JB to be honest I think london marathon is already most of the way there. it's an event mopre than a race and has been for years.
I dont' have a problem with that and I enter the ballot knowiong that I will be taking part in what is almost firstly an event and atmosphere second to none of it's kind, but also a challenge to complete the distance.
charities have cashed in on this and I do think it's wrong, but while people are happy to raise the amounts requested for golden bond places this will never change. as has been said there are many other marathons that are true races for those who dont' want to be caught up in an event.
Having said that, I dont' expect to train to complete the distance in a reasonable time only to be hampered by 50 people chained together. I dont' have a problem with the event or what it has evolved into. if people didn't want to take part in it for what it is they would vote with their wallet. the fact that it can gtake 5 years to get into this event proves otherwise. I just have a problem with the desire to break a world record overtaking commonsense and consideration of others.
I am extremely impressed at the ability of the couple here who have managed to visit the URL in my nick, follow that to my fundraising page, and attempt to use the lighthearted nonsense I've written there as the basis of some kind of garbled argument against what I've said above. To then go from there to my charity's homepage and take a pop at them because their primary interest is raising money in order to save lives (SHUDDER GASP) is utterly beyond the pale.
But, in order to be affected by the spurious mumblings of such people, I would first need to respect both them and the quality of their argument, which is sadly lacking in the extreme.
The existance of the 'other' thread that demeans the value of running for charity is sufficient evidence to make my comments above stand, given it's the same people treating us to their considered opinion on the matter.
As far as I'm concerned, 50 people running double file would merely be an interesting spectacle for both me and the spectators at the event. Should the London Marathon organisers, who incidentally are far more qualified than anyone here, decide that such a setup compromises safety, they won't be allowed to proceed. If you disagree, host your own marathon and run it how you like, otherwise do try to stop whining like spoilt children.
I'm not inclined to waste any more time on this argument as it would require a greater amount of effort than I'm willing to dedicate to such petulent children, but suffice to say the follow-up comments to my post only reinforce what I've said. 'Fighting back against charities' indeed.
You are right, good causes do get in the way of Serious Running. It must be terrible for those of you who evidently have so little else going on in life that even the notion of people running behind you in various forms of fancy dress is such a source of angst and anger. You must all be proud of such a righteous stance against corporate tyranny. Clap clap.
I think you're probably right, shaggyt.
It did seem similar to the rant the other day from the guy who 'knew' the centipede members, only slightly more colourful in the creativeness of the language this time.
The bottom line is that people who are involved in it are aghast that anyone dare say anything that doesnt support them despite all objections being made logically and stated in calm rational language.
In return, at least 3 of them have responded with what amount to 'How Dare You' type posts but in pretty abusive and highly charged language.
Johnny Blaze wrote (see)
What a load of old cobblers.
Can someone summarise it for me, I got a headache after the first paragraph......
parkrunfan wrote (see)
Johnny Blaze wrote (see)What a load of old cobblers.+1Can someone summarise it for me, I got a headache after the first paragraph......
There was me thinking that he would be writing the 'lighthearted nonsense' on the web forum and putting the serious stuff on the page he's using to raise sponsorship for his chosen charity. Ho hum.
Still, in raising money for the Anthony Nolan Trust (there, I've mentioned the charity, a very worthwhile cause, which is more than he managed to do on his fundraising page), attempting to be the quickest to run 26.2 miles with your head stuck up your own arse is a fine thing to do.
Ah hilarious, and I'll just tidy up the fragments of blundering misapprehension before I quit this thread for more meaningful and intelligent discourse.
1) I'm not a part of the centipede, which should have been blindingly obvious from what I've said thus far.
2) I'm not running on a gold bond place; I'm a ballot runner. Oh ho, how silly of you to assume otherwise.
The thought that cheers me the most is that the motivated few who have been waxing most highly on this subject are a tiny proportion that are in no way representative of the spirit of the event. It would be a truly grim endeavour were that the case.
Do try to save some of that energy for the actual event though eh?
I'm one of those people to whom you refer. I ran a race a while ago, on a GB place, for my charidee. In all the stuff that I received from them, first and foremost was running advice, second, fundraising request. They're a small, local charity and only have 3 people running for them this year in the VLM. I am contrasting my experience against yours.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to voice it on here. It's a shame that you feel a rant is the only reply to people who disagree with you.
It's also a shame that you're missing the points raised re the charidee control of big events.
