Great read: Outstanding commentary on the Chicago Marathon in today's Tribune

And if it's a hot day, like it has never been hot before and safety nets are known to melt in the heat, are you going to jump then? It's not like you need to. If you still jump and you see the safety nets melting are you going to throw away your emergency parachute and fall anyway?

The article is criticizing people who turned off their brains, didn't bother to think for themselves, ran anyway, STILL kept going even after there were obviously problems and THEN complain all about.

The race organizers TOLD US it might not be okay.

I don't know about you all, but I got a very detailed e-mail on October 4 saying the weather was going to be nasty. The e-mail also had detailed notes on how to prepare.

It was all great advice, although it did stop short of telling people to stay home.

I don't recall now, but I bet organizers reiterated their advice at the Expo and at the starting line.

Unless we're all willing to pay $300 to run marathons from here on out, personal responsibility - both to prepare to race and prepare for contingencies - has to factor in.

according to weather.com for zip 60610 it has never been 8 degrees in chicago in october. oct record low is actually 24. the first day with a record low of 8 or lower is nov. 13th. low was 7. only four days in oct have never reached 80, however. and a few have reached 90.

NO Way wrote:

Bottom line:

...

5. There is ... and a good case for gross negligence.

Your comment represents a good case of gross idiocy. "Gross negligence"? Do you even know what that means? That's leaving your loaded shotgun on a table of plastic look-like-real shotguns at a kids' birthday party. Warning everyone that it will be extremely hot, stocking up on hundreds of thousands of extra servings of fluids, recruiting almost 2 dozen extra ambulances, calling the race off after a bit over 3 hours - these are measures that indicate the opposite of gross negligence on the part of the organizers.

The columnist is right. If you are going to run a marathon, you need to take responsibility for your safety. Either dont run (my preferred option - I went to a nearby local marathon and ran in 50 degree weather), or arrange for people you know to be nearby at all times to help you if things start to go south. In Boston '04 (ran it) people in the back of the field also noted that fluids were scarce at some of the aid stations. But because the runners in the field are generally better trained and more seasoned than the Chicago field, the drop-out rate was remarkably low and very few people ended up in hospital.

The Chicago organizers aren't to blame if people are oblivious to warnings of danger. Blame Galloway before you blame Pinkowski. The marathon is hard in good conditions. If you have 25 percent body fat and its 88 degrees, what on earth makes you think you can safely run a marathon?

I didn't say it was easy to support a 45000 person race. I just said that if they can't do it, they shouldn't put on a race that large. I'm not asking them to snap their fingers for more water, I'm asking them to provide enough water for the people that they have accepted into the race. They decided they could up the entries to 45k this year, and they gladly took the money from all those people. If that's not enough to support the race, raise the entry fee, or limit the number of people in the race. Same thing if they can't find enough volunteers.

As a follow up to my comment the other day on how quickly Chicago weather can change in October, here's tonight's forecast from Tommy Skillethead:

Tonight... Partly cloudy. Lows in the mid 40s. Northwest winds 10 to 20 mph.

And apparently it's just as easy for the organizers to snap their fingers and say "more runners? another $110.00! No problem!"

Look. They f'd up. Not enough water for all the runners.

The newpaper writer says it is a "professional" event. Apparently not.

logical conclusion wrote:

And if it's a hot day, like it has never been hot before and safety nets are known to melt in the heat, are you going to jump then? It's not like you need to. If you still jump and you see the safety nets melting are you going to throw away your emergency parachute and fall anyway?

The article is criticizing people who turned off their brains, didn't bother to think for themselves, ran anyway, STILL kept going even after there were obviously problems and THEN complain all about.

First, of those 35,000 who started, how many do you think really know that safety nets are known to melt in the heat? I'd figure of the 10,000 that didn't show, maybe 7,000 or so were from natural attrition. The remaining 3,000 were probably on the smarter side. The ones who ran but weren't prepared for this type of heat probably also didn't have enough experience to know that safety nets are known to melt in the heat.

As far as throwing away their emergency chutes, many should have dropped out before they did. Not arguing with you on this one. You are right.

I understand what the article is criticizing but the writer is foolish because he's basically saying, "Hey, you stupid people are stupid." Of course they are. That's why it was especially important to have enough extra water out on the course if the race organizers were going to let the stupid people even start the race. (Not saying that they should have canceled the race. Just that they needed to have more water.)

NO Way wrote:

Bottom line:

When you pay to run a marathon and are promised fluids, there are several issues:

1. You can reasonably expect to be provided with enough fluids.

2. You can especially reasonably expect enough fluids when the marathon is run on an expected hot day.

3. You have formed a contract promising fluids.

4. It is the race's responsibility to fully provide the promised items.

5. There is at least a breach of contract here on the part of the marathon and a good case for gross negligence.

They provided fluids by all reports. In fact they provided 205,000 EXTRA servings of fluid, so I fail to see the breach and I really cannot see "gross neglligence". Perhaps you should go back to your tort law class and study gross negligence before making such a statement.

I'm afraid that I have to agree with Marathonmind. The race directors screwed up. The only reason they had to cancel the event is because they ran out of water. Had they adequately prepared (e.g., 500,000 extra servings of water) they could have kept the race open. There are plenty of locales that have 80 degree marathons and they never cancel.Now the question is, does their negligence rise to the level of "gross" - probably not. People sign up for marathons so that they can experience pain and suffering not avoid it. The gray area here is that by inviting 45,000 runners to run in your race you are inviting all sorts of people who are ill-equipped to handle pain and suffering. So if you are inviting out of shape, recreational joggers (which I presume make up the vast majority of the 45k) you are held to a higher standard to provide for them than say, Hawaii Ironman or even Boston.

