Former Terrain Members & Volunteers in St. Louis - Why They Left
STL trail runners: Terrain Trail Runners, ācancel culture,ā and the conversation Shalini Bhajjan doesnāt seem willing to have
Terrain Trail Runners founder Shalini Bhajjan recently published an article called The High Cost of Cancel Culture in Running.
The article argues that running communities can turn disagreements, rumors, screenshots, and misunderstandings into ostracism, boycotts, factions, and reputational damage, particularly toward race directors and community leaders.
That can happen.
But I think the article avoids the much more relevant question in this particular situation:
What happens when the community isn't rejecting Terrain? What happens when people are rejecting Shalini because of their own experiences with her?
That distinction matters.
Over the years, a noticeable number of people who were once deeply involved with Terrain are no longer involved.
These aren't random internet critics.
They are people who ran with Terrain, volunteered, supported races, paid to attend events, promoted the organization, helped build the community, and in some cases appeared to have close personal relationships with Shalini.
People leave running groups all the time for innocent reasons. Families change. People move. Interests change. Injuries happen. People discover another group.
But when the departures keep happening over a period of years, and when the common denominator is the same person, eventually it's reasonable to stop asking what is wrong with everyone leaving and start asking what role the leader herself is playing.
That person is Shalini Bhajjan.
And that's the conversation I don't think this article seriously confronts.
The article repeatedly asks the running community to extend curiosity, grace, communication, and self-reflection toward leaders.
But what happens when the leader isn't extending those same things back?
There appears to be a longstanding pattern of people who question Shalini, disagree with her, fall out with her, or leave Terrain subsequently being removed or blocked from Terrain's Facebook community and events.
That matters in the context of an article supposedly advocating dialogue.
Because this week the same thing appears to have happened again.
People respectfully challenged the premise of the article.
They weren't calling for Terrain to shut down.
They weren't telling people not to attend races.
They weren't launching some coordinated boycott.
They were asking a very simple question:
Could the reason so many people have walked away from Terrain actually have something to do with Shalini?
Shalini responded by acknowledging that leaders need accountability and self-reflection.
She agreed that patterns of longtime volunteers and supporters leaving matter.
She agreed that leaders should ask themselves, "What am I not seeing?"
But then the discussion itself became restricted.
Comments were closed.
Discussion on Facebook was restricted.
The blog comments were later reopened under approval/moderation.
Some substantive comments that had appeared earlier were no longer publicly visible.
And this is exactly the contradiction people are talking about.
You cannot write an article asking people to communicate directly with you and then control or eliminate the places where people are allowed to disagree with you.
You can't ask people to stop talking privately and come talk to you while simultaneously blocking many of the people who might have something uncomfortable to say.
And you can't ask everyone else to engage in self-reflection without eventually turning the mirror around.
That is why I don't think the real story here is Terrain Trail Runners versus the St. Louis running community.
I think the issue is Shalini's relationship with the community around her.
Look at the broader St. Louis running scene.
Different clubs overlap.
People run with multiple groups.
Race directors support one another.
Runners volunteer at events organized by other clubs.
People promote each other's races.
Friendships and running relationships regularly cross organizational lines.
There are disagreements, obviously, but the broader ecosystem generally manages to coexist.
Terrain increasingly seems to sit apart from that ecosystem.
And if the same organization repeatedly experiences broken relationships with former members, volunteers, runners, podcast hosts, other groups, and people who were once vocal supporters while those people continue interacting normally with the rest of the running community, it is fair to ask whether Terrain is being isolated by everyone else or whether Shalini has isolated herself.
That's the question I think this article is trying very hard not to ask.
So rather than have the entire discussion take place in spaces Shalini controls, I'd like to hear from the people who were actually involved.
Former Terrain members, volunteers, race participants, running partners, and people who worked directly with Shalini: why did you leave?
Did life simply move you somewhere else?
Did another running group become a better fit?
Or did something happen involving Shalini that caused you to decide you no longer wanted to participate?
Were you ever removed or blocked after disagreeing with her?
Did you attempt to resolve the issue directly?
If so, what happened?
And this shouldn't only be negative.
If you've had a consistently positive relationship with Shalini and Terrain, share that too.
Nobody should manufacture a consensus that doesn't exist.
But there also needs to be somewhere former members can describe their experiences without the person being discussed deciding whether their comment gets published.
Please stick to firsthand experiences and things you can substantiate. Don't post rumors about something somebody's friend's running partner supposedly heard.
Sean Blanton also commented on Shalini's article describing himself as a two-time victim of cancel culture and referencing a lawsuit involving false statements about him.
There are people in the trail and ultra community who have their own experiences and opinions involving Sean. If that becomes part of this conversation, the same standard should apply: firsthand experiences and verifiable information.
Because there is a giant difference between cancel culture and consequences.
Cancel culture is trying to destroy someone because they hold an unpopular opinion or because of an unverified accusation.
Consequences can be much simpler.
People stop attending your races.
They stop volunteering.
They stop joining your group runs.
They stop promoting your events.
They stop recommending you.
They stop giving you their money.
They stop being your friend.
Nobody has to coordinate that.
Nobody has to cancel anyone.
Sometimes enough individuals independently reach the same conclusion.
And when that happens repeatedly over many years, a leader has a responsibility to ask why.
Shalini's article asks the St. Louis running community to examine itself.
Fair enough.
But I think it's long past time for Shalini Bhajjan to genuinely examine her own role in why so many people who once supported Terrain are no longer there.
That's not cancel culture.
That's accountability.