Sue CHICAGO Marathon

yeah, with 320 runners in the hospital and at least one of them dead, I'm pretty sure they have a good case for canceling the marathon. And more water alone would not have helped.

Would reducing the field size make a difference? I'm not counting out the fact that some runners don't hydrate properly or the legal liability of the race promoters.

There was nothing wrong with the way this was run. I'll man up . . . dropped out at 14 for leg reasons but hydration was fine. 54 years old and I just screwed up my traing. A well organized race with great volunteers!

Get a load of this guy in the Chicago Tribune "Why did they cancel it at Mile 20? Couldn't they cancel it at Mile 5," said Arzu Karimova, 28, a market researcher from Chicago. "I put my entire summer into this. My entire marathon is gone. I'll never have another first marathon experience."

Gee, I wonder if we shouldn't ever have marathons in July? Get a life pussy!!

I live near the boston course and volunteered from 1985 until last year: the numbers of people showing up at the starting line seeing sub-5-hours as a legit goal is startling.

Why not make them RACES again? Toughen up the qualifying times to 2:55 for men and 3:10 for women? At least you get people who are physically prepared enough to have a better than average chance of surviving.

Today was a warning. I'd like to see a legitimate survey of the finishers to see how many averaged AT LEAST 50MPW or more for 10 of the preceding 12 weeks leading up to today's Chicago race.

Sue CHICAGO Marathon wrote:

Another fiasco. Last year they bungle the finish line. This year they bungled the logistics and distribution of water. I hope the IOC sees this ridiculous mismanagement and forgets about Chicago for the Olympics.

i've yet to hear one complaint from a runner who didn't have access to enough fluids or has heard of anyone who didn't.

the c.a.r.a. summer training program really paid off. If runners were on the lakefront at 7am in the summer doing long runs with even less aid then why the uproar?

Having a cut-off of 2:55 would be a bit much, however, I do agree some qualification requirements aren't a bad thing. In the case of having 2:55/3:10 the field would be rather small to say the least.

The death and hospitalizations were more serious but I can just not imagine what the hell they are thinking with the finish line! Forget being avid distance fans, this is horrible business. It is a major marathon and they look very stupid. You're not handing over a giant check while everyone smiles and the cameras click. The race is STILL HAPPENING, the dumbass looks like he expects the winner to politely walk up, push the tape gracefully and give a friendly handshake. Reminds me of the thread of when the race director started the race 10 feet in front of everyone and was ran over.

Do you think marathon organizers are putting these races together just for the competitive enjoyment of you sub3 guys? No! They do it for the money! 45000 entrants bring a lot of money with them before and after the race. You knock the number of entrants down to a few thousand and there's no financial incentive for a city the size of Chicago to commit resources and road closures.

Not to mention that if they cut the numbers, then the income would be cut, and therefore the prize money would be decreased. This would directly lead to less elite athletes and eventually the race wouldn't have anyone.

insufficient info regarding the chi marathon. we are all speculating here. we need more facts, more race reports. some specs on lack of water/gatorade, but yet to hear of a race report regarding as such.

limiting the race to x qualifying time will make this sport an elite sport, which will not bolster marathon popularity and increase the prize $. we need more media coverage on this sport, not less! [quote]UCLA fan wrote:

I can say for sure that neither water nor gatorade was plentiful. At three stops they didn't have either, luckily this was early in the race. The later portions of the race seemed as if everyone was fighting over drops of water, although it was available. I can honestly say this was not the best put together race I've been a part of.

Yes wrote:

Why not make them RACES again? Toughen up the qualifying times to 2:55 for men and 3:10 for women? At least you get people who are physically prepared enough to have a better than average chance of surviving.

One word: greed.

Why doesn't the letsrun.com community organize a nice, flat, fast marathon in a town that is cheap and easy to get to at a time of year when the weather is typically ideal? Why don't the owners of this site and the people who strongly support these ideals get something like this going rather than expect everyone else to cater to their desires? Oh, that's right, the Brojos are all about making a buck, too, and there wouldn't be enough of a payoff for them for the work that would be involved. As if I didn't have enough reasons to avoid marathons like LaSalle Bank Chicago and ING NYCM and John Hancock Boston like high entry fees, high-priced travel and lodging, and the need to enter more than 6 months before the day of the race, seeing Boston and now Chicago plagued with race day weather that's far from ideal is just another nail in that coffin. I'd rather go out to somewhere like CIM, where it's a nice town and event and where someone like me who isn't on the OT marathon qualifier bubble or isn't even sub-2:30 (yet) can still find good enough competition. Maybe distance runners need to form some sort of organization or union where we can choose solid races that aren't run-away circuses of slow-poke penguins and are known to have good courses and racing weather to support. I'd bet there's at least one each year, maybe even two, in each region of the country.

I was not the first one to suggest the 2:55/3:10 cutoffs. That was someone else's post, don't accuse me of this. How do you propose we raise the media coverage of our sport?

runkeller wrote:

Not to mention that if they cut the numbers, then the income would be cut, and therefore the prize money would be decreased. This would directly lead to less elite athletes and eventually the race wouldn't have anyone.

Incorrect. Title sponsors put up prize money, it's not determined by income drawn from entries.

Are you suggesting that a smaller race with only a few thousand "racers" would attract media attention? You think the Chicago CBS affiliate puts a live webcast on their website? Only the big marathons with the big attendance that includes racers, runners and walkers, get that kind of media attention. The general public couldn't care less.

Clarence DeMar & Newfound Lake - NH in september

Cape Cod and BayState - MA in october

Adirondack - NY in september

Vermont City - VT on memorial day

you have options. those are just off the top of my head, there are doubtlessly dozens more around the US of A

as sheryl indicated wrote:

[quote]Yes wrote:

Why don't the owners of this site and the people who strongly support these ideals get something like this going rather than expect everyone else to cater to their desires? Oh, that's right, the Brojos are all about making a buck, too, and there wouldn't be enough of a payoff for them for the work that would be involved.

Did you forget meds today? Are you nuts? What the hell do wejo and rojo have to do with this.

If you don't like the big races, STFU and don't run them, you won't be missed.

Yes, if all of those "few thousand racers" are legit, like sub-2:50 men. The general public couldn't care less ANYWAY, even with the 35,000 entrants. The news stories before and after the event that get notice around the world are about the elites, who are there due to appearance fees and prize money and a fast, record-potential course. Whether there are 5,000 or 20,000 runners finishing well behind them neither aids nor hinders their aims and outcomes. Numbers like 35,000 entrants and X-thousand finishers are only superfluous data that get thrown in as filler. Actually, Chicago was webcast live last year and it showed only the top runners finishing, not the top 1000 or 5,000 or 20,000. Race organizers were able to sell the footage to WCSN this year so that's why it wasn't webcast for free on a broadcast affiliate's website. Nobody, aside from those who can make a buck from all those shuffling penguins and their families and friends, cares about anyone finishing an hour or more behind the winners.

Sheryl Crow wrote:

Are you suggesting that a smaller race with only a few thousand "racers" would attract media attention? You think the Chicago CBS affiliate puts a live webcast on their website? Only the big marathons with the big attendance that includes racers, runners and walkers, get that kind of media attention. The general public couldn't care less.