Boston "anticipate(s) having a reduced field size" this year, London anticipates having its biggest ever

not that guy wrote:

I ran a "virtual Boston Marathon" this morning. I mean, I only ran 6 miles, and didn't pay anyone for my solo run, but hey, virtual, right?

Good job on your short course 10k virtual "marathon"! ;) :p

Haha! I always cringe when someone asks me how far my "marathon" was/is! Haha!

I think it's ridiculous that the London Marathon is featuring a virtual event. A virtual event is only useful when the real event is cancelled.

Charlesvdw wrote:

I think it's ridiculous that the London Marathon is featuring a virtual event. A virtual event is only useful when the real event is cancelled.

A virtual event is never useful.

not that guy wrote:

Charlesvdw wrote:

I think it's ridiculous that the London Marathon is featuring a virtual event. A virtual event is only useful when the real event is cancelled.

A virtual event is never useful.

Good point. But it is even more pointless if the real race happens.

not that guy wrote:

pinesol wrote:

The sales manager at my gym knows I conduct a few races (live in-person ones).

I mentioned to him that there are a lot of virtual races these days. "They're free, right?" You should have seen the look on his face when I told him that people make bank selling T-shirts and medals at a mark-up.

Hey, if people know what they are getting, voluntarily pay for it, and are not hurting anyone, it's a free country, amirite?

My father in law, who is not a runner, asked me recently what a "virtual" race is. I told him that people send in their money, run on their own, and then someone mails them a t-shirt. He was dumbfounded by the stupidity of that.

I told him it was essentially just buying a t-shirt, and agreed with him that it is dumb.

Whether it is "just buying a t-shirt" depends on the runner. Many of us trained, tapered and put out a maximal effort for the 2020 virtual Boston, as was apparent from the age group results. That is something I would never have done but for COVID and will never do again. But it was a great experience and I'm glad to have the shirt and trinkets to remember it by.

Charlesvdw wrote:

I think it's ridiculous that the London Marathon is featuring a virtual event. A virtual event is only useful when the real event is cancelled.

£££££££££

I don't get how a field size that's 80% of normal (which is what they're talking about) is in any realistic way safer than the full field size. We're still talking about a massive event.

But realistically, there's no reason to think that any COVID restrictions will have to be in place August, nevermind October. Anyone who isn't long vaccinated by October has made a choice, and the consequences are on them.

My guess would be that the race cancellations of 2020 due to COVID-19 put a real dent in the finances of the Boston Athletic Association. This virtual option may be the way they balance the books going forward if they have a notably smaller field at the October 11th race. Also, it may serve as a means to provide "some" option to qualifiers who are shut out by a steep qualifying time cutoff.

I like how in like 48 hours this went from "there will be a smaller field size" to "we anticipate a smaller field size" after the news about the vaccine timeline getting pushed up two months came out.

800 dude wrote:

I don't get how a field size that's 80% of normal (which is what they're talking about) is in any realistic way safer than the full field size. We're still talking about a massive event.

.

Where did you see that the field size is expected to be 80% of normal?

DanM wrote:

The marathon in Bar Harbor, Maine takes place the following week. Organizers are planning for it to be conducted under normal circumstances.

https://www.runmdi.org/

^ That is a heck of a challenging race. I came from a flat part of the country and ran it on a freak hot and humid weekend (80s!) and parts of the course were gravel... up a mountain. But I won some lovely boxes of local tea, so that was fun.

The controversy that people are upset that 70,000 will get Boston medals without running the Boston course was reported as a news story on the all news radio station in Southern California each hour for a few hours yesterday. Strange how running made the news and this was the story.

The report did not mention that Boston was held virtually last year.

Good post.

Runners also have to weigh the costs and benefits of planning the trip. I am optimistic that I will be able to get a vaccine shot but I haven't had it yet. There still could be some hiccups. And new strains could mean people should really get a booster shot in the fall before going back to normal. So I am not certain I should pay for a non-refundable ticket yet and get burned like 2020.

At this point I would rather run in April 2022 when it is traditionally run.

I am wondering what will be the qualifying window for 2022 will be. Will registration for 2022 begin? Isn't it usually in September? Will it be September this year and will Boston 2021 be able to be used as a qualifying race for 2022?

shouldn't the virtual race have an unlimited number? could you have a million "runners"

i would never do a virtual race. that seems like one of the stupidest things ever.

Common Cents wrote:

a disillusioned liberal wrote:

The explanation is simple: Boston is populated by a ton of woke-to-death puzzies.

I live here. I should know.

I don’t see the big deal, there will be other Boston Marathons, we are in the middle of one of the worst pandemics in the history of the world. Does anyone really think it is a good idea to have a international marathon with 50K runners and millions of spectators?

I can't tell who's joking, but in case you're serious: This was not even close to being one of the worst pandemics in history, and we're not in the "middle" of it, we're at the tail end.