Chicago Distance Classic - Course long?

I think we all need to be greatful that we have the capability and right to run and race..and that we get to a start and finish line healthy.

Seriously folks, crap happens.

This isn't cancer, this isn't war, this isn't aids, this isn't poverty, etc. There are more important things to spend your energy on.

John Bingham wrote:

If it matters, here's the response from the certifier to YOUR concerns AND mine.

And for those who are wondering, it was USATF certified, it just hasn't been posted. And the USATF doesn't care if a course is long, for record purposes, only that it isn't short.

Here is gmaps pedometer (

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=2167717

) of the course I measured and certified, it measured 13.1834 online, given the error margin of plus or minus 1 or 2 percent (.131834 to .226188)

it fall right in place with the correct course. Now add ~.1668/2 = 0.0834 to the turn around further south, to the south end adjacent to the Science Dr where we took the left turn onto the board walk and you have your over run distance ~13.2762 miles

Why isn't the total overrun distance the .1668? If you measured 13.1834, and we ran an additional .0834 down to the south end of the boardwalk and an additional .0834 back up to where the actual turnaround point should have been, why does that not equal 13.1834 + .1668 = 13.35 miles (which is getting closer to the 13.4 miles most people said they logged on their GPS devices).

I can see that there is a considerable amount of people with the perception that the discrepancy in the total distance is more than .1668 miles. This perception has been noticed and described by runners using GPS (Garmins, Polars, Suunto, etc.), runners tracking elapsed time with chronometers, runners that have demonstrated discrepancies between the route maps posted at the CDC Web Site with what was in fact ran (see previous threads), and others I spoke with. When more-than-a-few different people have the same “perception”, their claims should be considered very carefully.

In this race participated a lot of good, experienced runners that take very seriously the technical aspect of their running, and have presented valid arguments supporting their points. We cannot underestimate the knowledge and experience of these athletes. Based on the above and on my personal experience during the race, I understand the additional distance is between .25 and .30 miles and not only .1668.

The only way to dissipate all doubts is to measure again (with a calibrated bike and/or with a tool like Google Earth) the route ACTUALLY used, because the issue here is not that the measure/certification was made incorrectly. The problem is that what was measured is not what we ran at several different segments of the route.

I applaud that the race organizers had faced this and tried to fix this as quick as possible, but the concern for the majority of the time-conscious runners still remains and it requires to be addressed accordingly.

Besides that annoying-for-many issue, for me in overall terms, the event was very good.

And then what? Seriously? If you remeasure the course using a bike, Google Earth, or a slide-ruler and then measure it again. What difference does it make at this point? The race has been run. If all these experienced runners with their technology have looked at their data and studdied the course map and they universally decide that the course was 13.39, there you have it, the course was 13.39. Go ahead and adjust your times accordingly. Put it in your log books. End of story. I have not heard one good reason to keep beating this dead horse.

I thought this was a well run event. One thing people are forgeting is that GPS recievers work on "Line of sight" with satelites in space. Three times we were not in "Line of sight. Under McCormick Place, And twice in tunnels. This will automaticly put an error in GPS distance.

John Bingham has apoligised on this forum, He didn't have too open himself to this ridicule. He has done everything he can to solve the problem. Some didn't like his comments before the race. "We paid for 4 hours". Apparently he has something, Some here know nothing about. A sense of humor. You people should get over yourselves. This is not the end of the world. If you were trying to qualify for the top 100 and didn't make it, I'm sorry. You will be in the front row of corral A. What is the big deal? Oh yea your ego. Get over it. There is nothing that can be done to change it now. John Bingham goes out of his way, to make sure runners of all abilites have a good time. Isn't that what it is all about? For the record I ran 1:48 and I was happy with that.

You think it was an event. I paid $75 for a race. In the races description, it promised to deliver an accurately measured course. It did not. That makes no difference if you came for an event, many came for a race and have the right to complain. If you don't like them, don't read them.

You didn't need a special watch to know the course was off. Simply looking at your splits told you something was wrong.

Yes he did have to respond. He failed to deliver the product people paid for.

All anyone asked him to do was re measure the course. If he would have explained the discrepancies on the races web site right away, he would have eliminated confusion. He didn't.

I could care less about his comments.

Everyone has a sense of humor, but they might not be the same as yours. You should get over it.

Nobody said it was the end of the world. This is a running web site. People discuss things like this here. What don't you understand about that?

Ego has nothing to do with the top 100 corral. It's called a goal. Just because you don't have that goal, don't shit on someone else for having it. If you don't like that, you get over it.

Nobody wanted to change anything, they wanted an explanation.

To most runners, "a good time" is running hard in a race on an accurately measured course that you paid $75 to do. I guess that isn't of interest to you since you signed up for an "event"

Why should it make any difference to anyone what you ran? The only thing you did by including that time was troll for someone to rip your time, you failed.

I wish I could upload a picture of google earth I have. With the forerunner, you can view your running route on google earth with one click.....any tunnels or "out of site" areas we went through get connected when the watch is next visible to the sky. So distance is not affected...the only thing that could be would be time. Anyways, before the race started, I set my watch for a half marathon and entered the pace I wanted to run, that way I could see if i was ahead or behind and keep an even pace. When I uploaded the running route to google earth, it showed that the time and watch stopped just before the final straight away, meaning that 13.1 had been reached.

