I did not say I biked to every water stop. I said I biked all over the course. The route is uploaded to my Strava. I was at stop 1 because it’s right near mile 3 and I wanted to get a running watch on the race since I wasn’t going to the start. I was at the 2nd stop because it’s easy to get to. I did not touch a bottle at either spot. My next spot was mile 7 (not a water spot). I missed Ethan there, but I waited for another person I helped. I have a video of it if you want I then rode to mile 14’ish and 25k (same spot). This is also not a water stop but I was there with my triathlon coach. I actually missed Ethan coming towards 25k because my back was to him because my other guy was coming down the other side of the road. I then waited for the 2nd guy to come to 25k and by that time Ethan was well on his way to Manayunk by then. I rode up to mile 22 where a friend who would bring me items I ordered from the running store she worked at was manning the elite aide station. I didn’t realize it was Ethan’s group and that’s when I went absent minded. I then sprinted on my bike to mile 23 (stopped and yelled), mile 24 (stopped and yelled) and then mile 25.5 which is at the bottom of the hill. I stopped at each clock because I was trying to see how much time he had in the bank and to see if he was maintaining, speeding up or slowing down. After he passed me at 25.5, I waited for my next guy (PS: 230 lbs guy who ran 2:38) and then went to the Bishop’s Collar where I stayed until about 2:30pm.
Again, I’m not sure why your biking route matters or how many water stops you were at.
All that matters is:
Ethan was DQ’d for receiving a water bottle from an unauthorized person.
USATF rules say he should’ve received a warning before a DQ.
The DQ seems to contradict USATF rules and no one (to my knowledge) has explained why the meet referee did not abide by USATF rules and why Ethan was DQ’d without a warning.
All other talk is detracting from the fact the referee (or whoever issued the DQ) likely messed up. (I say likely because maybe a warning was actually issued or maybe I’m somehow misinterpreting the rules or missed something).
I just don’t understand why almost no one is discussing the most important factor. He was wrongly DQ’D ACCORDING TO USATF RULES. Why does no one care about that?
Yeah, this seems like the only important question at this point based on what we know for sure. If Ethan was warned by an official during the race and then took the bottle from his coach again then the dq is definitely valid. If not, then it really seems like race officials majorly F-ed up and actually did rob Ethan of an OTQ (and apparently at the insistence and/or advice of a non-race official in Mckirdy which is pretty F-ed as well for other reasons). The race should do the right thing and reinstate his result unless they can actually state he was warned by an official before the infraction he was dqed for.
Again, I’m not sure why your biking route matters or how many water stops you were at.
All that matters is:
Ethan was DQ’d for receiving a water bottle from an unauthorized person.
USATF rules say he should’ve received a warning before a DQ.
The DQ seems to contradict USATF rules and no one (to my knowledge) has explained why the meet referee did not abide by USATF rules and why Ethan was DQ’d without a warning.
All other talk is detracting from the fact the referee (or whoever issued the DQ) likely messed up. (I say likely because maybe a warning was actually issued or maybe I’m somehow misinterpreting the rules or missed something).
I just don’t understand why almost no one is discussing the most important factor. He was wrongly DQ’D ACCORDING TO USATF RULES. Why does no one care about that?
plenty of people care and share your opinion, hence encouraging him to appeal the decision.
unless we’ve interpreted the rule incorrectly or we haven’t been given the full story I don’t see why you wouldn’t appeal.
Again, I’m not sure why your biking route matters or how many water stops you were at.
All that matters is:
Ethan was DQ’d for receiving a water bottle from an unauthorized person.
USATF rules say he should’ve received a warning before a DQ.
The DQ seems to contradict USATF rules and no one (to my knowledge) has explained why the meet referee did not abide by USATF rules and why Ethan was DQ’d without a warning.
All other talk is detracting from the fact the referee (or whoever issued the DQ) likely messed up. (I say likely because maybe a warning was actually issued or maybe I’m somehow misinterpreting the rules or missed something).
I just don’t understand why almost no one is discussing the most important factor. He was wrongly DQ’D ACCORDING TO USATF RULES. Why does no one care about that?
plenty of people care and share your opinion, hence encouraging him to appeal the decision.
unless we’ve interpreted the rule incorrectly or we haven’t been given the full story I don’t see why you wouldn’t appeal.
