.

"I wasn't trying to prove anything, I was just trying to run," she said. "But they stayed with me a long time and really hassled me, asking me, 'When are you going to quit?' Finally, I said, 'I'm going to finish this race on my hands and my knees if I have to.'"

She did finish (and stayed upright).

She said she felt empowered, and in 1972 organized the first women-only road race, which was 10-kilometer-long, and lobbied for the inclusion of a women's marathon event in the Olympics, which eventually happened in 1984.

In 2024, she worked with Every Woman's Marathon to hold a women's-only marathon, which had 7,000 participants.

Two women, wearing medals and colorful clothes, chat at the finish line for Every Woman's Marathon.
Switzer (right), 78, still runs marathons.

Carol Lee Rose/Every Woman's Marathon

Now 78, Switzer still runs six times a week, including one day where she focuses on 800-meter sprints and a day for a longer run that takes at least 1.5 hours. She ramps up her training when she's approaching a marathon.

Switzer set her personal best at the 1975 Boston Marathon with a time of two hours and fifty-one minutes. It now takes her four to five hours, but it isn't about the time, she said. She's happy that she can run a marathon alongside other women, of every age, size, ethnicity, and religion, thanks to her efforts and those of other women who paved the way.

"I believe you can start a fitness program at any age," she said, giving the example of a woman she knows who took up running at 72 and ran her first marathon at 81.

Switzer shared her tips for getting fit, whether you can run for one minute or three hours.

Start slow, but be consistent

"Consistency is everything. You just need to keep running every day and build it up," she said.

A woman, wearing a vest that reads, "Kathrine," running.
Switzer wants women to know how empowering running can be, no matter their age or fitness level.

Every Woman's Marathon/GALE Partners

She started by running a mile a day around her garden at age 12 and gradually increased the number of laps over time. But it wasn't easy, she said.

"I struggled through that summer, running that mile every single day. Pretty soon, this amazing sense of empowerment came over me," she said. "For some people, this process is going to be faster; for other people, it's going to be slower."

Have a goal

Having a goal provides focus and will motivate you to "put the work in," Switzer said.

Her motivation was to prove Briggs wrong and show that women could run marathons, but your goal doesn't have to be as big, she said.

"There's going to be plenty of days when you don't want to go out," she said.

She still has days when she doesn't want to run after almost 60 years of doing the sport. But having something to aim for means you're less likely to skip a workout.

Accountability is key

Switzer's final tip is to find a way to hold yourself accountable. You could get a training partner or keep a diary of your workouts, she said.

"People should write their workout down every day because when you write it down, it keeps you honest," she said.

"But a buddy is really a nice thing to have. I don't think I ever would have been a runner if it hadn't been for Arnie, my coach," she added.

"And for a lot of women, safety is a really big factor. So run with other women β€” it also creates a really good community."

Read the original article on Business Insider

4 top partners quit Paul Weiss, Big Law firm that cut deal with Trump

Representing Google, attorneys Karen Dunn and Jeannie Rhee arrive at the courthouse for opening arguments in Google's second antitrust case.
Attorneys Karen Dunn (left) and Jeannie Rhee (right), along with their fellow partners, Bill Isaacson and Jessica Phillips, have resigned from Paul Weiss to start their own firm.

Kevin Lamarque/REUTERS

  • Four top Paul Weiss partners announced Friday that they've resigned to start their own firm.
  • Paul Weiss is one of the firms that made a deal with Trump to reverse an EO against the firm.
  • The Big Law firms that have negotiated with Trump have faced criticism from others in the profession.

Four partners at Paul Weiss announced Friday that they are leaving the white-shoe firm, which two months ago struck a deal with the Trump administration.

Karen Dunn, a star litigator who has helped Democratic candidates prepare for presidential debates, her longtime partners Bill Isaacson and Jessica Phillips, and the former prosecutor Jeannie Rhee said in an email addressed to "partners and friends" that they are starting their own firm.

The high-profile departures underscore the ongoing turmoil at Big Law firms surrounding the firms' handling of punitive executive actions from President Donald Trump's administration. The departing lawyers did not give a reason for leaving in their statement.

Several major firms β€” including Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block β€” chose to challenge the legality of the orders in court, and have so far been successful after two judges declared two different orders unconstitutional. Other firms, including Paul Weiss, chose to make deals with the administration, prompting concern among associates and partners over their willingness to cooperate rather than fight.

The new firm's name isn't clear. Since April, several domain names containing Dunn's name and those of other lawyers have been registered anonymously. None of the websites contains any details, and it's not clear who registered them.

The lawyers have represented prominent clients like Google, Amazon, and Apple over the years. Isaacson is one of the country's top antitrust litigators. Antitrust issues have been a focus for both former President Joe Biden and Trump, who have criticized the power of large tech companies. Rhee managed the firm's Washington, DC, office, and Dunn co-chaired its litigation department.

