Sue CHICAGO Marathon

I just got off the phone with my sister who ran it; it was her second marathon and was all geared up for it, lives in Chicago, etc...

It sounds like there was a combination of bad luck and bad management. She told me about the mile 20 fiasco, how there were cops shouting that the race was closed yet then the aid station folks, who were out of water at that point, were telling the runners to keep going? Then CTA busses were allowed on the course when it wasnt cleared? At around 22 she found a guy sprawled out in the street with no paramedics taking care of him so had to run one down and take them back to the guy who was going through heatstroke. Still finished, not a great time. they should give them their money back at least.

I was helping some of the people who passed out or became confused btw miles 17-18. The ones going down were the in shape 3 hr to 3:45 runners...not the 4:30+ runners further back. According to doctors on site, they appeared to have heat stroke, not dehydration, and according to friends and family they were well trained and well prepared.

psych wrote:

Reminds me of the thread of when the race director started the race 10 feet in front of everyone and was ran over.

Please link! :)

man up people wrote:

There was nothing wrong with the way this was run. I'll man up . . . dropped out at 14 for leg reasons but hydration was fine. 54 years old and I just screwed up my traing. A well organized race with great volunteers!

Get a load of this guy in the Chicago Tribune "Why did they cancel it at Mile 20? Couldn't they cancel it at Mile 5," said Arzu Karimova, 28, a market researcher from Chicago. "I put my entire summer into this. My entire marathon is gone. I'll never have another first marathon experience."

Gee, I wonder if we shouldn't ever have marathons in July? Get a life pussy!!

So if they had cancelled it at mile 5, he would not have had a first marathon experience or had it shortened.

I was in Chicago that day (for work). I could not believe how hot it was. The thermometer on the car in the parking lot said it was 73 at 7:30am. I knew it was going to be a bad day for a marathon.

While it is unusual to be that warm, Carey P should really consider a later date in October (as it once was and has been a few times) just to get cooler weather more consistently.

i finished in 3:33 and my fiance finished in 4:28 and when she came through, there was still plenty of water and gatorade. if you were further back, then it probably wasn't a good idea to keep going anyways with the heat that was out there.

Come to Eugene in May. Real runners will also appreciate the history here. The weather is good and the course is fast. It is a new race, and well run.

Yes wrote:

I live near the boston course and volunteered from 1985 until last year: the numbers of people showing up at the starting line seeing sub-5-hours as a legit goal is startling.

Why not make them RACES again? Toughen up the qualifying times to 2:55 for men and 3:10 for women? At least you get people who are physically prepared enough to have a better than average chance of surviving.

Today was a warning. I'd like to see a legitimate survey of the finishers to see how many averaged AT LEAST 50MPW or more for 10 of the preceding 12 weeks leading up to today's Chicago race.

You seem to forget that your back-of-the-packers/Team-in-Trainers put up the funding that allows people like Carey to bring in great fields.

I believe that every marathon should be over once the clock reaches double the winners time. Yesterday in Chicago the winning male was 2:11 at 4:22 no men should be allowed to finish. The womens winner was 2:33 so the women should be allowed on the course until 5:06.

This would not hurt the marathon in terms of exposure or popularity. It would force 6 hour marathoners to run half marathons which is probably more in line with what they can handle.

Stronger Standards wrote:

I believe that every marathon should be over once the clock reaches double the winners time. Yesterday in Chicago the winning male was 2:11 at 4:22 no men should be allowed to finish. The womens winner was 2:33 so the women should be allowed on the course until 5:06.

This would not hurt the marathon in terms of exposure or popularity. It would force 6 hour marathoners to run half marathons which is probably more in line with what they can handle.

...and cut your funding. That 5-6hr crowd buys a lot of bibs.

I agree. I finished in just over 5 hours. There was plenty of fluids.

Excellent post! Thanks for contributing it.

BTW, has the phrase "global warming" come up yet? Just asking.

Unless you specifically train in such weather--and I do--88 degrees is just too damn hot for a marathon. I would NEVER waste a whole season's training on such a race--unless I were right up front, and in the running for a huge payday. Olympic marathoners, for example, don't have a choice. But everybody else does.

If it were me, I would probably have DNS and found another marathon, any marathon, a week or two down the line.

