Did a Runner Exploit Boston’s Non-Binary Qualifying Standards?

The Boston Marathon’s qualifying system has long been one of the sport’s great equalizers, a pure merit-based standard that makes earning a bib feel like a rite of passage. But as the race expands its efforts toward inclusion, new questions are emerging about how those standards are being applied, and in some cases, whether they’re being used in ways organizers never intended.

Earlier this week, Marathon Investigation’s Derek Murphy reported on the case of Peter Abraham Kwayu, a 24-year-old runner who appears to have qualified for Boston through the non-binary division, despite not meeting the male standard.

His story has since sparked debate over how the Boston Athletic Association (B.A.A.)’s relatively new non-binary standards can be interpreted, and potentially manipulated.

Murphy’s reporting found no evidence that Kwayu identifies as non-binary outside of this single race entry. In other competitions, both before and after, he has registered as male.

A Close Look at the Results

Kwayu’s racing history shows steady participation across several major marathons in recent years:

Chicago Marathon 2024 – 3:20:22
REVEL Mt. Charleston 2024 – 3:02:51
Chevron Houston Marathon 2023 – 3:41:43
The Woodlands Marathon 2022 – 3:34:29
New York City Marathon 2021 – 3:31:37

Those are solid performances, but they fall short of Boston’s male qualifying standard for the 18–34 age group, which sits at 2:55:00 for the 2026 race.

By contrast, the non-binary standard, currently set equal to the female qualifying mark of 3:25:00, is significantly more forgiving.

In Chicago 2024, Kwayu’s 3:20:22 would have been nearly half an hour too slow to qualify as a male, but it comfortably clears the non-binary threshold. That single check box on a race registration form appears to have made the difference between acceptance and rejection.

Murphy’s investigation suggests that after missing the men’s qualifying mark at Mt. Charleston earlier in the year, Kwayu ran Chicago under the non-binary category, likely with Boston entry in mind. In his next listed race, however, he returned to the male category, even though that event also offered a non-binary option.

How We Got Here

The Boston Marathon first introduced its non-binary division in 2023, joining several other major races in recognizing gender-diverse athletes. At the time, the B.A.A. acknowledged it lacked enough data to create an independent set of standards, so it temporarily adopted the female qualifying times as a placeholder.

In a 2022 statement, the B.A.A. said:

“With this being our first year, we do not yet have enough data to establish non-binary qualifying times. Therefore, we will use the women’s qualifying standard times listed here. As we prepare for future races, participants can expect non-binary times to be updated accordingly. We view this first year as an opportunity to learn and grow together.”

That language, “temporary” and “to be updated”, is key. The organization has maintained that the division is a work in progress, one that will evolve as more athletes compete under the category.

However, as Marathon Investigation’s report highlights, the interim system may be vulnerable to good-faith loopholes, scenarios where runners register in a category not as an expression of identity, but as a way to meet easier entry standards.

Integrity and Inclusion

It’s important to note that this discussion is not a critique of Boston’s effort to welcome non-binary runners. The decision to create the category was widely praised as a step forward in representation, particularly after non-binary athletes had been forced to choose between male or female divisions that didn’t align with their identities.

What this case reveals, instead, is the difficulty of balancing inclusivity with competitive fairness. Boston’s qualifying standards are sacred to many, a badge of legitimacy earned through months or years of effort. When those standards appear inconsistent across categories, it risks undermining the event’s credibility.

Murphy’s reporting underscores a growing need for clarity. As participation in the non-binary division increases, the B.A.A. will soon have enough data to establish time standards that reflect the actual performance range of non-binary entrants, rather than borrowing from an existing gender category.

That process may take several years, but cases like this one suggest the timeline should accelerate.

What Happens Next

For now, Kwayu’s entry is legitimate under the rules as written. There’s no suggestion of cheating or misrepresentation, only that Boston’s temporary standards created a situation where a runner could qualify through one category while failing in another.

In the long run, this may prove to be a useful test case. The B.A.A. has stated repeatedly that its standards will be reviewed and revised as participation grows. Many within the running community hope that process begins soon, before these edge cases become more common.

Boston’s inclusion of a non-binary division remains a milestone worth celebrating. But as Murphy’s report makes clear, progress in inclusivity doesn’t end with the checkbox, it also requires thoughtful rules that protect the race’s competitive integrity.