In a sane world they would let people decide for themselves if they wanted to take the risk.
Unfortunately we don't live in that world. Allowing people to run in this weather is a legal nightmare.
Worth noting (as I think a few other posts have suggested) that for large marathons (which I think TCM qualifies as) the main risk they're trying to mitigate is a mass casualty event that disrupts emergency medical services *for the community at large*, not just for runners. If all the ambulances are carting away heat stroke victims, then people die.
There have been numerous studies on this: non-runners who have, say, a heart attack on the day of a major marathon take longer to receive care and are more likely to ultimately die. And this is under normal weather conditions. (Part of the problem is road closures, even when medical teams aren't overwhelmed.) When there's a mass casualty event, the situation--for runners, but also for the community at large--gets significantly worse. So it doesn't really matter if all the runners are willing to accept the risk. The problem is the risk being imposed on others, and that's where the major pressure on race directors comes from.
Also worth noting that the TCM medical director is Bill Roberts, who is one of the major figures in marathon medical care. He's one of the guys who helps write the international guidelines, so a decision like this was not taken lightly or without adequate information.
I'm sure "mass casualty" is a primary consideration. But I think it's secondary to legal considerations. As noted elsewhere, the waiver isn't worth the paper it's written on if there is even a hint of negligence.
Maybe it's the cavalier ER doc in me, but a metro area of 3.7 million should be able to absorb a few hundred extra patients without a problem. There are thousands of ER beds within a short drive of the route. Personally, my ER alone often accommodates over 100 patients at a time. Plus it's Sunday(easily the lowest volume day for an ER), and nationwide ED visits are currently extremely low(respiratory season hasn't hit yet). The vast majority of these patients would be mildly volume depleted and overheated. Treat and street.
Fwiw, the Twin Cities set a record today for highest temperature ever in October (92) in recorded history.
And for all those saying they do long runs in the heat, looking at Minneapolis historical temps this past summer, there was a grand total of one Saturday or Sunday (I.e., when the overwhelming majority of people do their long runs) as hot as today all summer in Minneapolis. Thus depending on the specifics of the training plan, all local runners who do long runs on the weekend would have had somewhere between zero and one long run as hot as today in their entire buildup. I do feel bad for anyone who traveled from say Florida or Texas to run this race - they probably would have been fine, but for everyone else, and for anyone in the Twin Cities area who needed an ambulance or an emergency room today for reasons completely unrelated to running, it was definitely the right call.
I am so confused, it hardly gets below 69 degrees in the north east this time of year… we have turned into the softest smucks in history. this is so relatable to covid, everyone hiding behind the “safety blanket” The ultimate defenseless argument
The Falmouth road race happens every year in similar conditions…. Yes it is only 7 miles but you adjust your pace and use common sense. I guess we’ll cancel that for the future. Tell your friends to never do their long runs again if it is 70 degrees bahahaha. Cucks
Fwiw, the Twin Cities set a record today for highest temperature ever in October (92) in recorded history.
Do you live here? I live 2 blocks from the course and at 7AM today the temps were downright comfortable. Yes it reached 92 today AT 4:00 THIS AFTERNOON. The race organizers knew about this heat wave days in advance; the night before the race you make the call to move the start to 6AM, you set the cutoff time to 6 hours, and boom, you have your race. Tell anyone else who is slower than that they are welcome to start the 10 mile at the back of the pack. What was ridiculous was waiting until the absolute last minute to take action on weather they knew was coming days in advance.
And I say this as an endurance athlete with decades of experience in multiple sport, in all types of weather, including weather such as we had today.
And I say this as an endurance athlete with decades of experience in multiple sport, in all types of weather, including weather such as we had today.
Do you also have experience directing logistics of a large marathon? I'm not saying this was the right decision, or that it wasn't frustrating. But, all y'all acting like they could have just changed the time of the event on short notice -- including all the road closures, police and med services, volunteers, etc. -- are out of your brains. If someone with experience directing a race of this magnitude thinks I'm wrong, I'd love to hear their thoughts.
And I say this as an endurance athlete with decades of experience in multiple sport, in all types of weather, including weather such as we had today.
Do you also have experience directing logistics of a large marathon? I'm not saying this was the right decision, or that it wasn't frustrating. But, all y'all acting like they could have just changed the time of the event on short notice -- including all the road closures, police and med services, volunteers, etc. -- are out of your brains. If someone with experience directing a race of this magnitude thinks I'm wrong, I'd love to hear their thoughts.