I'm not going to have a back and forth with someone that is anonymous. I'm a registered user and I'm sure its not hard to find my contact information. I'll have a back and forth with you personally if you want, but I'm not going to do it here. And to the answer as "how stupid am I?" when you contact me personally we can have that debate.
lmao hilarious and cringe that you are even on these message boards, if you truly are Ethan's coach. and to top it off you associate yourself with McKirdy. First couple steps to finding solace in your time of need; 1.) stop posting on message boards 2.) disassociate from McTirdy
Also, what person reports this to course/event officials? Just feel bad for the kid, seems like he worked hard, ran a great race, and won't get an official invite to the Olympic Trails because of a technicality that really didn't give him an unfair advantage. If anything, dock him 10 seconds and let him get in. The only penalization being a DQ seems so harsh in our sport.
The race I work for, we ask our Aid Station Captains at the locations that have elite bottles to report if anyone is touching the bottles on those tables or if anyone is handing athletes anything around that area. A few reasons... #1 is we have a set order that the bottles are placed that we communicate to the elite runners in the technical meeting and we want those runners to be able to rely on where their personal bottle is going to be. And #2, more of the issue for Ethan, is that if someone is handing an athlete a bottle at those stations we wonder if that athlete is getting bottles at other locations outside those stations. Obviously, no advantage gained (that I can see anyway) to have someone hand you a bottle at an aid station - but if you're getting personal bottles all along the course in places other athletes aren't that's an advantage.
Had this happened at the race I'm at we'd have done some research to determine if the athlete was getting bottle handups outside aid stations. If not, I suspect our officials team would have given a verbal warning which from everything I've read seems like a more fair outcome for all parties in a case like this.
More click-bait from Merber. The dude broke a rule, got caught, and got penalized. Happens all the time.
And for anyone resisting the need for this rule, imagine if it didn't exist. We'd have bikers all over every race, handing out bottles and nutrition like this was the Tour de France.
Every HS coach knows you can't aid a runner, and this Philly guy should have known, too.
And the "what about-ism" here gives off Fox News vibes. What Rupp did seven years ago has no bearing on this incident.
But that's not what happened, he didn't get his bottle from someone coming onto the course. He received his bottle at the elites aid station at mile 22 that was set up by the race organizers. The only "illegal" thing was that it was given to him by his coach (who picked it up off the table) and gave it to him. The USATF rule being cited as being violated doesn't necessarily preclude this, and rather officials went ahead and DQ'd him without giving a warning (which the rule requires
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
forgot to quote poster
Just checking in here to let people know that I am the coach and the person that handed Ethan his bottle. No one is taking this news harder than I am and I have taken full responsibility. I've apologized to my long time personal friends who were involved in the DQ for putting them in this situation. But just to make sure there isn't confusion, the bottle I handed him, was his official nutrition bottle that was on the official nutrition table. I let my emotions and excitement get the better of me, didn't know the rules and I've been trying to make this right from the moment I learned about this. I am definitely sorry and I will definitely not do something like this ever again.
Wow. I'm stunned your apologizing.
Galen Rupp won an Olympic medal after getting aid that others weren't getting:
Rules officials, if this is a DQ, why not for Rupp/Kipchoge as well?
Rupp receiving a hat soaked with ice/water was approved by the IAAF Technical Delegate prior to the competition. This is one of the reasons coaches need to advocate for their athletes in advance and ask!! The rule book can't include every scenario.
In regard to Kipchoge, the person handing the refreshment was a designated official of the race. He rode ahead to each station and properly handed the bottles from a fixed position at the official stations as allowed by the rules.
Again, as others have stated, Rule 241 2 e ,f "authorized persons"...no official shall, under any circumstances move beside an athlete while taking refreshment".... A competitor who collects refreshment from a place other than a refreshment station is liable to disqualification." Rule 144, as quoted numerous times in this post refers to track events. It specifically mentions several times "in track events of 5,000-10,000m,.....track events of longer than 10,000m." As a rule yellow and red cards are not shown during road events. Simple case. DQ, case closed. Athlete should know better. coach should know better. What knowledgable coach would not know this???
Again, as others have stated, Rule 241 2 e ,f "authorized persons"...no official shall, under any circumstances move beside an athlete while taking refreshment".... A competitor who collects refreshment from a place other than a refreshment station is liable to disqualification." Rule 144, as quoted numerous times in this post refers to track events. It specifically mentions several times "in track events of 5,000-10,000m,.....track events of longer than 10,000m." As a rule yellow and red cards are not shown during road events. Simple case. DQ, case closed. Athlete should know better. coach should know better. What knowledgable coach would not know this???
