OBoile

Given that the 20th (30th, 40th, 100th?) place male was almost certainly faster than the 1st place women, how can you justify giving her $100 and him $0? There's no other profession where we give someone of lesser ability more simply because of their gender (or at least, there is no other profession where this is considered acceptable). We don't have a "women's only" lawyers "league" where they don't have to compete with male lawyers, or a women's only teachers group that doesn't have their performance rated against male teachers.

If you're okay with women getting paid just as much, despite being worse, are you okay with masters/junior riders getting paid less? That seems like a clear case of age discrimination to me. What about the Clydesdale category, is that weight discrimination?

The fact is, with few exceptions, any time you put some sort of qualifier on a race, whether it's "female only", or ">40 only", or "kids only" people aren't as excited about it. They know they aren't seeing the best of the best (much like minor league baseball doesn't make as much as the big leagues despite the fact that 90% of people watching wouldn't be able to tell the difference). As such, it won't generate as much money and it won't be able to support as large a prize pool.