Look, I totally get what you're saying, don't get me wrong. But as I said, they had DAYS of warning this heat wave was coming, it's not as though they woke up this morning and "Oh No, it's going to be 9000 degrees out." They have been holding this marathon for a long time and it would be shocking to me if they had never done any contingency scenario walk throughs. We're talking about moving the start up two hours, not two days. To your point, for all I know that was literally a logistical impossibility but the fact is, making this call at the absolute last minute is not generating any good will. So many people ran the course anyway today the local papers were running stories about it, including one from a guy who called the temperatures 'perfectly manageable'. Sample set of one, I get it, but still..
In a sane world they would let people decide for themselves if they wanted to take the risk.
Unfortunately we don't live in that world. Allowing people to run in this weather is a legal nightmare.
Worth noting (as I think a few other posts have suggested) that for large marathons (which I think TCM qualifies as) the main risk they're trying to mitigate is a mass casualty event that disrupts emergency medical services *for the community at large*, not just for runners. If all the ambulances are carting away heat stroke victims, then people die.
There have been numerous studies on this: non-runners who have, say, a heart attack on the day of a major marathon take longer to receive care and are more likely to ultimately die. And this is under normal weather conditions. (Part of the problem is road closures, even when medical teams aren't overwhelmed.) When there's a mass casualty event, the situation--for runners, but also for the community at large--gets significantly worse. So it doesn't really matter if all the runners are willing to accept the risk. The problem is the risk being imposed on others, and that's where the major pressure on race directors comes from.
Also worth noting that the TCM medical director is Bill Roberts, who is one of the major figures in marathon medical care. He's one of the guys who helps write the international guidelines, so a decision like this was not taken lightly or without adequate information.
Woah. That's way too much logic, reason and common sense for the crowd here. Much more fun to convince themselves it was a big screw job.
Yes. LA Marathon a few years back changed the start time the night before due to heat. No issues. Race went off well, and that race was both larger and logistically more difficult than TCM.
I am so confused, it hardly gets below 69 degrees in the north east this time of year… we have turned into the softest smucks in history. this is so relatable to covid, everyone hiding behind the “safety blanket” The ultimate defenseless argument
The Falmouth road race happens every year in similar conditions…. Yes it is only 7 miles but you adjust your pace and use common sense. I guess we’ll cancel that for the future. Tell your friends to never do their long runs again if it is 70 degrees bahahaha. Cucks
Assuming you mean for the HIGH. 69 and 92 are not the same, fyi.
A few years ago (2017) ATM was total sh!itshow here in dc and was cancelled mid race if I recall correctly because heat cats were piling up faster than they could be dealt with. And that was only a 10 miler.
black flag conditions were hit at 1:53pm 22minutes before the finish line would have been closed at 2:15pm. 8am marathon start had. 6 hour time limit, plus 15 minutes.
black flag conditions were hit at 1:53pm 22minutes before the finish line would have been closed at 2:15pm. 8am marathon start had. 6 hour time limit, plus 15 minutes.
That sucks. Sounds like they had days to get more supplies, water, so that's not an excuse. And they prob could've started the marathon an hour earlier with support from the city.
They won’t cancel. This is just PR speak to try to absolve them of liability.
You sign a waiver, so there's no issue for them with liability unless it's discovered something nefarious is going on. So don't bother suing.
I've quickly read through the first 151 posts of this thread, and have yet to see a correct statement of the law regarding waivers.
Although the interpretation of the waiver's effect is ultimately a question of state law (here, I presume that the substantive state law would be that of Minnesota, which I haven't researched), waivers typically provide protection against claims of ordinary negligence, but are unlikely to protect against claims of gross negligence. I don't recall ever seeing any "nefariousness" requirement for establishing gross negligence. The problem, though, is that the distinction between ordinary and gross negligence is a pretty fine line. Although I have seen a court determine the absence of gross negligence as a matter of law rather than a matter for the fact-finder (which would likely be a jury), I wouldn't want to be on the defense side of that issue if two or three people die in a marathon. Also, one could argue that putting on a marathon under these conditions is "inherently dangerous" conduct, which might also avoid the defense of waiver. (Not that I would be the least bit inclined, as a judge or juror, to find for the plaintiff in these kinds of cases.) I also want to note that, in marathons with a large number of, let's say, "recreational runners," the likelihood of death from dehydration or some kind of overheating may well be less than the likelihood of death from overhydration resulting in abnormally low concentrations of sodium (hyponatremia). I'm not sure how a marathon organizer could reasonably be found to be grossly negligent for the death of a runner who overhydrates himself to death, but I'm confident that I could find a lawyer and a well-paid "expert witness" who would claim that offering water without electrolytes added is grossly negligent conduct in light of the known dangers.