"It has been an honor to work alongside such talented lawyers and to call so many of you our friends," their departing email said. "We hope to continue to collaborate with all of you in the years to come and are incredibly grateful for your warm and generous partnership."

Paul Weiss's chair, Brad Karp, said in a statement, "We are grateful to Bill, Jeannie, Jessica, and Karen for their many contributions to the firm. We wish them well in their future endeavors."

The departures come several months after the Trump administration began targeting Big Law firms with punitive executive actions. Among them was Paul Weiss, which faced an executive order that revoked the security clearances of the firm's attorneys and ordered a review of its government contracts.

On March 20, Trump announced on Truth Social that he would drop the executive order against Paul Weiss after negotiating a deal that would require the firm to end any diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in its hiring practices and contribute $40 million of pro bono legal services to causes aligned with the administration's priorities, such as veterans affairs issues and the administration's antisemitism task force.

Business Insider previously reported that the copy of the deal shared internally among Paul Weiss partners omitted language regarding DEI that was present in the president's announcement.

Other firms that chose to negotiate with Trump also saw high-profile departures from partners and associates concerned with their firms' decisions not to challenge the administration.

Wilkie Farr lost its longest-serving lawyer in April after Joseph Baio, a partner who'd worked there for 47 years, resigned over the firm's preemptive deal with Trump, The New York Times reported.

Another firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, made a preemptive deal with the Trump administration in late March to avoid a similar executive order against it. The decision led to a series of public resignations from several Skadden associates, including Rachel Cohen and Brenna Frey.

Cohen told Business Insider she had not been in touch with the attorneys who had resigned from Paul Weiss on Friday.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Executive order against Jenner & Block ruled unconstitutional

U.S. President Donald Trump holds an Executive order.
A judge on Friday struck down Donald Trump's executive order against the Big Law firm Jenner & Block, ruling the order unconstitutional.

Evelyn Hockstein/REUTERS

  • The executive order targeting Big Law firm Jenner & Block was ruled unconstitutional on Friday.
  • In his ruling, District Judge John Bates said the EO retaliated against the firm for protected speech.
  • This is the second executive order targeting a Big Law firm that has been struck down.

Another of President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting a Big Law firm has been struck down after a US District Judge on Friday said the action against Jenner & Block was unconstitutional.

The entire order, which revoked the security clearances of the firm's attorneys and required a review of its government contracts, was invalidated by the judge's ruling, representing a major win for Jenner & Block.

"The order raises constitutional eyebrows many times over. It punishes and seeks to silence speech 'at the very center of the First Amendment,'" US District Judge John Bates, of the District Court of DC wrote in his ruling, adding that Trump's order did so "via the most 'egregious form of content discrimination β€” viewpoint discrimination,'" and "in an unacceptable attempt to 'insulate the Government's laws from judicial inquiry.'"

A spokesperson for Jenner & Block directed Business Insider to their public statement following the ruling, which said that the firm is "pleased with the court's decision to decisively strike down an unconstitutional attack on our clients' right to have zealous, independent counsel and our firm's right to represent our clients fully and without compromise."

"Our decision to fight the executive order in court is rooted in Jenner & Block's history and values: we fiercely advocate for our clients under all circumstances," the firm's statement continued. "This ruling demonstrates the importance of lawyers standing firm on behalf of clients and for the law. That is what Jenner will continue to do for our clients β€” paying and pro bono β€” as we look to put this matter behind us."

Representatives for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

The federal government can appeal the decision, in which case the proceedings will be heard in the court of appeals. Any subsequent appeal would be heard by the Supreme Court.

The decision from US District Judge John Bates, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, is the second order striking down an executive order from Trump targeting a law firm.

Earlier this month, another judge blocked an order targeting Perkins Coie, ruling that Trump's use of federal power "an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints."

Judges have also temporarily paused executive orders targeting the law firms Susman Godfrey and Wilmer Hale, pending decisions on whether to permanently block them.

At an April hearing for Jenner & Block's case, Bates snapped at the Justice Department lawyer, Richard Lawson, who argued Trump's executive order should stand.

"Give me a break," Bates said, as Lawson argued federal agencies should follow Trump's command because Jenner & Block engaged in "racial discrimination."

In the now-blocked executive order, Trump specifically singled out attorney Andrew Weissmann, a Jenner employee who served as a lead prosecutor in Robert Mueller's special counsel's office, which investigated Trump's ties to Russia in 2016. The order described Weissmann's career as "rooted in weaponized government and abuse of power."

Judge Bates's ruling described Trump's order and the subsequent legal battle over its legality as "no run-of-the-mill retaliation case," adding that the president "has displayed a great deal of animosity toward Jenner."

"Further adverse actions would not be shocking β€” and could very well offend the Constitution as plainly as Executive Order 14246 does," Bates wrote. "But Article III requires this Court to place its faith in future courts to prevent harm from befalling Jenner if and when that occurs."

Read the original article on Business Insider

❌