Hull Marathon, 1st Female!!

Confusion about the route or cheating?

1 to 20 of 230 messages
08/04/2012 at 20:18
I was watching the Hull Marathon from Victoria Dock and I can say with absolute certainty that the lady from Barnsley Harriers was the first female to complete that course. She is listed in second place in the official results. Get real guys, she ran the whole course! The Victoria Dock route was a single pathway out and back with relatively few marshalls. If you are going to cheat, do it when you are miles behind the leaders, don't take the glory away from the people who really deserve it.
08/04/2012 at 21:27
The woman who supposedly "won" should do the decent thing and admit she didn't run the full course. You only have to read all the stories on Facebook to know who the true winner was. It may not have been intentional and I'm sure it must be devastating to discover that you have gone wrong but taking a win away from someone else is absolutely unforgiveable.
08/04/2012 at 21:32
And even more unforgiveable is the fact that the course may not have been laid out as per the UKA Certificate of Course Accuracy, so no-one will have completed the marathon.  1,400 refunds will make a hole in their profits...
08/04/2012 at 21:37

The real winner was my club mate. I supplied her gels around the course so saw how the race developed.

The supposed winner was overtaken at 8 miles and by 19 miles was falling quite some way behind. She then miraculously appeared at the finish 12 minutes quicker before the real winner without doing any overtaking and recorded approximate splits of 1:35/1:21. We all know that didnt happen.

There was nothing intentional about it I'm sure. When I spoke to her at the end she just seemed bemused by it all.

08/04/2012 at 21:37

The original poster mentioned `relatively few marshals'.  This was the case throughout the race, including dangerous road junctions.  We had been promised that all roads would be traffic free which was not the case.  The police we spoke to had no idea what was happening, neither did local residents.

I finished 4th in the race and there were 3 points where I would have gone wrong had I not reccied the course beforehand and known the city well.

08/04/2012 at 21:53

I'm upset because I know I won and this marathon has just turned into a fiasco!

08/04/2012 at 22:02

This joint winner thing cant be allowed to stand.

At the moment the rankings quite rightly show you as the V45 UK No.1 Hilly BUT they also show the 'supposed' winner as the Overall UK No.3.

The Race Referee, being fully aware of what happened, isn't going to let that stand.

Edited: 08/04/2012 at 22:03
08/04/2012 at 22:11
I wonder if the Race Referee will let anyone's times stand if the course was not run as per the UKA certificate??
08/04/2012 at 22:16
If the rankings aren't sorted out then it makes a complete mockery of Power of Ten. You only have to look at the race record of the "winner" to be able to see that running a 2.56 marathon is highly improbable. Not to mention all the other evidence that she didn't run the full distance.
The issue of the inaccurate distance is unbelievable too, the same thing happened at the Brihton Half this year where the course was long due to a mistake on the out and back section.
If these big city race organisers are going to charge the huge entry fes that they seem to be able to justify they have the absolute responsibility to ensure that the course is accurate, safe, well marshalled and signed and to make sure that these issues don't arise.
08/04/2012 at 22:19

Well I know one chap didnt run the correct course because he ran through the ice rink car park (a short route) while a marshall shrugged his shoulders.

As for not setting the course out correctly that would be worrying because it wont be a situation like Brighton (which was long) it will be a case of all result being marked as 'SHORT' but even then only if it gets re-measured. Invalidating ranking performances is going to create a lot of anger.......

08/04/2012 at 22:54
Lin - I asked loads of questions about course accuracy and safety on facebook in the months leading up to the event.  I was repeatedly given the answers I wanted to hear.  However on the day much of this did not transpire.  I am usually very wary of entering non club organised events, but was swayed by the pull of running a marathon in my home city.  However I feel very let down at the moment.
09/04/2012 at 00:09
Barnsley Runner - I don't blame you and Hilly for feeling bad about the situation today. You've both run hard and done well after months of training, and had it spoiled.