That said, it's a shame that concerns like these need to be considered under such circumstances. I personally wouldn't want to be a race organizer with any possibility of liability for injury, illness, or death. Also, it's a shame that the Twin Cities Marathon, which I ran a couple of times in the '80s and was widely considered the best marathon in the country, is now getting cancelled for something like this. (I realize that some will say that the cancellation is justified because of the medical risks to the participants, not the legal risks of the race organizers. I'm pretty sure that I would not find that persuasive.)
Now for the usual caveats: I'm not providing legal (or medical) advice to be relied upon in any way. Consult your own lawyer (or doctor) for that. These are just the musings of a lawyer who apparently has too much time on his hands.
The TC 10 mile runners had to check their gear bags at the Expo on Friday or Saturday. The race was on Sunday so anyone who checked a bag could pick it up today. The bags were all at the finish area this morning so many runners who parked near the finish already picked up their gear bags.
You sign a waiver, so there's no issue for them with liability unless it's discovered something nefarious is going on. So don't bother suing.
I've quickly read through the first 151 posts of this thread, and have yet to see a correct statement of the law regarding waivers.
Although the interpretation of the waiver's effect is ultimately a question of state law (here, I presume that the substantive state law would be that of Minnesota, which I haven't researched), waivers typically provide protection against claims of ordinary negligence, but are unlikely to protect against claims of gross negligence. I don't recall ever seeing any "nefariousness" requirement for establishing gross negligence. The problem, though, is that the distinction between ordinary and gross negligence is a pretty fine line. Although I have seen a court determine the absence of gross negligence as a matter of law rather than a matter for the fact-finder (which would likely be a jury), I wouldn't want to be on the defense side of that issue if two or three people die in a marathon. Also, one could argue that putting on a marathon under these conditions is "inherently dangerous" conduct, which might also avoid the defense of waiver. (Not that I would be the least bit inclined, as a judge or juror, to find for the plaintiff in these kinds of cases.) I also want to note that, in marathons with a large number of, let's say, "recreational runners," the likelihood of death from dehydration or some kind of overheating may well be less than the likelihood of death from overhydration resulting in abnormally low concentrations of sodium (hyponatremia). I'm not sure how a marathon organizer could reasonably be found to be grossly negligent for the death of a runner who overhydrates himself to death, but I'm confident that I could find a lawyer and a well-paid "expert witness" who would claim that offering water without electrolytes added is grossly negligent conduct in light of the known dangers.
That said, it's a shame that concerns like these need to be considered under such circumstances. I personally wouldn't want to be a race organizer with any possibility of liability for injury, illness, or death. Also, it's a shame that the Twin Cities Marathon, which I ran a couple of times in the '80s and was widely considered the best marathon in the country, is now getting cancelled for something like this. (I realize that some will say that the cancellation is justified because of the medical risks to the participants, not the legal risks of the race organizers. I'm pretty sure that I would not find that persuasive.)
Now for the usual caveats: I'm not providing legal (or medical) advice to be relied upon in any way. Consult your own lawyer (or doctor) for that. These are just the musings of a lawyer who apparently has too much time on his hands.
I find it interesting that you are being downvoted when almost nobody here entirely understands your post. I do but I share some overlap in background with you. The only reason I can think of to downvote you is your comment about the medical risks or participants not being a persuasive justification for cancellation, as this is an opinion which I could possibly disagree with. It is challenging because we cannot know, much like during the worst of the Pandemic, whether some of the protective measures might have been unnecessary, or at worst, deleterious for society. And the same in this situation, that without the benefit of omniscience, we are left speculating.
You sign a waiver, so there's no issue for them with liability unless it's discovered something nefarious is going on. So don't bother suing.
I've quickly read through the first 151 posts of this thread, and have yet to see a correct statement of the law regarding waivers.
