Cherry Bossom 15k

The big question is did Riley grab a beer from the tables at the top of Hains Point (about 7.5 miles in the normal route so about 7 miles in)

brogan1 wrote:

http://www.runwashington.com/2015/04/12/kenyans-sweep-cherry-blossom-titles-riley-was-projected-to-break-u-s-record/

Running 43:28 for 9.45 miles, his projected 10 mile time of 45:34 would have been well under Greg Meyer’s 46:13 mark from 1983.

Although the race officials do not consider Riley’s time a record, they paid a $10,000 “remarkable performance bonus,” on top of his $750 sub-46:00 bonus as runner-up.

Its a shame Riley couldn't get the record. Good on Cherry Blossom for paying him.

Update from RunWashington:

Cherry Blossom Race Director Phil Stewart says the 9.54 course re-measurement has been called into question and as a result, "remarkable performance bonuses" may not be paid to Stephen Sambu, Jacob Riley, Mary Wacera and Cynthia Limo. Riley's projected time may not, indeed, have been under Greg Meyer's 46:13 U.S. record.

9.54 does not seem at all right. My guess is it was about a 15k which would explain everyone having around 9.5 on their GPS watch.

This was my first cherry blossom and I would agree, it is a great event.

9.54 does seem long. That might be a typo since that same source previously said the course was 9.45 miles.

There is no way in HELL Riley ran faster than Greg Meyers record. All the people who were talking about the course being 9.5 are crazy. This course was actually shorter than 15k just look it up on a map people. The joggers can't run the tangents and end up running a little extra having to go around folks for the first few miles. The elites can run shorter than course measurement if they run tangents...depending on how the course was measured.

Also people are saying he must have run 45 because he was close to Sambu. Sambu was running only to win, he wasn't even tired at the finish for those who were there. He was barely breathing.

My guess is Riley ran equivalent to a 46:50 for 10 miles. Still AMAZING but lets be honest that's no 45. He has not run anything near that. If for some unknown reason he did run a 45 then the guy needs to be tested ASAP as he would have to be on the best JUICE known to man

Time and distance is irrelevant. Beating several 61 minute half marathoners speaks volumes. He is running great.

[

Sambu was running only to win, he wasn't even tired at the finish for those who were there.

This was a huge revenge race for Sambu who lost $12k at the finish line at NYC Half.

I understand that the distance does not come out until tomorrow?

I guarantee that it will be 9.41. That was what I wheeled today.

Waiting patiently wrote:

I understand that the distance does not come out until tomorrow?

I guarantee that it will be 9.41. That was what I wheeled today.

Does that include 0.1% for short course prevention? If not, it should be called 9.40.

Man, I'm glad I didn't run this again this year. I ran last year and it was a great race, but man I'd be p!ssed if I traveled that far to run a screwed up race.

The organizers found out a woman was struck by a motorcycle an hour on Kutz Bridge, an hour before the 7:18am start. They figured out a way to re-route everyone and announced the shortened distance, where mile markers were still accurate, and their plan to remeasure and re-certify the new course length for this year. This way, people will have approximate times at least. I think it's pretty amazing they figured all this out very quickly on the fly, started on time, and were able to still get everyone through the start area before the elite females were finishing.

The bridge was locked down by police for the entire race. Thankfully, the woman who was hit is okay and was transported to G.W. Hospital nearby. If anything, anyone who ran that race should be impressed by how professional the organization handled this and their effort to go out and re-certify the course, in order to figure out time bonuses, etc.

Agree with all except that after mile marker 4, the mile markers were no longer accurate. There was no mile marker 5 (at least I didn't see it) and mile markers 6-9 were for the original course.

Not saying they should have adjusted them given the short time frame and they warned everyone before the race a number of times of the change. Organizers did a great job adjusting on such short notice.

The later mile markers were still accurate in the sense that, mile 7 may not actually be 7 miles, but you knew you had 3 miles left.

I am also impressed with how they handled the situation professionally with such little notice. I'm bummed about it not being a full 10 miles, but that is completely out of their hands.

We are going to mention this race in our weekly recap. Does anyone know what the final measurement actually was?

9.39

9.39 miles is the final measured distance.

LetsRun.com wrote:

We are going to mention this race in our weekly recap. Does anyone know what the final measurement actually was?

The race web page now states that the distance was 9.39 miles.

Who want to break the news to Richard Fannin? He was pretty positive that it was short of 15k.

Riley equivalent of 46:18 is 5 seconds off of the record. Ouch.