Bayshore Marathon Short?

AnonymousRun wrote:

Now before I ask this, I’d like to get ahead of the fact that I expect other posters here to once again harp on the fact that I appear to be questioning any possibility that the course is short, even if all I’m trying to do is ask reasonable questions because I’m genuinely interested in the answers (fwiw, I also mentioned the potential course measurement issue in the post-race feedback survey and reached out to the race organizers separately and hope they respond).

But if it’s a turnaround issue, have you noticed weird mile 13/14 splits if you’ve used manual laps on your watch instead of auto laps? I used auto laps when running the race so I can’t really say. I did see one poster earlier in this thread say that they did manual laps and didn’t notice anything off, though, which seems a little odd if the turnaround is up to 0.1 miles short of where it should be.

Mittenxc wrote:

The course is legit. Gps is wierd and not to be believed all the time. Great tool but not always accurate. How many times have you done a run with somone and finished and not had same distance? Probably more often than not. The course follows the road along the lake and has lots of gentle turns following the contours of the shore. Gps will sometimes connect straight line dots and not catch the total distance you are running. Essentially you are running a squiggly line and the gps doesn't follow that precisely be cause it doesn't re ORD every second. So when it dies ville t a data point it will just draw a straight line firm the last point. Running a single track trail in the woods with lots of tree cover will exasperate this even more. People in my strava feed were between 26.09 and 26.22. I've run the race previously and found it to be accurate. No mile markers off or wierd splits if you are just using the mile markers instead of your watch which I've done. Weather last 2 years has been just about perfect and the times reflect it. This is a great race. Getting out to the start of the half using the bussing they provide can be interesting but when we ran the half we had somone take us out there and drop us. The full starts and finishes in same spot.

theSameGuyWhoWonIt wrote:

Suspicious: no. I treat GPS like a mild curiosity, and when it's off, I think nothing of it. After all, the simple difference in running straight lines vs. drifting around etc. accounts for enough discrepancy that it isn't really worth wondering about. Have you seen DCRainMaker's GPS comparisons between watches? He will wear 6 watches at one time and show you the GPS data... just not something I consider authoritative on precise measurements.

Most runners knew the course: I knew it as well--that racers ought to run on the right side of the road--because of the other runners on the course. I had no inkling that there was any cause for concern if a runner drifted to the inside of curves. Also, I don't recall ever consciously thinking "I'm going to run on the other side of the road because it will be faster even though I shouldn't." As I've stated previously, I have a firmly ingrained instinct to run the shortest possible course available to me. Even then, for very nearly the entire time, there were runners coming at me on the left side of the road, so if I were to estimate how much time I actually spent on the left side vs. the middle, it would be quite a bit less than the theoretically possible amount of distance.

One of the most notable missing links in the entire argument about the runners cutting this short is the fact that you are all assuming the runners must have been optimizing every moment of the race. There is a long list of reasons why that isn't likely, not least of which is the fact that there is just as much photo evidence of us running right next to the other runners in the middle. But hard data aside, the bottle tables were on the far right side, and navigating to those required not only being on that side, but also weaving through the half marathon runners who were all on that side. It's probably no more than a miniscule contribution, but I contend that the opposite contribution was also minimal. Overall, the entire argument here hinges on a premise that is so particular that I just find it statistically unlikely.

Namely this: you claim that the abundant proof of concern is in the fact that all the GPS data from runners is short enough to raise concern AND that photo evidence of runners running in restricted areas further proves the point. But we've already confirmed that a great many runners followed only the righthand side of the course and yet still ended with just about the same distance discrepancy. The most logical conclusion is usually the right one, and it remains true that the most logical conclusion is that the GPS data is skewed and that whatever potentially minimal advantage a runner gained by small amounts of time cutting the curves shorter, that advantage was likely returned in fairly equal measure in other instances.

Remember the numbers--my previous note about a 0.5% advantage was a liberal estimation. In reality, it is likely more around 0.3%. That's margin of error territory.

The rule with such deliberations, as always, is that you will never convince your opposition to change their mind, but as stated, I hope those who ran it and are seeing this thread see enough clarity here to feel justified in their great performances and dismiss these narrow criticisms.

AnonymousRun wrote:

Now before I ask this, I’d like to get ahead of the fact that I expect other posters here to once again harp on the fact that I appear to be questioning any possibility that the course is short, even if all I’m trying to do is ask reasonable questions because I’m genuinely interested in the answers (fwiw, I also mentioned the potential course measurement issue in the post-race feedback survey and reached out to the race organizers separately and hope they respond).

But if it’s a turnaround issue, have you noticed weird mile 13/14 splits if you’ve used manual laps on your watch instead of auto laps? I used auto laps when running the race so I can’t really say. I did see one poster earlier in this thread say that they did manual laps and didn’t notice anything off, though, which seems a little odd if the turnaround is up to 0.1 miles short of where it should be.