You’re referring to 144.9.A and 9. B which mention the 5k and 10k.
144.9 C doesn’t mention the 5k and 10k and refers to athletes leaving the “course”. If they mean the track, they should say track to be specific.
But that doesn’t matter, because 144.6 also says that any athlete giving or receiving assistance must be cautioned by the referee and warned. This refers to the assistance reference in 144.3 which specifically mentions ‘LDR’ events (144.3.B). It also says the only exceptions where an automatic DQ can be given are illegal pacing and physical supports that results in forward progress.
I have to agree and go back on my first post saying there was no ground for appeal. This is explicit language stating a competitor should not be DQ'd without a first warning of rules infraction. I'm not 100% sure about what sections might apply to track only or road only, but it does seem to be the intent here is to cover refreshment assistance for any long-distance event. Anyone ever hear or see of a yellow or red card warning for a road event before? XC?
Another thing is the rules state the official must warn the competitor. It's still not clear to me if there was even a first warning or not, and to whom, or even if the DQ notification came during the race.
Protest periods vary for each type of event. Looks like marathons fall into the 24 hours (posting of results?) to submit a written protest.
One thing I'm taking away from this is file a protest even if you think your chances of winning are slim. I'm honestly just guessing here, but I'm assuming there's some level of due process here. Even if your protest is quickly denied, you have much better standing to launch further appeal than if no protest was ever filed. You should have the right to further gather information, question witnesses and officials beyond the limits of the protest filing. Again, just guessing here.
Also, the race must be post within the official submitted results the rule(s) infraction that resulted in the DQ.
USATF site still shows Ethan under qualifying performances as of 11/20. I think it's common to see the qualifying list updated shorty after key marathons. It does add to the mystery as to when Ethan was told of his DQ ruling. If it was right after the race, why does USATF have him listed? If it came much after, even more grounds to appeal after the official protest period.
Qualifying window closes Dec 5th, two days CIM. Looking forward to seeing the final list.
Spoke with David Katz at the annual meeting about several issues including this one. He agreed with the DQ. He also agreed that the use of warnings and red/yellow cards mentioned in rule 144 applied to LDR events on the track. In addition, Rule 125 does give a referee direction to DQ without warning. This is of particular use in road events where it is not “practicable” to issue a warning. If a tech meeting or tech sheet were used then there need be no warning.
The bigger issue is that most races don’t know the rules, don’t have a designated referee, Or simply don’t enforce the rules. According to other posts this was the case in Richmond for example.
It's sad but the right call. Athletes have to be the ones that check in their bottles. There's a presumption they know what is in them when they do this. If the only people who touch them are race officials, athletes can't blame their bottle if they test positive for performance enhancing drugs. But if an athlete's coach gives them the bottle, then they can claim, "my coach gave me a pork burrito in liquid form," and cheaters may not see consequences. It seems like a stupid rule until you think that through. Glad USATF is enforcing it. Now if they'd just drug test Nick Bare and Matt Choi...
It wasn’t McKirdy. I actually reached out because that post came the next day. He said the Philly race coordinators reached out for his advice on how to handle and gave him the evidence and he gave his opinions. He actually helped “talk me off the ledge” because I was in a big depression hole Monday and Tuesday. He said with CIM coming up, he wanted to remind people since that’s the last race of the window
If you really are Ethan's coach, you know by now that it was definitely James McKirdy that reported you, and he lied to your face, and everyone elses about it.
The bigger issue is not that McKirdy reported you, or that your athlete got DQ'd, it's the fact that he lied to you about it. Stand up for the sport, and yourself, and say that McKirdy reported the infraction.
The Philadelphia Runner Track Club has all the evidence that leads to McKirdy reporting the infraction. PRTC - have some integrity for the sport, and release this information so the truth can be vindicated. PRTC allowing people to believe it was not McKirdy who reported the infraction is a disservice, and are harboring him.
Anyone who defends McKirdy has no respect for the sport. There are a million other coaches out there; you don't need to choose McKirdy. If the McKirdy Marathon goes away, a better marathon will be organized by someone who is actually respected. Stop acting like McKirdy's an integral part of this sport; he can be replaced, and people can succeed elsewhere.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