Runner that likes Chicago wrote:

I can see that there is a considerable amount of people with the perception that the discrepancy in the total distance is more than .1668 miles. This perception has been noticed and described by runners using GPS (Garmins, Polars, Suunto, etc.), runners tracking elapsed time with chronometers, runners that have demonstrated discrepancies between the route maps posted at the CDC Web Site with what was in fact ran (see previous threads), and others I spoke with. When more-than-a-few different people have the same “perception”, their claims should be considered very carefully.

In many contexts, I would agree with your last sentence. When, however, the context is a group of runners commenting on the perceived length of a race course, I do not readily agree. I have found that runners, especially, are inordinately biased when talking about course length. I can't tell you how many times I've run a race, on a certified course, and heard a runner say something like: "Mile 2 had to be long; my split was 20 seconds slower than it should have been." Pretty soon, there are a group of runners excitedly agreeing that Mile 2 had to be wrong, and they're all rushing to subtract 20 seconds off their final finishing time. When someone points out that Mile 2 had a 75-foot net elevation gain and was run into a headwind, the general response consists of a bunch of rationalizations about how hills and wind don't usually slow someone down very much.

Runners have a huge psychological incentive to believe that they ran faster than they actually did. Although there was obviously a conspicuous mistake on the CDC course, it would not surprise me at all if it was the only mistake. Most of what I'm reading here seems like a classic case of runners attempting to rationalize their way to a fast time.

John Bingham wrote:

Here is gmaps pedometer (

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=2167717

) of

the course I measured and certified

Now you guys have a map of the course as measured, so you can check if what you ran on race day was the same.

Folks,

It’s clear to me that my glib comments before the race were offensive. I should not have said anything that diminished your talent, your training, or your effort. I was wrong. I’m sorry.

As a practical matter, we need to find a better way of organizing that front corral. My initial thought is to put a check box on the application asking if your are trying to qualify for a seeded spot and put a “Q” on the number.

In the future we will “certify the certifier”. I will hire a second certifier to verify the accuracy of the course.

Finally, I will never get out on a long run with any of you where we can chat about running and racing. Not because I don’t want to, but because I’m not able to. But, you have my email address. Please use it. Please help me understand how to make this race better for you.

Thanks. And all the best in your racing.

John Bingham

The comments made before the start were not offensive and should have been taken as what they were. An attempt of an announcer trying to loosen up a crowd before the race. Problem is most runners already formed an opinion of you but have never read some of the thing written by you or only parts of them. Or they are the many sheeps this board has and just like to bash away thing they do not know about. It seems like you have done more than most race directers would do after the race is done to try and correct what has happen. It would be nice to get a exact distance so we can get on with our lives.

The course certifier is adamant that the course was .1668 long. Period. He rode the lead bike and swears that was the only deviation from his certified course.

Other than calling him an outright lier and a fraud I don't know what else to do.

j

I think that the gmaps-pedometer course you've linked to here reflects what we ran, apart from the location of the turnaround. So I'm in agreement with that difference in the distance. Of course I'm trusting that the start and finish line locations on the gmaps-pedometer course are in the place that they were on race day.

I want to say thank you for joining in here, John.

Wasn't the course a little long to begin with? I thought it was said to be 13.168 or something like that. Why not just get the whole course remeasured?

3I thought this was a well run event. One thing people are forgeting is that GPS recievers work on \"Line of sight\" with satelites in space. Three times we were not in \"Line of sight. Under McCormick Place, And twice in tunnels. This will automaticly put an error in GPS distance. \"

NO, GPS units are not LINE OF SIGHT. Please look up the technology and understand it before you assume how it works.

The GPS people were wearing and the guy that wheeled the course the day after seemed to agree that the course was atleast 13.4 miles long.

John,

I did not run this race and haven't been in Chi-town for years but... Just a thanks here for doing what you can, and whether right or wrong, for maintaining a civil tone here and continuing this dialogue in the optimistic spirit of looking towards future better endeavors for everyone.

That you have continued to respond on this thread speaks highly of you and quite frankly sets a standard that others will have to measure up to.

Well done.

The Man with No Name wrote:

The GPS people were wearing and the guy that wheeled the course the day after seemed to agree that the course was atleast 13.4 miles long.

You really think a guy walked 13 miles with a wheel, part of it through rush-hour traffic on Lake Shore Drive? Even if he did, the chance that he followed the SPR? Nil.

This is ridiculous. It was AT LEAST .3 long as any experienced runner tracking their splits would see (not to mention the thousands of Garmins indicating the exact same thing). We didn't run three minutes slower in mile 7 because we were suffering (a sudden change from 7 flats to 8:57 followed by a seven flat...hmmmm...) - it was off by a 1/4 mile or so. Mile 10 is also suspect as many posts have already indicated. Whatever is being used to measure your course is inaccurate. Be professional; be respectful of people who paid a lot of money to travel to your event; be accurate!