There is a lot of speculation as to what did and didn't happen yesterday, but I just want to give credit to the folks on the second half of the course who stepped up in a big way by going out of their way to help the runners. With little shade it was absolutely baking down there and many of the spectators and local residents were doing all that they could to help, even if it was just standing on the sidewalk spraying people with a hose. Their efforts were greatly appreciated.

another incredible account from the Trib blog by a mom who ran with her daughter:

My daughter's first marathon...I told her to do Chicago, the best in the world......She was comfortable with 11 min mile pace....slow for me but it was her day. 1st water stop......shut down...this was 9 am? I tried to keep her spirits up.....2nd water stop......shut down......no water. Now she was getting scared...I told her this has never happened and there were thousands behind us...must be a mistake...we will get water. 3rd water stop...water, no cups.."use your hands" I told her as others were picking up cups from garbage cans...still others drinking from fountains in Lincoln park and in front of condo buildings......the heat was predicted, yet the water was gone???.......We held the same pace for 17 miles...until we were told it was over........she refused a medal but I made her take one because history had been made here........both with the heat and the poorest run marathon I have yet to run.......come on Chicago Marathon, make me proud of this race someday again! She will get another chance but perhaps with a reasonable number of runners and a marathon that is prepared for extraordinary conditions........we still had fun thanks to the hundreds of thousands of spectators and the great volunteers and of course, the great sport of marathoning...

Posted by: jens mom | Oct 7, 2007 8:39:18 PM

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/10/stop-in-the-nam.html

having it as the last chance to qualify for the trials also was a reason for moving the date up.

Yes wrote:

Today was a warning. I'd like to see a legitimate survey of the finishers to see how many averaged AT LEAST 50MPW or more for 10 of the preceding 12 weeks leading up to today's Chicago race.

And that would show what? I can think of at least 1/2 dozen people off the top of my head that broke 3 hours multiple times topping 50 MPW maybe once per cycle. My first time out I topped out around 53 and did a 3:12, a BQ for my age at the time.

Your assumption that you have to run AT LEAST 50MPW for 10 or more weeks to run a decent marathon is pretty bogus. I assume you wish to waive it and show "see, here are the penguins!" but you'll find many, many younger men in that list that are 3:30 and below.

Last year the marathon was in late October and every bitched and moaned that it was too cold and windy. Sometimes the best action is no action.

Stronger Standards wrote:

I believe that every marathon should be over once the clock reaches double the winners time. Yesterday in Chicago the winning male was 2:11 at 4:22 no men should be allowed to finish. The womens winner was 2:33 so the women should be allowed on the course until 5:06.

This would not hurt the marathon in terms of exposure or popularity. It would force 6 hour marathoners to run half marathons which is probably more in line with what they can handle.

Coelacanth wrote:...and cut your funding. That 5-6hr crowd buys a lot of bibs.

You can't place a dollar sign on someone's life.

This whole thing is a joke. 70s-low 80s is not "dangerously hot." Get real!! If you were still out there at 1:00-2:00 in the afternoon (when it actually reached 88), you shouldn't be in a marathon anyway.

I agree that people who take over 5 hours should not be allowed to enter marathons. We live in a fatty, lazy, it's-all-about-me country where big, flabby, crybabies stomp their feet and threaten to sue just because they're out of shape and don't want to admit it.

All the 5+ hour waddlers in marathons is gross and embarrassing.

Lets do the math for a water station at 2 miles. 6 oz per cup. Let us say everyone takes one today. This is unlike a normal day when 40% of the runners will pass up the first table. 30,000 actual starters.

The fastest runners (5mins per mile 2:12)reach the table at 10 minutes clock time and the last (16 mpm 7 hours)at 32 minutes clock time.

So in 22 serving mins they serve 30000 portions-that's 1350 cup per minute on average. Get up to drink one and take away one to drink later and we see 2700 cups per minute. Lets not forget that is an average. Since few runners run past in the first serving minutes somewhere in the middle we get a really big bulge but lets stay with average numbers.

Eow many tables with prepourd servings do we need and how many servers do we need to refill those table at 2700 cups per minute?

Now we have yesterday.

It's very hot so you drink one ,pour one on head and take one with you .Voila 4,000 cups per minute on average -remember even more at the bulge-are needed.

Anyone wonder why the 14 to 16 minute milers got to an empty table now?