TORONTO MARATHON FEMALE 2ND PLACE TO BE DISQUALIFIED!!!!

results of the marathon wrote:

The op is an idiot.

She got 2nd place and that's what she got.

Last year at the Milwaukee Lakefront Marathon the winner got DQ'ed for taking aid outside of the aid station. It was a very long thread on here and was very controversial in Milwaukee. 2nd place also got DQ'ed for wearing headphones. I would imagine this runner will also get DQ'ed. It was a pretty blatant violation and as another poster said, the rules were gone over the day before with all the elite runners. Here is the long thread about last years DQ:

.

Let's repost this, cause rules are rules, and it's too late to protest and disqualify anyone.

[quote]too late wrote:

Let's repost this, cause rules are rules, and it's too late to protest and disqualify anyone.[quote]

Not sure if you read one of the previous posts and I am not sure exactly what they said, but here it is and according to them you can get disqualified more than 30 minutes later:

"no it ain't money's for all canada running series is held for months while drug tests are done and athletes are cleared to receive money and during this time protests can be made by athletes about other athletes, the 9th place runner all the way through to 3rd have a good chance of picking up an extra 2-3 thousand dollars as outside aide IS NOT ALLOWED IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, but i would not be surprised if this gets swept under the carpet by the stwm organizers!!"

Also, at the lakefront marathon where the top runner got DQ'ed, the 2nd place finisher got DQ'ed the next day after someone saw her picture with headphones on.

I seriously hope a dq'd athlete soon sues whatever organization does the dq'd, and wins big time.

This already happened in Des Moines. The winner of the first DSM Marathon received outside assistance and was DQ'd. He sued, and lost.

I'm actually quite happy to hear that. If you break the rules, you should be punished. Bottom line is cheating is not acceptable.

Do the IAAF rules govern this race? It may be that the RD has final say.

Well, there are breaking rules (cutting course, peds, etc) and there are breaking rules. This one seems so slight that it seems silly to dq someone from a 26 mile race if it wasn't intentional or material. I think the officials should decide if it could have changed the outcome of the race (5 second advantage?) and make a call on it, adjust the position and move on.This Black & White kind of thinking doesn't work well in a world of grey scales.

sadasdf wrote:

I'm actually quite happy to hear that. If you break the rules, you should be punished. Bottom line is cheating is not acceptable.

VB wrote:

Ms. 2nd Place received aid outside of the aid zone and she got an advantage over all of the other runners who played by the rules and took aid in the aid zones, which tend to be really congested.

stupid rule that shouldn't apply to anyone except maybe the top men who are allowed to have their own bottles at stops, and get there before any crowds.

this would be good wrote:

I seriously hope a dq'd athlete soon sues whatever organization does the dq'd, and wins big time.

dsm marathon wrote:

This already happened in Des Moines. The winner of the first DSM Marathon received outside assistance and was DQ'd. He sued, and lost.

The Toronto Waterfront Marathon website lists appeal procedure (it's too late):

From

http://www.torontowaterfrontmarathon.com/en/results.htm

Appeals of CRS race results

ChampionChip timed results for each race will be posted on our website shortly after the last runner crosses the Finish line. Participants will have until 12 noon local time on the Monday following each race to appeal any result. This must be done in writing to

appeals@canadarunningseries.com

.

Final, official results will then be posted by 5pm local time on the Wednesday following [2 days later]. At that time, all results will be Official and FINAL.

reading comprehension wrote:

this would be good wrote:

I seriously hope a dq'd athlete soon sues whatever organization does the dq'd, and wins big time.

dsm marathon wrote:

This already happened in Des Moines. The winner of the first DSM Marathon received outside assistance and was DQ'd. He sued, and lost.

I think the rest of us were able to understand that he meant that someone already tried to sue and lost. Wasn't that hard to figure out. Maybe reading comprehension should not be your name.

Ran the 2005 Sunburst marathon in the hot June sun and the winner was given sponges and water by his spouse the entire way on numerous occasions. He offered them to me as well. I didn't think anything of it.

I doubt one gel cost the third place runner much.

Alan

Well, if you insist on re-posting the rule, read it carefully. (1)That rule refers to "protests concerning a result or conduct of the event," and does not seem to refer to a protest over the conduct of a particular participant. You would be hard-pressed to argue that this rule would prevent the DQ of a runner who was later found to have cut the course or taken a cab, etc. I imagine there are other rules for this event that are more appropriate to challenge alleged "cheating" that is discovered later. (2)When is the "official announcement of the result of that event?

If you have rules, you have to enforce them, especially when clear violations are brought to light. Otherwise, there's no point in having rules.

Allowing officials to selectively enforce rules means that, if something funny happens, they control the outcome with no accountability. The whole point of having written rules is to lessen the influence of officials over the results. You don't want the outcome to depend on how some official feels that day, or on who they personally like/dislike.

By the same token, do the rules in this case spell out what the penalty is for receiving inappropriate assistance? If not, then that's a problem, because it again leaves it up to an official's judgement.

I know I sound like a robotic "law-and-order" guy, but I'm really not. I've just seen the unfairness that can result when the rulebook gets set aside. In this case, I'd argue that enforcing the rules as written is the lesser of two evils.

If you think that a racer being handed some gels by a spectator/coach should be okay, then lobby for the rule to be changed.

I guess you would say the same thing if you were in Nazi Germany? Rules cannot be blindly followed for the sake of the rules. That is like O'Donnell saying she would never lie even if she was in Nazi occupied France and was harboring a Jew and was asked by the SS about it.

Wow way to be a HUGE RAT op. Showing some reeeeaaal class here. I hope you have a good reason for trying to take the bread off of someone else's table. You would think if any of those women had a problem with this, they probably would have mentioned it post race, but thaaaank god your here to make sure everyone else is following the rules.

SomeActualData wrote:

If you have rules, you have to enforce them, especially when clear violations are brought to light. Otherwise, there's no point in having rules.

Aghast wrote:

I guess you would say the same thing if you were in Nazi Germany? Rules cannot be blindly followed for the sake of the rules. That is like O'Donnell saying she would never lie even if she was in Nazi occupied France and was harboring a Jew and was asked by the SS about it.

We're talking about rules for running, a sport. Not laws where people might go to jail or be executed. Running. Sports. Big difference.

So yes, I would argue that a golfer who fails to sign their scorecard should be disqualified because that's what the rules say, even though their failure gave them no competitive advantage whatsoever. To say that equates to cooperating with the Nazis is ridiculous and offensive.

If you want to make the analogy, though, you should keep in mind that selective enforcement of the laws was a favored tactic in Nazi Germany, as it is today in many totalitarian regimes. Written rules have an annoying tendency to limit the power of officials, so the more they can be dispensed with, the easier it is for officials to just do whatever they feel like with no checks or balances.

Another Option wrote:

I have a feeling you have never been in a position to gain or lose serious $ depending on whether or not a competitor gained an unfair advantage. Rules are in place for a reason, because unfair outside aid has been a serious problem. Believe me, you would be pissed if you were busting your tail in a race and you saw the person in front of you get a bottle or a gel, AND you both were in the money. Cheating is cheating. Don't do it, and you won't have to worry about people on a message board calling for your DQ.

Well, said. I've been in the money before and have been offered Gu's etc. from family/friends and have always refused it. She didn't have to take it and at her level I'm sure she knows the rules. She should go down with the rule she broke.