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

SWOF wrote:

Ignorant? About the Boston Marathon? I think not -- I have qualified for it over 40 times, and run it 7.

Selfish? I think not -- if Boston filled with runners that could run under 3:10, that would be fine with me. And I would not get to run it. How is that ignorant OR selfish??? Perhaps you should get to know a person before you resort to your judgmental and uninformed insults.

Back to the subject at hand: As I recall, the last person who died in the BM was a charity (T-i-T) jogger who was on pace for about a 5 1/2 hour marathon.

Ignorant because you are clearly unaware of the tremendous good these charity runners do. Selfish because you want qualified non-charity runners, who are competing for purely selfish reasons, to be given priority over the charity runners.

And for your information, Dr. Cynthia Lucera (your deceased "charity jogger") was an experienced marathoner. Let's not forget that the first person to ever finish a marathon was also doing it for unselfish reasons and died at the finish line.

Earth to nimrod wrote:

SWOF wrote:

Ignorant? About the Boston Marathon? I think not -- I have qualified for it over 40 times, and run it 7.

Selfish? I think not -- if Boston filled with runners that could run under 3:10, that would be fine with me. And I would not get to run it. How is that ignorant OR selfish??? Perhaps you should get to know a person before you resort to your judgmental and uninformed insults.

Back to the subject at hand: As I recall, the last person who died in the BM was a charity (T-i-T) jogger who was on pace for about a 5 1/2 hour marathon.

And for your information, Dr. Cynthia Lucera (your deceased "charity jogger") was an experienced marathoner. Let's not forget that the first person to ever finish a marathon was also doing it for unselfish reasons and died at the finish line.

Cynthia Lucero had one prior marathon to her credit, the San Diego marathon, which she finished in 4 1/2 hours.

Humphrey Siesage was the name of the Swedish man who dropped dead at the finish line of Boston in 1996.

You sir, are the a__hole.

"Purely for selfish reasons"?

Are you really implying these people should be given priority over anyone else? Maybe a few elites and 30,000 sanctimoneous morons like you right?

Most around here run because it is part of their life and to measure themselves against other runners. It seems you are doing it to try and show you are somehow running for a higher calling, which is all in your self absorbed mind.

You act like you are saving the world, when the real reason you do it is so you can brag about yourself.

ST elevation wrote:

I think maybe the BAA just really wants to avoid serious health issues/deaths, especially with their increasing numbers of inexperienced marathoners.

How is medical attention provided and by whom? Are runners billed afterward? (I'm asking honestly out of curiosity.) The BAA knows this, and can only provide so many medical services/transport to local medical centers.[/quote]

On site first aid is free to runners, you will be billed if it escalates to an ambulance ride and trip to a hospital.

Actually charity runners are just as selfish as any other runner. (though I don't believe running is selfish) If they were interested in charity, they would stay home and donate their money to a charity or maybe spend all that training and running time actually working with a charity. Why must they require an organization spend thousands of dollars that require hundreds of volunteers just so they can run a marathon so others will give money to a charity? How much of their own money is going to the charity? Very little, if any at all.

I realize it's not a perfect analogy, but I've worked the medical tent at the PIAA XC championship meet for a few years, and you would be shocked at how many kids (who aren't seasoned marathoners, but are well conditioned HS kids running a little over 3 miles) start dropping over from dehydration or heat stroke/exhaustion when the temp happens to be ~10 degrees warmer than what's typical for late October (we're talking maybe high 50s into low 60s, let alone the occasional 70 degree day.

Chicago was so disastrous because it was so UNSEASONABLY warm. Doctors in this case may be "overreacting" by recommending significan numbers of people abstain entirely, but it would be irresponsible of them NOT to. What you choose to do is up to you, but you can't say you weren't warned.

Everyone's a tough guy until something like Chicago happens. Big talk on a messageboard is all well and good, but there are legitimate health concerns to consider, even if you don't end up being one of the unlucky ones.

I don't consider myself a tough guy, but I ran Chicago in 2007, as well as Boston in 2004 and the "nor easter" year.

The only "big talker" here is you, and it's straight from your arse.

You pick a small sampling of your narrow experience and try to act like an expert to people who have experienced more than you ever have or will.

Stay at you HS meets with the over protective parents and leave Boston for the adults.

You want to raise money for charity? Fine, do that instead of running.

Thanks for checking in, stud. You are a prime example of a big talker, despite your protesting otherwise.