MarathonMind wrote:

And apparently it's just as easy for the organizers to snap their fingers and say "more runners? another $110.00! No problem!"

Look. They f'd up. Not enough water for all the runners.

The newpaper writer says it is a "professional" event. Apparently not.

You fail to see the breach when TENS OF THOUSANDS OF RUNNERS claim there were no fluids????

The entry form says there will be fluids provided. Any runner paying a $100 entry fee can reasonably expect enough fluids to go around. To think otherwise is pure stupidity. If there is no breach, then what did the $100 go toward? A medal? It goes for lots of things, INCLUDING FLUIDS THAT WEREN\'T PROVIDED.

It is extreme negligence to hold a marathon on a day THAT THE ORGANIZERS KNEW was going to be unreasonably hot. They had plenty of knowledge and plenty of time to plan accordingly, which is their responsibility. They promised the fluids. They know a runner is relying on those fluids. To not provide them on a day when the temps are known to result in death if no fluids are provided is extreme negligence.

If you\'re in law school or thinking of going, go find something else to do. Like bagging groceries.

If you\'re already an attorney, go sue your law school for breach of contract because you sure as hell didn\'t get a legal education.

Jefe, it\'s one thing to provide fluid and people collapse because they didn\'t take enough. It\'s completely another thing to run out on a 90 degree day and having people collapsing all over the place because of it.

That's twice now you have demonstrated a breathtaking ignorance of the law. The amusing part is watching you try to lecture someone else on the topic while you bumble around with words terms like "breach of contract" and "gross negligence" without understanding what they mean.

Better quit while you're behind.

It was a great race... very demanding and not for everyone. That's for sure.

One thing the organizers screwed up is not moving up the start time to 6:00 AM. A huge notice and individual ones in each packet at the EXPO.

I think moving it TWO hours could have prevented most of what happened in Sunday.

Personally, that's the ONLY area the organizers messed up. Having prior knowledge of the heat (about 6 days ahead), they had enough time to rearrange the event without creating too much inconvience on participants.

All we'd do is get up a tad earlier. It's not like we can all sleep soundly night before race day anyway.

Watch youngster.....Don't start telling me I did not get a legal education. I have argued in far more important settings than the letsrun.com message board.

There are reports that some runners did not receive enough fluids, but media reports have shown the organizers provided what they believe was a "reasonable" amount of fluids. Organizers also provided misting stations and other means of cooling runners, so steps were taken to provide relief for participants.

Now let's define "gross negligence". It is defined as "The intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting the life or property of another". Put another way, it is a voluntary and knowing act which is likely to result in grave injury. It amounts to indifference to a legal duty and utter forgetfulnes or legal obligations.

You are focused on the organizers not providing fluids. But you are wrong, they did provide fluids. As I said in my earlier post - 205,000 EXTRA servings of fluids which with 35,000 starters is almost 6 extra servings per runner. I fail to see how that is gross negligence. I do not see where "tens of thousands" of runners claimed there were no fluids. Hundreds? OK. Tens of thousands? Nope.

The weather was warm, people were warned to prepare accordingly. Just because a few didn't does not mean the organizers were negligent.

I'll tell you what - go file suit and see how far you make it past the waiver all the runners signed.

MarathonMind wrote:

Look. They f'd up. Not enough water for all the runners.

The newpaper writer says it is a "professional" event. Apparently not.

Again with the lack of comprehension? Yes it's a tragedy there wasn't enough water for those who wanted it, but can you provide any cite as to where it is mandated that for a race in X degrees with Y humidity race organizers must provide Z cups of water for each and every participant?

They had tons of water. Obviously not enough (or maybe more likely not enough people and cups to serve it out since they presumably could pump straight from fire hydrants). But where is it defined that there should be 5 - 6 cups of water served up for each runner at each water stop?

I think they should move next year's race to July 15th just to piss everyone off. I'd laugh like hell.

Media reports? Really? That\'s right, they\'re always accurate. Just go ask the Duke Lacrosse team. Wait, bad example.

I\'ll stick to the tens of thousands of runners who didn\'t get fluids for an explanation as to what really happened. I\'ll stick to the health workers at the aid stations who said they ran out of fluids. I\'ll stick with the health worker who said her husband incoherently stumbled to her at the half way point saying he hadn\'t had any calories since the second aid station.

I read the waiver. I also read the entry form. It PROMISES aid stations, water and Gatorade. It wasn\'t provided. If not providing enough fluids on a 90 degree day when EVERY RUNNER, INCLUDING THE RACE DIRECTOR KNOWS THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL, EVEN PARAMOUNT TO A RUNNER\'S HEALTH AND SAFETY, then it\'s no wonder you have time to spend on a running message board instead of running a busy law practice.

A waiver doesn\'t absolve one of everything. It doesn\'t absolve him of failing to provide the very essentials necessary to keep a runner from dying or becoming hospitalized. Yes, that is gross negligence.

You are a sad commentary on what our legal profession has become.

Boy Wonder, you must be bluffing about your definition of gross negligence and your legal expertise. Intention is not an element of that tort, otherwise, it would be an intentional tort, not negligence.