Paris Marathon’s cup ban is a step too far

The decision by the Paris Marathon organisers to remove both cups and bottles from their aid stations is being presented as a bold step forward, but from a performance perspective, it looks much more like a serious misjudgement that risks undermining one of the most fundamental elements of the race itself. This is not a minor operational tweak, but a change that directly affects how runners hydrate while operating at their limits, which is precisely where reliability and simplicity matter most.

For anyone chasing sub-3, the problem is obvious. Marathon pacing at that level leaves very little margin for disruption and depends on predictable, low-friction systems. The existing approach may not be elegant, but it works because it is simple - grab a cup, drink on the move, and discard it. Replacing that with a requirement to carry a personal container, position yourself for a refill, and trust that it will function smoothly in a crowded field introduces unnecessary complexity at exactly the wrong moment.

Organisers point to high-flow refill systems and more frequent aid stations, but that assumes a level of efficiency that rarely holds in real race conditions. Runners will bunch, hesitate, and fumble, and even small interruptions are enough to break rhythm and cost time. At this level, those seconds matter, because the difference between a successful sub-3 and a near miss often comes down to marginal losses across moments exactly like these.

This has been recognised, to an extent, by the Paris Marathon’s organisers, who allow runners targeting sub-2:50 to place bottles on elite tables. But those tables, aside from being a faff to arrange, are not without issues. Locating your bottle at speed is not straightforward, and if it is taken by mistake you are left exposed, while there are also moments when you simply want water to throw over your head rather than drink.

The numbers underline the scale of the problem. In the 2026 race, 844 runners broke 2:50, while 2,395 went sub-3, meaning well over 1,500 sub-3 runners were outside the elite bottle system and reliant on general hydration points. Add to that the 320 runners who missed sub-3 by less than two minutes, and the margins become uncomfortably clear. How many of those performances might have tipped the other way without delays at refill stations?

There is also a recent precedent that should give organisers pause. At the Berlin Marathon last year, reusable cups were used with similar logic, but a number of runners - myself included - reported that they carried a taste of washing-up liquid, while the ground around aid stations became slippery, creating a genuine risk late in the race when coordination is already deteriorating.

As a sub-2:40 runner, I do not trust water stations entirely myself, and I run with two 250ml soft flasks in my belt, which I am well practised at carrying, but that is nowhere near enough. Even with that preparation, I would still be relying heavily on aid stations functioning smoothly, which is exactly what this change puts at risk.

No one is arguing for unnecessary waste, and it is entirely reasonable for organisers to keep it to a minimum, but that should not come at the expense of the race itself. Efforts to reduce waste should sit around the event rather than interfere with its core mechanics, because once you alter something as fundamental as hydration you are changing the nature of the challenge.

What makes this particularly misguided is that it shifts the burden of the organisers’ environmental ambition directly onto the runner. “Nothing new on race day” is one of the oldest rules in endurance sport, yet runners are now being asked to manage a new and unproven hydration system when certainty matters most. Months, if not years, of preparation risk ending in disappointment in service of the organisers’ desire to showcase their eco-credentials.

Feedback online has been overwhelmingly negative, and much of it points to the same issue - disrupted rhythm and delays at refill points. Runners describe losing time, struggling to get going again after stopping, and in some cases skipping stations altogether, which in warmer conditions could quickly become dangerous.

Marathon organisers have a clear primary responsibility, which is to create conditions in which runners can perform to the best of their ability, and that means protecting the elements that matter most. Hydration sits pretty much at the top of that list.

If this is intended as an experiment, then it should be treated as one, with a willingness to reverse course if the impact on runners proves negative. There are plenty of ways to reduce waste without interfering with how runners hydrate during the race itself, and those are the approaches that should be prioritised.

For runners chasing sub-3, there is no margin for disruption on race day, where even small delays can cost precious seconds. If the choice is between reducing waste and preserving performance, the priority should be clear, and it is not the one Paris appears to have chosen.