3M Half Marathon Results

No need to sugar coat anything for me pal. You have answered my, and really your own, question by coming up with the correct answer. I fully agree that you should qualify your marks relative to the fact that they are from an aided course. Those people that are worth mentioning your prs to are most likely savvy enough to know which courses are aided and which aren't. Would you call someone out for noting that they finished 3rd overall at 3M, or Vegas, or any of the other aided courses we are all so well familiar with? How about it was a competitive race, period. Really Chub, do you go around the country and race on only unaided courses? Is that a condition of your participation in a race? Just curious amigo.

I guess I really set a PR!

Sounds like we are on the same page, right or wrong. You make a good point about savvy runners knowing courses. I guess I realize that. I was too busy trying to state my position to think that through. No, I definately race 'aided courses' here and there for a variety of reasons, organization, competition, scenery, awards, & sometimes just to run fast knowing I am being helped. I ran Pittsburgh's Great Race 2-3 times in the mid 90's. But, if you had asked me at the end of the year what my PR for the year was, I would've answered "30:20 (or whatever it was), but that was on Pittsburgh's Great Race course, a point-to-point downhill. On a legit course it was 31:03." That's the best my ability could eek out. I'm not ashamed, but I don't pretend. To reiterate for some, I am not against these races nor anyone who races them in any way, just looking for the proper perspective of an aided course. I've blathered enough and won't wear out my welcome any further.

Its not always about time. Its about the money. And if these guys were not there today at 3m running for the money than not one of you would have even posted here today about this subject.

The guy that finished 6th ran a 10k and won a trophy no cash yesterday in dallas time 31:change

I take responsibility for introducing the terms "fraud" and "fraudulent" in this thread. I'm not sure what the terms mean to you. In the law, fraud encompasses a broad range of activities or representations that are intended to mislead. Obviously, someone does not commit fraud simply by running in a downhill race. Someone who claims to be a 3:59 miler, however, may very well be committing fraud if he fails to explain that his 3:59 was run on a downhill road course. My own view, with which others may disagree, is that race organizers who advertise their courses as PR-friendly, knowing full well that their courses are far outside the bounds of accepted standards, may very well be complicitous in a fraudulent activity -- not criminally or civilly actionable, perhaps, but fraudulent nonetheless.

One oddity about this subject is that, as far as I am aware, the aided course is, at least in the marathon, almost exclusively an American phenomenon. I am aware of one South African "marathon" that is (or has been) markedly downhill, and that has attracted some excellent runners over the years. Otherwise, top marathoners outside the U.S. seem to run legitimate loop courses. The trend in the U.S., on the other hand, seems to be increasing toward downhill courses. Indeed, if you look at T&FN's yearly lists of top world and U.S. marathoners, you will find that almost no world-class marathoners compete in downhill courses (Boston is the exception), while most national-caliber marathoners in the U.S. focus on downhill races.

It's simple really.

If a race course becomes "USATF certified" it is legitimate to count for PR purposes. A race director can arrange to have their course certified by USATF for accuracy and not being considered "aided".

"Aided" falls within two parameters: 1. net downhill (one meter per K as someone pointed out); or 2. the finish line is more than 30% of the race distance away from the starting line.

For example, take the Wharf to Wharf 6-mile race in Santa Cruz. It's legit in terms of elevation, but it runs north to south, and typically there is a slight tailwind.

The third criteria for a legit PR race is accuracy in measurement ... that means with a wheel by a designated official down to the foot.

If it fails USATF certification, and the race director claims it as a certified course, that is indeed fraudulent. If they claim it as a "PR course" I would say that is misleading if not fraudulent.

I'm not sure of specific race directors whom have done this but I'm sure it's happened. So unless it says "USATF certified" on the race brochure, enjoy the experience, compare your race to others' performances in the race, but someone's outcome should never be counted as a valid PR.

The guy that ran in Dallas in Saturday and then the half was Ephraim who used to run for SMU in the Colenso days. He took about 2 years off and gained 30-40 pounds. He has finally trimmed up and has been running well as of late. He ran a 31:50 unchallanged and the a solid half. He has the talent to run very well. Before he came to the states he ran a 1:03 half in South Africa.

In the simplest terms, fraud occurs when someone knowingly lies to obtain benefit or advantage or to cause some benefit that is due to be denied.

So trying to impress oldguy by saying you ran a PR of 1:20 on the 3M course is fraud? What a crock.

= wrote:

So trying to impress oldguy by saying you ran a PR of 1:20 on the 3M course is fraud? What a crock.

No, trying to impress me by saying you ran a PR of 1:20 on the 3M course would merely be laughable. On the other hand, trying to impress me by telling me that you're a 1:02 half-marathoner, when you know that you have never run anywhere close to a 1:02 on anything close to a legitimate half-marathon course, might very well constitute fraud.

So how much to YOU think with your oldguy years of wisdom is the 3M course worth?

Me thinks 30 seconds.

I doubt you will find any of the top 25 finishers claiming this(or any "aided" course) their PR. More likely that the other 99% MAY.

However I'd venture that most of the top 25 are also physically capable of running the times they posted(i.e. on the right day, later start, less wind, better competition, easier travel....whatever the days reason/excuse for reaching 100% of ones abilities).

The argument is dry - you can't prove it is a faster or slower course because it has a net drop. You can only decide for yourself through competing in the race. It is a great event and doesn't need my advertisment. However, if you want to run a well organized half in a fun city at a good time of the year, then come to it next year - then you can talk your crap! By the way, it is fact that the majority of the top finishers have run similar or even better times on other courses. Check it out if you are curious, it is quite simple research actually.

THIS IS NOT A HALF ....IS A 12.5 mile race.

so you were that guy lying in the street at the top of the hill?

I think you're getting "USATF certified" confused with being "record eligible". If you go to the website, it shows a USATF course certification number, but also states that the event is not record eligible. My understanding of the actual USATF certification is for the distance, not for the record setting qualification.

I also never noticed any wind, though I did feel the hill from mile seven to eight, and the other one (straight into the sun) from 10.5 to 11. My last mile (fastest) was 30 seconds faster than my slowest (7 to 8) so there were definitely some places where the downhills helped. For a comparison purposes, Katrina Price ran 1:20 and change in Houston last weekend on a loop course, and just under 1:19 on this one.

OLDGUY - YOU NEED TO TAKE A BIG DUMP

Young chick wrote:

To Old Guy-

Why don't your run the 3M half next year and tell us what you think? It was rolling, there was a slight wind. It was 13.2 miles and very well organized! (which makes all the difference).

13.2 miles??, oh christ...you just f***ed yourself!!