Have them all come run the Omaha Marathon next year. There's prize money and an 'anything goes' atmosphere!
Have them all come run the Omaha Marathon next year. There's prize money and an 'anything goes' atmosphere!
Doo-Fay wrote:
This guy should be DQ'd for this display:
http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/photos/63480022.html?index=8
LOL!
I know him and ran with him for a majority of the race, but I hadn't seen that photo yet!
On a side note, he was probably pretty pumped...he ran a 1:18 first half and 1:16 second half so I think he deserves to celebrate in whatever manner he finds necessary!
Um, yeah wrote:
Milwaukee marathoner wrote:So a big reason that she was DQ'ed, was a story by another runner in the race that just so happened to be 30-60 seconds in FRONT of her.
Don't let the fact that it also states "The action was witnessed by a Race Official..." dissuade you from your moral outrage and continued rant on the additional witness.
I do not have any moral outrage, but I am disappointed in the additional witness, since he in fact lied. The lakefront officials do not HAVE to DQ someone if they see a violation, it is in their discrection to do so if they feel that runner gained an advantage. This official saw her take the sip of water one time and reported it. Had that been the end of the story, most likely she would not have been DQ'ed once the jury convened. Cassie admitted to the sip of water. But now a runner that admits he was in front of her and couldn't know for sure if she received aid or not goes to the officials and tells them he in fact saw her get aid several times, which is not true.
I don't think my point was really too hard to understand in either of my posts, but if I need to try and make it even easier to comprehend, I will try to do so in another post if need be.
Hey, For all you rules are rules and must be enforced to the highest level of punishment zealots, good luck at this f&^$fest next year!!
I am sure many more will be avoiding it and choosing other marathons to run. We all know they have many to choose from at this time of year.
I am not going to say they were wrong to dq, but my personal decision if I was looking to run this marathon would be to not do it after this incident. I am sure in the grand scheme of things, it won't make much difference. If it was such a great marathon, there would not have been 75 woman running faster than 3:02 at Twin Cities the same day.
I would also like to applaud the THIRD PLACE woman for her thoughtful donation.
the bottom line here is the Lakefront Marathon DQed the first two women that finished their race over questionable calls. I wouldn't run this marathon if it were the last race in earth. I'm a female runner and I find their lack of good judgement unfathomable. I hope all runners think twice about attending this event until the current so called leaders step aside.
ggggddtdd wrote:
I find their lack of good judgement unfathomable.
Why have none of the complainers actually defined where they would draw the line between the enforcement of the rules as they were and completely ignoring any and all recognized rules and regulations?
So you think it is unfair or 'unfathomable' that a 3:02 marathoner be DQ'd for taking unauthorized aid. Fair enough, but how fast should the race be before you would take action? 2:52? 2:42? 2:32? 2:22?
So you think it is unfair to be DQ'd over one unauthorized aid station. How many before you would take action? Three? Five? Ten?
Simply calling for 'common sense' is great, but I've yet to read anyone with an actual definition of what that would constitute beyond saying they wouldn't DQ this particular runner from this particular race.
ggggddtdd wrote:
the bottom line here is the Lakefront Marathon DQed the first two women that finished their race over questionable calls. I wouldn't run this marathon if it were the last race in earth. I'm a female runner and I find their lack of good judgement unfathomable. I hope all runners think twice about attending this event until the current so called leaders step aside.
Good..see ya!
tens of thousands of runners are handed fluids outside of official water stops every single year in marathons held all over the US. USATF knows this as do race officials in both minor and major marathons like NYC, Boston, Chicago, but they rightfully don't enforce these judgement calls. I'm quite sure I have taken fluids from non-official water tables in many hot weather races where kids line the streets hoping a marathoner will take their cup. Lakefront blew it and they are only hurting their event.
hmmmm wrote:
Good..see ya!
how small is your dick? you're another f**king mid america republican loser aren't you? How's the weather there wet huh?
Mr Mountain wrote:
I don't know anything about this particular situation, but it is very reasonable to believe that a runner running these kinds of times have never placed high at a marathon and maybe didn't even have expectations of a high place and therefore may not even know such minute "rules" even existed. It's not like they have a marathon "winners school" that everyone attends before the race.
She had won a marathon at Indy prior to this.
