yea, quite the inaccurate course, talked to a garmin person or two after the race and they agreed. and the results on the distance classic site have been corrected a bit, but there are still inaccuracies.
i loathe the penguin.
yea, quite the inaccurate course, talked to a garmin person or two after the race and they agreed. and the results on the distance classic site have been corrected a bit, but there are still inaccuracies.
i loathe the penguin.
Why do you dupes go back to that race year-after-year when the course changes every freaking time!
The whole thing is a sham and everyone I talked to had AT LEAST 13.4 on their Garmin.
Please boycott that catastrophe next year.
Write on every blog what a joke that race is.
PUHLEASE PEOPLE!!!!
therunandonly wrote:
Gosh, this is disappointing! Has anyone else noticed that the times posted are gun times and not chip/net times?? It is for me, anyway! So much for that new timing system?
USATF rules. Official times are based on gun. Always has been that way.
South Sider wrote:
I ran the Chicago Distance Classic and overheard that the race director had measured the course from the quickest point instead of measuring from the middle of the street/path
I hope this is a troll post, because measuring the shortest/quickest possible route is the USATF standard.
I've seen complaints all over the place. Do you think they'll issue some kind of statement, or are they just hoping the complaints will just go away?
yepyep wrote:
7 was about 1:00 long for me and the eventual winner recorded a 6:16 for mile 7 if that tells you anything. 10 was long as well. garmins were consistently reading over 13.4, and were long on miles 7 and 10, so that pretty much was the issue. kind of frustrating, but what can you do?
I feel for the runners trying to qualify for a corral in Chicago. With the long course, those people that just missed a time they needed can make a case.
On a side note, the pacers for the 1:25 group were absolutely horrible. Two pacers to start out, and then one dropped out after 4 miles or so for whatever reason. The remaining pacer didn't do his job (at least, I hope he didn't get paid). I don't know what time he finished in but it sucks for someone trying to run even splits when they throw in a 6:29, 6:15, 6:39, 6:48.....you get my point.
It seems like they really didn't care about people that were trying to run any sort of a fast time. It was much more of a overdone party for the mid to back of the pack charity runners, what with it being run by the annoying penguin. It seems kind of disrespectful to the people trying to run a fast time when, right before the start, bingham says something on the loud speaker about how we paid to be on the course for 4 hours, so why the heck would we try to finish in 1 and a half.
I wore my garmin and set it up for a half marathon...when i got back and synced it with google earth, it showed that it turned off just under .30 miles short of the finish....totally agree course was long...dissapointing. Also, I noticed that they messed up my finish time and place on the results page.....I emailed in about it...they are supposedly going to correct both. If I do the 09 chicago marathon then, I will most likely just run the 500 festival half marathon in Indy and get a more accurate time. Sucks for all those people that were less than 2 min. from qualifying for a higher corral.
AGale wrote:
It seems like they really didn't care about people that were trying to run any sort of a fast time. It was much more of a overdone party for the mid to back of the pack charity runners, what with it being run by the annoying penguin. It seems kind of disrespectful to the people trying to run a fast time when, right before the start, bingham says something on the loud speaker about how we paid to be on the course for 4 hours, so why the heck would we try to finish in 1 and a half.
Inaccurate mile markers are something that bug me more than anything else. To me, markers are the single most imporant aspect of race organization and any RDs that mess them up haven't done their job. That being said, I ran the Arizona Distance Classic and I was pretty happy with the event. Yeah, the guy did his thing about how the slower runners get more for their money, who cares. I was up at the front and Bingham made a little small talk with the runners from the pacing car during the first few miles. I think that helped me relax a little bit. I ended up running well that day and all the mile markers were accurate. I would race at a Bingham event again (especially if he offered some prize money).
If you are a competitive runner, and wish to use this race to qualify for a start corral: Don't! Had I known this race would be geared towards four hour half marathoners I would not have flown in from Kansas with hopes of qualifying for the Top 100. I ran 1:11:48 (need 1:11:00), if accurate I believe my efforts were worth 1:10:30 or so. I ran a 10miler three weeks ago in Western KS in 52:57.
I was running 5:12 pace through 6miles then split 6:29 yet I felt the same? No, we ran way too far that mile. Whether some of the previous miles were short, I do not know but if so, it sure wasn't by much. In a race that draws a crowd of 10,000+ runners at $70/runner with no prize money offered you think they could at least put some effort into the course layout/accuracy.
kcool wrote:
Had I known this race would be geared towards four hour half marathoners I would not have flown in from Kansas with hopes of qualifying for the Top 100.
You do realize that they post the results every year online so you could have seen who runs the race/
Sorry folks, I'm a Garmin guy, which apparently doesn't get you very far here, but my Garmin read 13.39 at the end of the race. I polled five or six other Garmin wearers at the end of the race, and they all had the course at between 13.3 and 13.45. I thought that maybe I unwittingly ran the most inefficient route possible, i.e., taking all long turns. But I don't think that's it. Bummer if the course was long. But what a gorgeous day to run.
Yes, I do and thanks. I never said there was anything wrong with the field or competition, in fact the field was very deep for no prize money. The race management, comments made at the start ("why someone would want to run this in 1:30 is beyond me", "you've all paid to run on this beautiful course for four hours, why not use it", "the miracle is not that you had the courage to finish, but that you had the courage to start") and inaccurate mile markers is what I was referring to.
agree with kcool...totally. will not run this race next year...dissapointed in mgmt. of the race....btw, the dri-fit shirts are plain and suck.
In response to the concerns about the course.
The course was USATF measured and certified (certification # IL – 08064 – JW). In addition, we had the certifier lead the pack on his bicycle to ensure that all the athletes went on the correct course. We have heard comments that the course may be long and we have asked the certifier to re-measure the course and will have a final comment on this later this week.
John
John “the Penguin” Bingham
Runner’s World columnist

Glad I didn't run it this year.
Actually, I didn't run it last year, either. Chicago Half is better, in my opinion.
Even better than both is the North Shore Half Marathon in Highland Park. Best course, though it could use some more faster runners (come on guys, you can car pool or take Metra).
Go Irish! wrote:
Was mile 10 slow, too? It was another relatively major outlier for me, but I couldn't tell if it was long or just the headwind and not having the pacing help from before I took my little stop.
Someone else has already mentioned mile 7 being too long because the turnaround was further down the beach than the map shows. I believe mile 10 was also long-- if you look at the interactive map online, you can see that the course was supposed to go up the overpass (a decent hill), but I'm pretty sure we took the slightly longer, flat route around to the right.
Add me to the roster of one-and-done runners for this race. I won't do it again unless it's run by a more competent group. The Chicago Marathon group should really insist on better quality control if they're going to use this race as a "last-chance" start corral qualifier. Obviously, none of this is the marathon's fault-- I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of John Bingham racing. I just can't believe that it's that difficult to make sure the actual race-day course matches the measured one.
nothing new in chicago. anyone remember the lakefront marathon of a few years ago?
chicago events are usually pretty poor as when the wrigley field 10k was 7miles long or when 2 different 5k's intersect with each other on the lakefront path. add to that not being able to get everyday people off the path and you have a recipe for disaster.
I have run some good events such as the north shore 1/2, fleet feet 10miler and the universal sole 10 and traill series.
Chicagoaa.com used to have a message board that would flame these stores/race organizers should the slightest mistep happen. That is now gone and all hail the penguin!
I would stick to the above as they are usually reliable to be solid events.
You should make sure your certifier measures what was actually run and not the map.
Hey John... wrote:
You should make sure your certifier measures what was actually run and not the map.
That's the key. My guess is they have no clue of what was actually run now.