Is this allowed ?

Woman enters half marathon, misses turn, wins full marathon event

1 to 20 of 82 messages
cougie    pirate
27/09/2013 at 14:21
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/world-of-sport/half-marathon-runner-misses-turn-runs-full-marathon-174833121.html Surely you can't swap races mid way through ? If you start as a half marathoner you should finish as one ? And how dopey is she anyway ? Not noticing until after 20 miles ?
27/09/2013 at 14:32

Link (with more detail)

Apparently she missed the turn for the finish, decided to turn it into a 20 miler, but then realised she was in first lady position so carried on with permission to compete in the full distance.

I can see it both ways - a bit unfair to the women behind her, as she wasn't originally competing against them. But at the same time, she ran the distance and came in ahead of them. It's a bit murky in terms of fairness.

27/09/2013 at 14:32
Good time though, especially given she had to get the OK from the race organisers. Difficult to believe she didn't notice until 20 miles though!
27/09/2013 at 14:32

I'm more shocked that she was allowed to wear headphones.

27/09/2013 at 14:33
Cross post - that makes sense then.
27/09/2013 at 14:34

I don't think it is unfair to the second woman. If she'd finished before me and it didn't count I wouldn't really think I'd 'won'.

27/09/2013 at 14:48

Heh - running 7 miles over distance before you realised seems a little unlikely to me, but if she ran the distance, then fair enough.

It's certainly more allowable than that Brighton marathoner, who not only missed a turn, but missed an entire loop, before hopping a fence after a breather, carrying on and claiming a laughably unrealistic PB. I see she's been going really well since too... 

 

 

27/09/2013 at 14:48

She did notice before 20 miles - it just says that once she realised she'd missed the turn, she decided to go for at least twenty

27/09/2013 at 14:54

To be fair she asked before she completed it. It sounds like she'd have accepted it if she'd been told it didn't count.

Bit of a choker for the women behind her but they know they need to raise their game now 

seren nos    pirate
27/09/2013 at 14:56

I don't think she should have been allowed to take the win...........the person in second place wasn't racing her.....

 

27/09/2013 at 14:57

Tricky one. 

Reminds me of the UK Corporate Games in 2010 when the 5K and 10K were run simultaneously.  A talented colleague of mine was running the 10K and cruelly refused to let the lead 5K runner draw level (the 5K runner wanted to check the colour of his race number so he could find out if he was in the same race).  My colleague ended up winning the 10K very comfortably and reached the 5K split well ahead of all the 5K runners.  He was only awarded one prize though.

I say cruelly, but I was running about 30 seconds behind at that point and knew what he was doing.  I was p1ssing myself laughing!

Edited: 27/09/2013 at 14:58
27/09/2013 at 15:06

When you "race" you race the people in the race. the people you line up along the start and take stock of. The 2nd place woman would have had a tactical disadvantage not to have known the other woman was even in the race. I would think that the rules would be clear that you have to be officially entered into the race to win it. Seems obvious doesn't it?

cougie    pirate
27/09/2013 at 15:15
I'm with NLR on this. If its a race - you have to race the people you started with.
You can't decide mid race to change distances - even if the Race Director says you can. The other athletes aren't aware of it.

LOL Njord - nice tactics !
Edited: 27/09/2013 at 15:16
27/09/2013 at 17:33

As the organisers gave her permission to carry on I would have thought the gripe should be with them rather than her.

27/09/2013 at 17:52

I've always maintained that in a race of two different distances run over the same course or (in the case of the Chiltern League XC) two different divisions running in the same race, at least one of the groups of runners should have an identifying mark on their backs, even if only a small square of paper held by one safety pin.

kittenkat    pirate
27/09/2013 at 17:54

I think that if you are the fastest over the distance, then you win the race. End of.

kittenkat    pirate
27/09/2013 at 17:55

I haven't clicked on the link and read the story but that is my default viewpoint.

27/09/2013 at 18:01

So Kitten Kat thinks that not entering the race in the first place doesn't bar you from winning. Not end of.

27/09/2013 at 18:13

Some races are races & not PB efforts so you race those around you and you do enough to win.  So once the half mara lady shot off the leader of the mara would have let her go and concentrated on staying in front of the next lady back.  I would feel hard done by. 

Edited: 27/09/2013 at 18:15
kittenkat    pirate
27/09/2013 at 18:13
Sussex Runner NLR wrote (see)

So Kitten Kat thinks that not entering the race in the first place doesn't bar you from winning. Not end of.

Please just call me kk...

Yes if I had entered a longer race that started the same time as a shorter race and I wanted to drop down and do the shorter one, and won that. I've won.

This has happened to me, and the bit I don't get is how can someone win a race by being slower? Maybe I'm very simplistic in this but my take is that if you all start at the same time in the same place, the winner is whoever crosses the line first.

However I think the 'you didn't enter THAT race' is pandering to the general way events are held now. Before events got popular, you would just enter and get nothing if you finished and the top 3 would get a bottle of wine if they were lucky. Now everyone expects something for just finishing? What other sport even entertains that? Ok, you've competed in a football match, have a medal.

1 to 20 of 82 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