Bad Wigins wrote:
can you imagine a thread this long about a runner missing the 1500 trials with a 4:38? That's the equivalent.
Exactly ?
Bad Wigins wrote:
can you imagine a thread this long about a runner missing the 1500 trials with a 4:38? That's the equivalent.
Exactly ?
Would the trials organizers accept a qualifying gun time where the runner doesn't register at the starting mat?
It seems to me that the trials organizers place a strong reliability on the starting mat to verify someone started behind the line. How is it that they don't recognize the time between start and finish mats as legitimate, especially when the times are only for qualifying purposes...in order to run a head-to-head race.
BraveyNation brought to you by Champion wrote:
Because USATF doesn't want to tacitly encourage or deal with hordes of course-cutters turning in OTQ chip times. USATF doesn't have the resources to vet hundreds of entry submissions, holding to gun times is the simplest route to ensuring integrity.
How exactly does chip timing facilitate course cutting?
800 dude wrote:
BraveyNation brought to you by Champion wrote:
Because USATF doesn't want to tacitly encourage or deal with hordes of course-cutters turning in OTQ chip times. USATF doesn't have the resources to vet hundreds of entry submissions, holding to gun times is the simplest route to ensuring integrity.
How exactly does chip timing facilitate course cutting?
I don’t think course cutters turn in OTQ times, more like BQ times, unless they screw up their cheating enough
800 dude wrote:
BraveyNation brought to you by Champion wrote:
Because USATF doesn't want to tacitly encourage or deal with hordes of course-cutters turning in OTQ chip times. USATF doesn't have the resources to vet hundreds of entry submissions, holding to gun times is the simplest route to ensuring integrity.
How exactly does chip timing facilitate course cutting?
Happens in lower levels all the time, that's how Marathon Investigations came to be, sussing out people who cut the course between timing mats to get a BQ. You are aware that this isn't exactly a rare occurrence, no?
username0 wrote:
I don’t think course cutters turn in OTQ times, more like BQ times, unless they screw up their cheating enough
Basically because it's easier to game chip timing from deep in my the pack than it is to game gun time up front.
Appeal to OTQ wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
...
Knowing she was going to have a big differential from the start, why would her and coach risk it and have her race there anyway? Not that smart to assume they could rely on an appeal.
There's no differential. Wave #2 at Boston has separate gun times. They don't list as 20 minutes differential. Separate race.
I'm with Wejo on this. She should get in on appeal.
She didn’t run Boston did she? She ran a race with a different gun time- I’m asking why she went ahead knowing it?
post nups wrote:
MikeMach1977 wrote:
If true, you should try and contact her to corroborate her account of how she was disadvantaged by starting there. I am not sure what evidence is accepted, but it certainly can't hurt. I think the fact that Boston has a precedent of considering the 2nd wave a different race, this should be the backbone of her argument. As someone pointed out, the 2nd wave runners are going from the gun time from the first wave. If the Males started later and didn't have this time tacked on, then any OTQ's coming from males from that 2nd wave should be invalid based on the logic of the USATF. As other have noted, they seem to completely f**k up publicly every time they have a chance to build any type of good will or show they are for the athletes. Complete trash if she doesn't get it.
That’s not USATF logic, that’s Houston logic. They are the ones who don’t have a separate gun time for subsequent corrals. Not USATFs call.
Yep and she took a risk and ran a race with separate gun times.
Star wrote:
There’s no magical cleanup or major rules bending.
A woman made a performance in a race that was better than others that will be entered in the Trials.
Just put her in.
There are tons of precedents of exceptions being made to allow athletes in.
I think even wejo even got into the trials on an exception.
It’s not like we are asking for someone to get bumped out.
I’m not against making an exception as many are made, but she and coach need to take responsibility if they do not grant her the exception, not the governing body.
this is on houston wrote:
If anyone actually reads the article, the blame should fall entirely on the Houston people. How do you refuse a runner with her college credentials? She was top 25 in the most competitive club cross race in history. Her coach is Steve Finley, who knows a thing or two about the elite racing scene. The Houston race director did an awful job here.
Sure but she still went ahead and agreed to run there. In the end can’t blame Houston and can’t blame the governing body.
colorunner123 wrote:
Well this is an interesting plot twist. I agree that Erin was wrong to use someone else's bib in a race. It seems she jumped into a NY half marathon at the last minute. Perhaps she had a friend who registered for the race but was unable to run due to injury or illness. Erin may not have known that using another person's race number is against the rules, but she should have known.
I also agree with those who say that Erin could have easily qualified for Corral A at Houston. It seems she and her coach did not put much thought into it.
