There are one or two things about this story which irritate me. Firstly, the organisers are quoted in several papers, basically branding people who complained about a lack of water as liars, and insisting that there was no such shortage on the day. Despite this, they yesterday backpedalled and came out with this allegation of theft. If this did occur, how did it take until yesterday for this to be realised, and for the organisers to change their minds and admit that all those thousands of people complaining that their races had been ruined by a lack of water supply weren't actually lying?
As pointed out already, the extra half a bottle per runner had this theft not taken place would probably not have made the blindest bit of difference anyway. This still wouldn't have been enough. The organisers have not offered any explanation for the reports that the first water station was dry by the time about half the runners had passed through.
Finally, the race director in his statement claims that 10,000 bottles were left at the end of the race. What does this show? It is all very well to demonstrate that you had lots of surplus water, but all this does is demonstrate that there was a massive failure to ensure that it was made available at the places where runners needed it. It's not much use if people can't actually get to it to drink it!!
In essence, the organisers should not be allowed to use this alleged theft to deflect questions about serious failures to comply with UK athletics regulations on the provision of water in marathons. The theft at best offers only a partial explanation, and I think we need to keep up the pressure on the organisers to explain themselves.
I took up running as a means of keeping fit about 15 months ago, having never run on a road before. I entered a half marathon to give me some focus and finished in 1:37. I have been hooked on running since and have just completed the London marathon in 3:04:11.
My mileage only averaged 35 per week because, with my limited running experience, I seem to become stale very easily if i overstep this too much. I am going to concentrate on shorter distances for a year or so and aim to do Berlin next year in the fastest time i can possible manage. I'm hoping to get down to 2:45-2:50. Does anyone have any tips on how best to structure my training over the next 12 months to build up speed and volume ready to really step up my training for Berlin.
One of the main reasons I taper for 3 weeks is simply that peak mileage is where you are at highest risk of picking up an injury or an upper respiratory tract infection. If you pick one up with 3 weeks to go, you'll probably get over it in time but if you keep piling on the miles until a week or two before and then get ill, all that training could be for nothing. I guess I just feel that I stand to lose more by pressing right up to the end than it could possibly benefit me to run those extra few miles.
What has struck me through looking at all the marathon schedules available is that there is such variation between the opinions of experts that it seems as if sports scientists actually know very little about what does and doesn't work, so i guess it's best to just go with what feels best.
ps. cheers for the link trinity, some helpful stuff there
3 weeks is the standard taper for a marathon. Generally, you'd cut back to 75% for a week then 50% for a week then 25% (not including the race for the final week).
I've heard that a 1% loss in body weight can improve running speed by about 1% which would be about 2 minutes for a marathon. Does anyone know if this is true (and any references to back it up) or is this just another one of the many unsubstantiated running myths.