I pick a sample I know, and it translates well to many aspects of many sports. If I personally offended you by suggesting that competing in some sporting events (and keep in mind I'm being generous by referring to a marathon as a "sporting event"), then maybe you're not truly as tough as you'd like to believe. You sure got riled up after reading my harmless post.

I never professed to be any type of expert (although my pending MD and my years as a runner at least make me as qualified as the average joe), I only offered a small example of what seemingly mild changes in temperature can do to seasoned athletes.

Chill out. There are probably more important internet fights for you to pick.

That should read:

"If I personally offended you by suggesting that competing in some sporting events . . . during unseasonably warm weather can pose safety concerns to the masses, then maybe . . . "

Your responses are typical of those who get called on BS here. I was hoping you would say you ran one of the races I mentioned, but alas, you were on the sidelines again.

You would gather a big following on the runnersworld boards, perhaps you should trot over there. The charity set will treat you like a deity.

sdff wrote:

Your responses are typical of those who get called on BS here. I was hoping you would say you ran one of the races I mentioned, but alas, you were on the sidelines again.

You would gather a big following on the runnersworld boards, perhaps you should trot over there. The charity set will treat you like a deity.

You are not very good at the internet.

The term "charity runner" at Boston refers to the fact that they receive charity (in the form of an unqualified entry) not that they provide charity. Sure, many of them have spent time raising funds for charitable organizations but last I checked you can do that without running marathons.

sdff wrote:

You sir, are the a__hole.

"Purely for selfish reasons"?

Are you really implying these people should be given priority over anyone else? Maybe a few elites and 30,000 sanctimoneous morons like you right?

Most around here run because it is part of their life and to measure themselves against other runners. It seems you are doing it to try and show you are somehow running for a higher calling, which is all in your self absorbed mind.

You act like you are saving the world, when the real reason you do it is so you can brag about yourself.

First, I'm not a "sir". Second, did you even read the thread? I did not imply anyone should be given priority. If you read my posts, you would see I believe in the exact opposite. That other nimrod wants charity runners out in favor of qualifiers. I disagree with that. Try to keep up.

charity runners wrote:

Actually charity runners are just as selfish as any other runner. (though I don't believe running is selfish) If they were interested in charity, they would stay home and donate their money to a charity or maybe spend all that training and running time actually working with a charity. Why must they require an organization spend thousands of dollars that require hundreds of volunteers just so they can run a marathon so others will give money to a charity? How much of their own money is going to the charity? Very little, if any at all.

Of course running is selfish. That doesn't make it bad. Eating is selfish, too. But "stay home and donate their money to a charity or maybe spend all that training and running time actually working with a charity"? They ARE actually working with a charity, you moron. And they don't "require an organization" to raise monies. But the BAA generously provides the opportunity and welcomes these selfless runners to raise some money for worthy causes. Of course they should take advantage of it. And you think they contribute little of their own money? You're an idiot of epic proportions, even for LRC.

AlmostBQ wrote:

LOL. What I meant was, if there are a substantial number of deferrals - the cutoff time for 2012 marathon times might very well be at -10 BQ or beyond. I might be able to get -5, but -10 is not going to be in the cards.

No chance it will require -10BQ. *Maybe* it will be at the BQ-0 mark at the deadline.

This year, I think the cutoff was in the neighborhood of -1:40. But with the cutoff, that's now ~3:20 short of the current BQ mark. You have to factor in for entrants every year, so I'll make a total guess of about ~1min tighter this year, but that will still leave next year's cutoff at approx 2:30 tighter than last year. With another total guess, I'll peg that represents about 3-4000 open spots when qualifying opens in the fall. Normally I'd say that means it wouldn't fill up until maybe the end of December (another guess!). This will affect that somewhat... but I honestly don't think the deferments will be that huge. So like I said at the start, *maybe* it will fill up at the start for people just meeting the normal BQ deadline.

Only 607 heat deferrals today, so that leaves things fairly open for 2013 entry.

And then consider this: many people hoping to qualify for next year's Boston at Boston didn't do so, and the September application date precludes them from qualifying again for most fall marathons.

As a guy hoping to qualify in New Jersey in three weeks but unlikely to do so by more than 5 minutes, I like my odds of getting in.

What are you doing on letsrun if you're not at least 45 minutes under BQ? Didn't you know this site is only for those who consider themselves elite?

Like me!