That said, she ran 2:42 at the Houston marathon. To me, that is the bottom line. Adding 13 minutes to her gun time simply because she was in the second wave makes no sense . As I see it, she ran an OT qualifier and should be let into the Trials. The Trials organizers can keep drawing a distinction between "chip time" and "gun time" but in this case he gun time was wholly inaccurate. She ran the race in 2:42. She finished 2 hours and 42 minutes after her wave started. So I still think the Trials organizers should make an allowance and let her in.
A 2:42 is pointless if that is not her gun time which is the one that counts. She might as well have run 2:30 by herself with gps and automatic timing - it’s below the standard but not done in a way that counts. THAT is the bottom line
Trollminator wrote:
Appeal to OTQ wrote:
There's no differential. Wave #2 at Boston has separate gun times. They don't list as 20 minutes differential. Separate race.
I'm with Wejo on this. She should get in on appeal.
She didn’t run Boston did she? She ran a race with a different gun time- I’m asking why she went ahead knowing it?
I don't think we've established that she went into the race knowing that 12 minutes would be tacked onto the official time starting from her corral. Someone pointed to the Houston FAQ, but that doesn't say anything about not having a gun time for each corral. Shouldn't the default assumption be that it works like Boston snd other large races like that? Sounds like she was caught unaware by an odd and unadvertised way of timing things.
Her coach should have contacted the usatf directors ahead of time instead of taking the race director's word that she would win a appeal. That's the only part I would fault to the coach and athlete.
Race director definitely messed up big, like others have said thousands of slower runners are let into A group
Funny how some of you think usatf shouldn't break their own rules by letting her in but also think she should have broken the rules by jumping into A group. Can't have it both ways dudes
I was standing there in corral B waiting for them to 1) move us up to the start line. 2) Tell us when to start running. It even included a count down and we started with the word GO! from the announcer.
It was exactly a completely different start 12 minutes after the corral A start.
Trollminator wrote:
this is on houston wrote:
If anyone actually reads the article, the blame should fall entirely on the Houston people. How do you refuse a runner with her college credentials? She was top 25 in the most competitive club cross race in history. Her coach is Steve Finley, who knows a thing or two about the elite racing scene. The Houston race director did an awful job here.
Sure but she still went ahead and agreed to run there. In the end can’t blame Houston and can’t blame the governing body.
Given your name, I take it that you are a troll. I’ll play along anyway.
It’s obvious that the USATF doesn’t understand that corral B is a second wave. If what others have stated is correct, - corral b is let go at a specific time and not allowed to start once they reach the start line after the gun - corral b has a separate gun time.
dirty south runner wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Sure but she still went ahead and agreed to run there. In the end can’t blame Houston and can’t blame the governing body.
Given your name, I take it that you are a troll. I’ll play along anyway.
It’s obvious that the USATF doesn’t understand that corral B is a second wave. If what others have stated is correct, - corral b is let go at a specific time and not allowed to start once they reach the start line after the gun - corral b has a separate gun time.
It's not a second wave since they don't start the gun time over.
zzzz wrote:
I doubt even 1% of runners have heard of a bib mule.
I didn't even know that mules ran marathons.
zzzz wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
She didn’t run Boston did she? She ran a race with a different gun time- I’m asking why she went ahead knowing it?
I don't think we've established that she went into the race knowing that 12 minutes would be tacked onto the official time starting from her corral. Someone pointed to the Houston FAQ, but that doesn't say anything about not having a gun time for each corral. Shouldn't the default assumption be that it works like Boston snd other large races like that? Sounds like she was caught unaware by an odd and unadvertised way of timing things.
I take that back after rereading the citius article. The RD knew it would affect her official time before the race and had told her that USATF would probably accept a chip time when denying a move to the first corral. Still don't blame her for running Houston. She can't go back in time to run a different race, and was still caught out with an odd and unfair way of doing timing.
sigh2324 wrote:
dirty south runner wrote:
Given your name, I take it that you are a troll. I’ll play along anyway.
It’s obvious that the USATF doesn’t understand that corral B is a second wave. If what others have stated is correct, - corral b is let go at a specific time and not allowed to start once they reach the start line after the gun - corral b has a separate gun time.
It's not a second wave since they don't start the gun time over.
It is if there is not a continuous start.
Co-Flounder wrote:
I was standing there in corral B waiting for them to 1) move us up to the start line. 2) Tell us when to start running. It even included a count down and we started with the word GO! from the announcer.
It was exactly a completely different start 12 minutes after the corral A start.
Thank you for posting that verification.
The Houston Marathon needs to verify that actual gun time to USATF, so Erin can have her rightfully earned and well deserved entry to the Trials.