And you'll find that we do run our own races - as I've said before, small, club-organised where the streets are not lined with spectators - it's just you and a bunch of other runners.
I give money, every year, to my charidee in a very simple process. I take my cheque book, scribble some rudimentary shapes and figures on it, then send it to the charidee. Doesn't involve running, fancy dress or anything else.
Then I put on my trainers and train and run.
They get the money, I get to enjoy myself.
BTW, it's "petulant".
PS - had to dip off while posting this, so x-post with JB.
+1 from me too.
BTW + 2 it's "existence".
But I like the pieces to camera on the Youtube channel. Very nice and not at all self-regarding.
Just go and read the rest of the thread pete, and come back when you've understood it. I won't hold my breath.
I had noticed that JB, but thought that I'd be accused of picking on him and being unfriendly to newbies and charidee runners, so I tossed a coin.
It landed on tails - hence petulant. Had it been heads, it would have been existence.
I would just like to say that the discussion has given me many hours of amusement
The bastards wont let me run unless I prostitutte my elf for charidee, I have have tried 4 times now
But I have run 4 other marathons in that time all have been great but I would like to run it as it is a fast course and the nearest marathon to my house.
I remember watching the first London Marthon and two guys finished together after battling it out.
Now its just an event to tick of your" to do list"
oh and by the way I will be there again at Mud Cute supporting people who have put a bit of effort into it
I have nothing against charity runner but....it has lessened the race in my view
PeteDaddy - I hope the money you raise for charity is not used as part of Cameron's `Big Society' to throw public sector workers out of work to have them replaced by charity workers. I am raising money this year but am very mindful that it is for a specific purpose at my workplace, and is an added extra for people, not instead of someone's livelihood.
And having done Paris Marathon, the crowd support was just as voceiferous as VLM and the atmosphere just as good, even without the attention seeking fancy dressers and `I want to break a world record, look at me me me' entrants.
In local fell races, you have to carry certain kit due to H+S issues. Perhaps all VLM runners ought to be made to wear appropriate clothing for the event - ie singlet and running shorts.
petedaddy - www.peteruns.com wrote (see)
Ah hilarious, and I'll just tidy up the fragments of blundering misapprehension before I quit this thread for more meaningful and intelligent discourse. 1) I'm not a part of the centipede, which should have been blindingly obvious from what I've said thus far. 2) I'm not running on a gold bond place; I'm a ballot runner. Oh ho, how silly of you to assume otherwise.The thought that cheers me the most is that the motivated few who have been waxing most highly on this subject are a tiny proportion that are in no way representative of the spirit of the event. It would be a truly grim endeavour were that the case. Do try to save some of that energy for the actual event though eh?
Do try to save some of that energy for the actual event though eh?
I think you'll find that there is a strong feeling about the 'spirit of the event' which involves encouraging and inspiring people into the sport of running and then providing an arena for them to excel and achieve to the best of their ability in a great atmosphere, thus raising the standard of UK road running in general.
None of this requires the involvement of fancy dress, charities or even crowds if the truth be known. The crowds are great but if 37,000 people cant 'create an atmosphere' then it would be a poor show.
The level of arrogance in your posts. petedaddy, suggests that you feel you have the right to tell all those thousands of runners who 'made the event what it is' (No, not the fancy dress runners) and supported it throughout the years how things should be.
Your posts have all the hallmarks of one of those despotic North African dictators....and you know how popular they are!
Goldbeetle - You're right. The real event could be anywhere. If the British championships were attached to the Abingdon marathon and the course could cope with the numbers, for instance, then there would 50,000+ runners happily heading there each April to have a great time.
The attention seeking fancy dressers could have their day in the spotlight to themselves in London......the only problem being that the spotlight would have been turned off.
And it would be interesting to see how many of the 'get someone else to buy me a way in' charity place people would still be so keen to raise money for charity if places were plentiful and and they could have as many as they wanted.
And the crowds would be interesting once you've stripped out the relatives and supporters of the 50,000 who are in Abingdon and who move around the course on race day supporting their runners.
And dont rely on the drink stations - the hundreds of people provided by local running clubs to man the stations would be off in Abingdon.
So what is it that 'makes the event what it is' exactly.....I think some people may be quite surprised.
I think the real acid test is who would still be there if there was no TV and no crowds? You would still need a ballot thats for sure because you would still have 150,000-200,000 regular runners wanting to take part but what you wouldnt have is the attention seekers and tick list merchants.
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |