Email from B.A.A. about Boston on Monday

Hopkinton wrote:

AlmostBQ wrote:

The BAA policy in plain English at registration was no deferrals - period. The race goes on rain or shine.

False. In 2007 race directors had all but canceled it due to a storm that produced lashing rain, sleet, and gale force winds marathon weekend. The decision to not shut it down was made at dawn Patriot's Day morning just before the first transport buses rolled into Boston.

Hopkinton, I'm aware of what happened in 2007. In that instance, the threat was that the course might be impassable. I've read articles about Dave McGillivray's agonizing the night before over whether to cancel or not. However, there was not any reference in the articles about canceling and offering deferral as a contingency option for runners.

Your sense of entitlement is laughable.

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

This pisses me off because I plan to run my first Boston next year. I shouldn't have to compete to get an entry with even more people who maybe qualified 3 years before (if they qualified at all). It's not BAA's fault the weather will be hot. It's not something anyone can control, so why act like it is? This only works to their advantage having the no refund policy and covering themselves from being sued. How does it really help the participants this year or next year? If you don't want to run it, don't run it, but don't take away others' chances to run it next year. Besides, isn't there a waiver that covers inclement weather, etc?

Azaleas wrote:

They don't NEED to, but imagine how big of a disaster it'll be if they have hundreds of back of the pack-ers collapsing with heat stroke. Bad PR for the race, and potentially multiple deaths, are things they really don't want to deal with.

Chicago in 2007 was a heat wave catastrophe. It was black flagged and people collapsed and such. However, the race continues to fill up every year within a week.

The problem at Boston is that unqualified runners are allowed to run.

From their memo on the weather today:

"Inexperienced runners should not run the marathon".

That is referring to the charity penguins and corporate entries from John Hancock Corp.

AlmostBQ wrote:

However, there was not any reference in the articles about canceling and offering deferral as a contingency option for runners.

That's because it was going to be an all-or-nothing decision.

AlmostBQ wrote:

The problem at Boston is that unqualified runners are allowed to run.

How is this a problem? There are unqualified runners in every marathon. Charity runners are everywhere. And in the case of Chicago, NYC, Marine Corps, LA, Twin Cities, Philly et al no previous marathon experience is required at all.

Given that they came within a hair of canceling in '07, isn't it far more likely that they'll cancel it Monday if the temps are high? It's far dangerous to run in high temps than it is in rain. Would they cross their fingers and move it to Tuesday or is that logistically impossible?

Monday's a state holiday (Patriots' Day), so many people have the day off. That's why there all those school buses available to shuttle runners to the starting line and why closing the roads is less of a disruption. There's no way that it could be moved to Tuesday. It's hard for me to believe they could move it to earlier on Monday either; this is a massive operation that crosses several jurisdictions and involves thousands of volunteers and public employees.

If a hundred people die of heat stroke, they'd have wished they'd started at 8:00 AM.

Forecast of high of 88, 47% humidity, with a 19 mph tailwind (reducing cooling to nil). 81 degrees by noon. Could be brutal. What was the high/humidity/wind in '07?

http://www.weather.com/outlook/health/allergies/wxdetail/USMA0046?dayNum=2

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

agip wrote:

holy cow - with a few thousand deferments and the usual stampede, a boston # will be a tough ticket next year.

This pisses me off because I plan to run my first Boston next year. I shouldn't have to compete to get an entry with even more people who maybe qualified 3 years before (if they qualified at all). It's not BAA's fault the weather will be hot. It's not something anyone can control, so why act like it is? This only works to their advantage having the no refund policy and covering themselves from being sued. How does it really help the participants this year or next year? If you don't want to run it, don't run it, but don't take away others' chances to run it next year. Besides, isn't there a waiver that covers inclement weather, etc?

The deferments are a good idea and possibly the only way to get people from not racing. The fact that you are pissed off about Boston 2013 just shows how important running this race is to people. No matter what there will be far more people seeking medical attantion with this type of heat than usual. The less people running, the more manageable the blood bath will be.

Fred Gwynne wrote:

Boston has qualifying standards.If you met the standard that means you have run a previous marathon.You also had to train in an earlier marathon to produce the needed time. My assertion is there are a lot of people running this race who should not be in it. I was always disappointed in the number of people I talked to before the race who did not qualify.

.

I'm sure that they gave a shit.

The Boston Globe conveyed inaccurate information earlier today and has now issued a correction. The article now states: "Official participants who wish to defer their entry to next year's marathon will be permitted to do so. This includes everyone from qualified runners to charity runners."

http://www.boston.com/sports/marathon/blog/2012/04/baa_to_allow_runners_to_defer.html?comments=all&plckCurrentPage=0

I ran Boston in '07 and not once was it indicated to me that they might cancel the race. They just told us 'don't get hypothermia and freeze to death'.

will this be hotter than 1976 when jack fultz won in around 2:20, then a couple years later in more reeasonable conditions ran 2:11 and i think he finished about 4th.

I ran in '07, too and I had multiple people call me from all over to see if I was really going to run, or if it was going to be cancelled. They said on the news that it might be. I think it was the strain on public safety professionals if it turned into a major weather event that prompted the cancellation talk that year.

full retread wrote:

...

Even though I'm benefitting from the deferments (couldn't run anyway because I'm injured but now my qualifying time is good for next year) I think you're right. When you sign up it's made very clear that there are no refunds or deferments for any reason. I'm surprised that they're going back on that.

Full retread,

To clarify, unless you picked up your number at the expo the deferment does NOT apply. If you had already stayed home due to injury it does not cover you.

"This applies to official entrants only, and official entrants must claim their bib number packets at the John Hancock Sports and Fitness Expo through Sunday evening at the Seaport World Trade Center in South Boston."

The qualifying procedures for Boston have become more and more vexing. While I like the new times, and fastest-first registration procedure, having an entry window that spans one and a half weeks in September means that unless you are doing a marathon this spring, summer, or early September, you will not be able to qualify for the 2013 Boston. Chicago, New York, etc- any marathon in October 2012 or beyond- regardless of how fast you qualify- is not eligible for the 2013 Boston, but rather 2014 since the 2013 registration window will be closed by that point.

The thought that these deferments will hurt chances for a 2013 marathon by limiting the field size was the first thing that crossed my mind, too. My hunch, though, is that the number of deferments will be very small, and likely will only come from local runners who haven't already paid airfare, hotel, etc. to go to the race. I think the numbers will be easily absorbed into next year's race without much impact on number of new qualifying spots available, and that it is more likely a CYA move on the BAA. But it will be interesting to see how it plays out nonetheless.

I agree with you. BAA does not want to exclude any qualified runner in 2013. (they learned the hard way last year) Meanwhile, here's a good read from the WSJ that sheds light on the impact of race cancellations -

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119405212573181211.html

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

This pisses me off because I plan to run my first Boston next year. I shouldn't have to compete to get an entry with even more people who maybe qualified 3 years before (if they qualified at all). It's not BAA's fault the weather will be hot. It's not something anyone can control, so why act like it is? This only works to their advantage having the no refund policy and covering themselves from being sued. How does it really help the participants this year or next year? If you don't want to run it, don't run it, but don't take away others' chances to run it next year. Besides, isn't there a waiver that covers inclement weather, etc?

Run fast enough to get in or STFU. It's not for you to decide who you should compete with.