Hard to understand how somebody who must be a half decent runner could suddenly run a marathon at half a minute a mile faster than her half-marathon pace, and do a 10 minute negative split without realising that something was wrong. Next year, I predict they will add some timing mats at the turnaround of the out and back sections. Shutting the stable door...

If, and I really hope this doesn't turn out to be the case, but if the course turns out to have been short, There will be a lot of people quite rightly p.o'd. I very much doubt they'll do the right thing and offer money back, but at the very least they should offer a free place in next year's race. Although most people wouldn't take them up on it since it is for charity. Not that the fact that it is for charity gives them any excuse for the c**k-up.

Looking at the course description before this happened, it did look like there were a lot of places where things could go wrong. I wonder if they made too much of an effort to make the course interesting and scenic, and ended up with it too complex and tricky to safely and accurately mark out and marshall.
09/04/2012 at 06:42

Thanks Juggler.  At the minute the short course is only a suspicion, not proven.

Ironically, as first man outside the top 3 and therefore getting the first V40 prize, I believe this will be a free entry to next years event!  I think I was better off with the large vegetables we won at the Maiden Newton 10k.

The race was not for charity - many people did run for charity but it was organised by a company for profit.  Apparently the company usually organises triathlons, and we know how approximate those measurements can be.

09/04/2012 at 07:22
The result says more about the character or lack of, of the winner than anything else. She may not have intentionally gone off course but was well aware at the finish that she must have done. Some people's moral compass is set at a position of 'take advantage' and; if she had the front to take the prize for first place, this is her's. Parkrunfan tested the point by making her aware of the situation which she choose to ignore. Her attitude along the lines of 'I did nothing wrong on purpose, not my fault, not my problem', may seem fair to her but has wider implications. She was made aware of the 'error' before the result was finalised and choose to 'take advantage' of that error at someone else's expense. She wasn't a cheat but became one.
09/04/2012 at 07:35
She also chose to be interviewed on local radio and graciously offered to `share' first prize with the Hilly, suggesting that Hilly must have gone wrong and run long...
09/04/2012 at 07:46
Blimey - what a mess! Really hope that things are sorted/clarified soon and that the course turns out to be the right length. Women's race sounds a bit of a farce - if she genuinely did 1.35/1.21 surely she's questioning that? By the sounds of things her second half was faster than her HM pb? Unless she's been flying in training?? Hope she ran with a Garmin and is prepared to make her route data public, or that she took splits on her watch.

According to Po10, HM pb (from last year's GNR) of just outside 92 mins. On reflection, in addition to route data and splits, I think she should share her training - this girl clearly knows how to crack the sub-3 which has eluded me thus far!

I can see that having got herself into the position she has, it's hard to turn around and 'fess up, but ultimately people will respect her a lot more if she does. I bet Kielder Guy wishes he'd done that now!
Edited: 09/04/2012 at 07:54
09/04/2012 at 07:53

She didnt run with a Garmin.

I think she thought I was one of the race officials when I was asking her a few factual questions at the end but she told me that she didnt wear a Garmin and there was nothing on her wrist.

She was confused by the situation she found herself in, which would be understandable if she didnt know the halfway time and had no reference points as to how she was going.

I think the situation grew because of pressure she came under from 'others' not to back down. 'Others' being people who had no knowledge of anything that had happened I might add. 

09/04/2012 at 08:00
She seemed very naive.  Sort of `I ran what I was told to run and crossed the line first'.
09/04/2012 at 08:22

Interestingly, she was actually wearing a watch, not a Garmin by the looks of it but a watch...which means that she will be aware of the halfway split and therefore will know deep down that she didnt run the second half in 1:21.

It really is now time for her to graciously accept what happened   and let the organisers do whatever they can to make it up to her for the organisational failures.

09/04/2012 at 08:44
I can't imagine she's feeling very proud of herself this morning. Let's hope she does have some conscience and that it's giving her trouble.......

Were there official photographers on the course? Be interesting to see the order of their pictures. We used the photographers to prove that 2 of the first 5 "women" were in fact men running with swapped numbers at Brighton Half.

1 to 20 of 230 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW Forums