Philadelphia Marathon / Half Marathon

Anyone in that first corral for the half? Some jackass official wouldn't let us go until the starter yelled at him and we busted through the line of hs girls he had set up. Kept saying we were "2nd wave" even though a four foot tall sign said otherwise.

Otherwise, race went ok. PR'd and can't complain but would have liked a little faster.

the race went off really well, in my opinion. sounds like they listened to a lot of the feedback -- there were corrals, different starts for the two races, a good bag check, etc. could have been more portapots but the line went pretty fast.

the biggest snafu was the first seven mile markers. they were way off, which was a little frustrating when you're trying to figure out your pace. i ran 2:42:30ish and here were my first seven splits:

6:47

5:36

5:58

7:11

5:06

5:51

6:26

All over the map. I think I was probably right around 6:10 most of that time, but damned if I could tell during the first 1/4 of the race.

That's my only gripe. Otherwise, a great race.

Okay... looks like another chip time vs. gun time screw-up. The second female in the 1/2 has been bumped down to 5th in the unofficial results by 3 women from the 2nd wave apparently. She was told by officials at the finish that she was second, her family had her at second, and now she is in 5th. The other 3 women have non-elite numbers. Quite a bit of prize $ difference too.

gun time ALWAYS takes precedent when money is involved. chip time is just for medals.

Is that pretty much standard operating procedure as far as you know? What did they ever do with that Kenyan who came out of the pack at Chicago (?) to place so high. He lost out on 15K by not getting an elite start.

It is always the standard. A race may choose to award both runners out of the goodnes of their heart but GUN TIME always decides money places. ALWAYS.

what was up with the rothman 8k?

22:06 for some no name guy. was it a 7k?

phillyorganizersarebadpeople wrote:

what was up with the rothman 8k?

22:06 for some no name guy. was it a 7k?

No Rothman results for the most part are completely wrong. For those guys who finished in the top 5 on the front page, it looks as though they only recorded 4 miles worth of running, so either the mats didn't work at the first mile, or the chips shut off after 4. Because those dudes all ran in the 27s. Also a lot of names were missing. Like for guys, I think places 4-14? Maybe more, just know people finished in the top 10 and can't be found on the results page. Also major props to the meet organizer. First way to start the marathon at its schedules time of 7:00AM, I think it went off around 7:15, hence pushing the 8K to like 7:40 when it should have went off at 7:15AM. Their best bet for next year is to hire Elite Racing because its too cold to be standing around waiting for a race to go off and wait that long.

A. Dent wrote:

Anyone in that first corral for the half? Some jackass official wouldn't let us go until the starter yelled at him and we busted through the line of hs girls he had set up. Kept saying we were "2nd wave" even though a four foot tall sign said otherwise.

Otherwise, race went ok. PR'd and can't complain but would have liked a little faster.

I think i was the 2nd guy to bust through the start in that corral. It was redic, i'm glad someone took the initiative to just go right by the human chain and everyone else followed us.

I'm sure in the end it had little effect on my overall performance, but i can't help but wonder that i could've ran faster if i didn't have to play catch up that first mile, and then run 2-8 all alone in pursuit of the pack I should've been able to run with from the gun

Actually the top guy on that page ran a 25:50 something and the second guy was 26:13 or 14. I think the guy that ran the 25:50 something was in the top 12-15.

Sorry Stephen it looks like you are a perfectionist, but this dude did a decent assumption of what could have happened and was pretty right on with the amount of top runners not included in the results.

stevvvvven wrote:

moronic wrote:

Actually the top guy on that page ran a 25:50 something and the second guy was 26:13 or 14. I think the guy that ran the 25:50 something was in the top 12-15.

Sorry Stephen it looks like you are a perfectionist, but this dude did a decent assumption of what could have happened and was pretty right on with the amount of top runners not included in the results.

I'm not Stephen, but I was at the race. I was just trying to show that it didn't look like the chip missed a whole mile, and that less people were missing. Go suck a dick.

This is not a chip versus gun time issue. A quick google search will show that the women listed as 2nd, 3rd and 4th likely did not run those times. 5th place actually got 2nd, 6th place actually got third. I wonder if people signed up for the 1/2 switched to the 8k?

The mile markers were ridiculously off at the start. I know I should have known enough to not trust them, but it messed up my race. I ran the first 2 miles ~20 sec/mile too fast thinking I was going to slow because of the mile markers!

How does this site work. I watched First in the half win by almost a minute yet on active 2nd is 17 seconds back. The individual that placed second passed 3rd place not even 100 meters out from the finish. Yet the individual who ran in for 3rd was moved to 4th, by some guy who has no splits. I won't even talk about the 8k those times are just crazy. sorry for the people that miss out on the money do to miss management or a defective system.

Where are RESULTS???

These results seem pretty accurate

http://results.active.com/pages/page.jsp?eventID=1562848&pubID=3

lost chico wrote:

How does this site work. I watched First in the half win by almost a minute yet on active 2nd is 17 seconds back. The individual that placed second passed 3rd place not even 100 meters out from the finish. Yet the individual who ran in for 3rd was moved to 4th, by some guy who has no splits. I won't even talk about the 8k those times are just crazy. sorry for the people that miss out on the money do to miss management or a defective system.

yeah the results seem a bit strange. in the original unofficial results it had my chip time as 2 seconds faster than my watch (which i guess is reasonable); now in the updated results i am 7 seconds slower than my watch.. but I moved up 3 spots, so i guess i'll take it

Philly sucks results are here:

My time posted is wrong.

I hit my watch when I crossed the start and AFTER the finish (which would mean a slower time on my watch) yet the time on the site is 8 seconds slower than my watch. I also gained five places since earlier results were posted.

There's no way there was that much of a difference. Between the timing f__k up and the start, I'm a little disappointed that this race was run the way it was run.

The woman who got seconds runs 8 minute miles for a 5k, and then runs a 1:19 half? I don't think her result is correct.