Although the interpretation of the waiver's effect is ultimately a question of state law (here, I presume that the substantive state law would be that of Minnesota, which I haven't researched), waivers typically provide protection against claims of ordinary negligence, but are unlikely to protect against claims of gross negligence. I don't recall ever seeing any "nefariousness" requirement for establishing gross negligence. The problem, though, is that the distinction between ordinary and gross negligence is a pretty fine line. Although I have seen a court determine the absence of gross negligence as a matter of law rather than a matter for the fact-finder (which would likely be a jury), I wouldn't want to be on the defense side of that issue if two or three people die in a marathon. Also, one could argue that putting on a marathon under these conditions is "inherently dangerous" conduct, which might also avoid the defense of waiver. (Not that I would be the least bit inclined, as a judge or juror, to find for the plaintiff in these kinds of cases.) I also want to note that, in marathons with a large number of, let's say, "recreational runners," the likelihood of death from dehydration or some kind of overheating may well be less than the likelihood of death from overhydration resulting in abnormally low concentrations of sodium (hyponatremia). I'm not sure how a marathon organizer could reasonably be found to be grossly negligent for the death of a runner who overhydrates himself to death, but I'm confident that I could find a lawyer and a well-paid "expert witness" who would claim that offering water without electrolytes added is grossly negligent conduct in light of the known dangers.
That said, it's a shame that concerns like these need to be considered under such circumstances. I personally wouldn't want to be a race organizer with any possibility of liability for injury, illness, or death. Also, it's a shame that the Twin Cities Marathon, which I ran a couple of times in the '80s and was widely considered the best marathon in the country, is now getting cancelled for something like this. (I realize that some will say that the cancellation is justified because of the medical risks to the participants, not the legal risks of the race organizers. I'm pretty sure that I would not find that persuasive.)
Now for the usual caveats: I'm not providing legal (or medical) advice to be relied upon in any way. Consult your own lawyer (or doctor) for that. These are just the musings of a lawyer who apparently has too much time on his hands.
“I’m going to weigh in, although I have no knowledge of the specific contract, jurisdiction, the applicable substantive law, Minnesota rules of civil procedure, or even the terms of the waiver itself”
I've quickly read through the first 151 posts of this thread, and have yet to see a correct statement of the law regarding waivers.
Although the interpretation of the waiver's effect is ultimately a question of state law (here, I presume that the substantive state law would be that of Minnesota, which I haven't researched), waivers typically provide protection against claims of ordinary negligence, but are unlikely to protect against claims of gross negligence. I don't recall ever seeing any "nefariousness" requirement for establishing gross negligence. The problem, though, is that the distinction between ordinary and gross negligence is a pretty fine line. Although I have seen a court determine the absence of gross negligence as a matter of law rather than a matter for the fact-finder (which would likely be a jury), I wouldn't want to be on the defense side of that issue if two or three people die in a marathon. Also, one could argue that putting on a marathon under these conditions is "inherently dangerous" conduct, which might also avoid the defense of waiver. (Not that I would be the least bit inclined, as a judge or juror, to find for the plaintiff in these kinds of cases.) I also want to note that, in marathons with a large number of, let's say, "recreational runners," the likelihood of death from dehydration or some kind of overheating may well be less than the likelihood of death from overhydration resulting in abnormally low concentrations of sodium (hyponatremia). I'm not sure how a marathon organizer could reasonably be found to be grossly negligent for the death of a runner who overhydrates himself to death, but I'm confident that I could find a lawyer and a well-paid "expert witness" who would claim that offering water without electrolytes added is grossly negligent conduct in light of the known dangers.
That said, it's a shame that concerns like these need to be considered under such circumstances. I personally wouldn't want to be a race organizer with any possibility of liability for injury, illness, or death. Also, it's a shame that the Twin Cities Marathon, which I ran a couple of times in the '80s and was widely considered the best marathon in the country, is now getting cancelled for something like this. (I realize that some will say that the cancellation is justified because of the medical risks to the participants, not the legal risks of the race organizers. I'm pretty sure that I would not find that persuasive.)
Now for the usual caveats: I'm not providing legal (or medical) advice to be relied upon in any way. Consult your own lawyer (or doctor) for that. These are just the musings of a lawyer who apparently has too much time on his hands.
“I’m going to weigh in, although I have no knowledge of the specific contract, jurisdiction, the applicable substantive law, Minnesota rules of civil procedure, or even the terms of the waiver itself”
No soup for you. NEXT!
And yet his post is actually reasonable and cogent, unlike most of what is written here. He also offered the caveats regarding his lack of specific knowledge here, unlike all the blowhards who pontificate as if they know something despite their palpable ignorance.
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.