In Separate Incidents, Top Two Women in Milwaukee Lakefront Marathon are DQed
This story keeps getting weirder and, depending on your perspective, perhaps more picayune. Initially, the woman who crossed the line first in Milwaukee, Marquette University student Cassie Peller, was disqualified for accepting a water bottle from a friend outside of the designated aid stations - though what may have been interpreted as pacing exacerbated the violation. That left Jennifer Goebel as the Lakefront champion...but only for a couple of days. Race photos showed she had an iPod tucked into her shorts, and Goebel has admitted using it between miles 19 and 21. That technically violates a USATF rule (the race was a Wisconsin USATF Marathon Championships), though that rule is rarely enforced. The apparent winner is now Corina Canitz, a 42-year-old mother of four who was originally third. Goebel is not pleased. "If they're going to disqualify me for having an iPod they should disqualify everyone who had one," she asserts. "It's just a little ridiculous. I went there to have a fun race with my friends." Let's stay tuned and see what happens next
yeh read this on RW seems there is a running club behind this fiasco, Badgerland something?...they sound like a piss poor excuse for a running club to let this happen in a race with their name on it. Yup the entire race should cancelled for 2010 and everyone that took a sip or wore an i-pod should be DQed
I thought the headline said fattest woman, not fastest woman
danno wrote:
Mr Mountain wrote:I don't know anything about this particular situation, but it is very reasonable to believe that a runner running these kinds of times have never placed high at a marathon and maybe didn't even have expectations of a high place and therefore may not even know such minute "rules" even existed. It's not like they have a marathon "winners school" that everyone attends before the race.
She had won a marathon at Indy prior to this.
Which may have actually worked against her if the Indy marathon was a little more relaxed with the rules. Running in Milwaukee she probably figured it would be the same as Indy and didn't really think about the rules since it wasn't a major marathon. Not saying that is right or wrong, but the fact that she won a small marathon wouldn't help her to know the rules better or be convinced that they would enforce them.
My wife and one of my athletes ran a OT qualifier in '03. I knew the rules and advised them accordingly. We had their drink bottles put at the authorized stations. I also had two other bottles that I put on top of a parked car at a spot where there wouldn't be a station for miles 15-20. the option was theirs as to whether they wanted to use the bottles, but nobody handed them to them. they finished 2nd and 3rd. $300 and $100 prizes. The first place woman had guys jump on the course and run with her for 400-800m at a time while handing her drink bottles and telling her how far behind my athletes were. I was tempted to have her DQ'd but decided WTF. In my mind, I have to admit, she cheated. I'd think the same situation occured here and I don't have a problem with the result.
ggggddtdd wrote:
tens of thousands of runners are handed fluids outside of official water stops every single year in marathons held all over the US.
Again, that's not saying anything that hasn't already been said. I'm not disputing your position is valid, just asking where you draw the line.
Is that so hard a question?
So, are I-pods allowed or not?
From the Indianapolis Monumental FAQ page:
http://monumentalmarathon.com/faq/
Are headphones with ipods or other music devices allowed?
Runners and walkers participating in the 2009 Indianapolis Monumental Marathon and Half Marathon (IMM) WILL be allowed to wear headphones during the race if they desire.
The USA Track & Field (USATF) has recently amended rule 144.3(f) effectively lifting its previously imposed ban on headphones and other music devices. USATF is the governing body for long distance running events in the United States.
The safety of our runners, walkers and volunteers will always be a priority at the IMM. We encourage runners and walkers to enjoy the wonderful atmosphere without headphones.
Has to be a better way wrote:
As we saw at Worlds in Berlin. Officials practice selective enforcement. Who decides if an infraction is "material". Doesn't the same "water assistance" rule apply in Berlin when a female top two or three finisher in the Marathon missed her water bottle at her station but "someone" picked up the bottle an ran up to her and gave her the bottle. Why wasn't she DQ'd?
She wasn't DQ'd because she still received the water bottle within the aid station. The reason her coach sprinted so fast to catch her was because she would have been DQ'd if she had received it out of the aid area.
Women's 10k didn't have a slew of DQ's because of two reasons:
1) It was an official's error; they were told to cut immediately (though most probably knew that wasn't the case)
2) The officials felt that it didn't present an unfair advantage.
Milwaukeean wrote:
danno wrote:She had won a marathon at Indy prior to this.
Which may have actually worked against her if the Indy marathon was a little more relaxed with the rules. Running in Milwaukee she probably figured it would be the same as Indy and didn't really think about the rules since it wasn't a major marathon. Not saying that is right or wrong, but the fact that she won a small marathon wouldn't help her to know the rules better or be convinced that they would enforce them.
I think the point most people are upset about is that THIS PARTICULAR RACE decided to strictly enforce every single possible rule violation it could observe without plainly letting EVERY SINGLE RUNNER REGARDLESS OF ABILITY know that beforehand. It's one thing to know upfront and another to feel you got blindsided after the fact.
wrong year wrote:
jsdjkdkld wrote:another cheater spotted at Lakefront
http://www.runningintheusa.com/PhotoAlbumPhoto.aspx?PhotoAlbumPhotoID=24check on the fellow in yellow (on right) those appear to be ear phones...of course I don't think he should be DQed therein lies the ridiculousness of all this. Lakefront official have made their bed, now they need to sleep in it. If this is their position they need to review every single finisher photo and DQ everyone that broke the rules..
Too bad this photo is from 2008, not 2009.
So, you're saying he false-started, too?