15 runners DQed for wearing headphones!

Well, as I remember, she was a half-marathoner and the wheeler was in the marathon (courses converged near the finish) and the wheeler and other runners were shouting at the half-marathon walkers that the wheeler was coming through. She didn't even hear people near her shouting to get her lardass out of the way. That wheeler needed a cowcatcher on the front of his rig.

wilfredo wrote:

Wayne B wrote:

the wheelchair leader managed to run between the legs of a woman who moved suddenly because she was unaware of what was happening around her BECAUSE she was wearing headphones.

how could you hear a wheelchair coming anyway?

also, why is the wheelchair leader behind a woman?

Wayne B wrote:

...More significantly, one of the wonderful things about a race (or an "event" as some people have pointed out many races have become) is the crowd around you and the ability to interact with them. Wearing headphones changes that equation. Some people won't talk to you (when they otherwise would) because they assume you won't be able to hear them.

...

Why are you telling me how to enjoy my event? Perhap I don't find it wonderful at all to interact with the crowd around me. I may be wearing earphones specifically to prevent people from talking to me.

If your reason for banning earphones is to ensure that I experience the race exactly as you want me to, I have to say that is ridiculous.

It doesnt really bother me if runners in the back of the pack wear headphones as longs as the course doesnt converge with other races. For example I ran the madison marathon this past weekend and the marathon runners have to merge into the half marathon runners around mile ten. It was a pain in the ass to yell runner on your right every 5 seconds and not even be heard. I can see how the faster runners would especially be pissed since all the weaving and dodging and yelling isnt necessarily easy when moving at a good clip. As for races that are from point a to b, let the chubbers wear the headphones...maybe it will weed out the idiot population

You know, from experiences running on a bike/running path, I'd rather the person in front of me not know I'm approaching. That way, I can just make my decision of which side to pass them on. If you come up behind someone and yell runner left/right, you really never know what the hell they're going to do. Which sounds like what really happened with the wheelchair guy and the runner. Just stay where you're at don't go jumping to one side or the other, I'll make it around you just fine.

gone baby gone wrote:

You know, from experiences running on a bike/running path, I'd rather the person in front of me not know I'm approaching. That way, I can just make my decision of which side to pass them on. If you come up behind someone and yell runner left/right, you really never know what the hell they're going to do. Which sounds like what really happened with the wheelchair guy and the runner. Just stay where you're at don't go jumping to one side or the other, I'll make it around you just fine.

In big races where different races converge, that won't work because you are not passing just one runner. You are typically coming up behind huge masses of people strung across the road or path. If you don't say anything, you may very well have to come to a dead stop.

Awesome. I hope more races have the courage to start DQing those ipod-!@#holes.

Consequences Consequences wrote:

oligio wrote:

Without the mid and back packers most road races, and marathons would not be in existence. Cant have it both ways.

Sure we can. Your belief, while altruistic and charitable, is entirely unfounded. You are confusing correlation with causation. There were many marathons and road races in existence before the 4+ hour marathon ranks exploded. What, did you think that Jeff Galloway single-handedly invented the sport or something? Don't be stupid. Besides, we're not talking about all or even most of the "mid and back packers" being affected by this ban, it would be a slim minority. Bolder Boulder backing down from 54,000 to 50,000 or even to 45,000 entries won't mean the demise of that race, just to throw out an example.

"There were many marathons and road races in existence before the 4+ hour marathon ranks exploded." And how many more are there now as compared to 10 years ago? Many, many races are only in existence because of the mid and back packers. The few 230-330 people dont pay all the bills, ask elite.

So if it is only a slim percentage of people who wear them is it really that big of a deal? Are you making a mountain out of a molehill?

And it has been asked many times, where are the numbers to show the accidents ipod wearers have caused during races-not on the streets when training, but during an actual event.

Wow- this topic is 6 pages long... sad. This same topic turned into a HUGE debate on my local running club website. I thought it was just because the local scene is so totally dominated by this newer group of iPod sloggers that see a race as an event.. something more akin to a long running parade than an actual race, and that is why the subject sparked such heated debate.

I mean if the race says you can't wear X (clogs, roller skates, costumes, etc..) then don't do it, or dont participate. It's that simple.

I wouldn't know and I wouldn't care. I've been running for nearly 20 years and I do know that I was never lacking for road racing opportunities 10+ years ago. It makes zero real difference to me whether there are 2 local races per month in my area or four, let alone 2 per weekend versus 3-4. I've also run in many races with <200 entrants, probably more than you have. What's your point here, anyway? I already pointed out above that not all or even most of the "mid and back packers" would be unaffected by any ban.

Huh? Are you just trolling here or are you just unable to pay attention? I've made a "big deal" of nothing, I've only been saying that those saying a ban will lead to the death of road racing are making something out of nothing and are wrong.

And it matters because why? Race organizers and their insurers want a ban, some nobody on a message board wanting to know what's behind their decision is irrelevant.

Correction:

I already pointed out above that not all or even most of the "mid and back packers" would be affected by any ban.

That's funny...two years ago at NYCM, I put my iPod on only to drown out the crap bands along the course!

I'm surprised noone has commented on the obvious disconnect between the information on the race website, which apparently just requests that runners not wear headphones, to the full disqualification that happened during the race. The headphone debate is complex, as we see from 6 pages of posts, but there is a definite legal distinction between a request not to do something and a disqualification as a result of that action. The Tamalpa runners have a great club, so I hope none of the people they pulled from the race are lawyers.

headphone police wrote:

"The 10K had 560 official finishers, up from 511 last year, with 32 percent of them cracking 40 minutes. Another 15 finishers were disqualified, per USATF rules, for wearing music listening devices." (http://www.marinij.com/sports/ci_9386785)

Race website stated "Headphones: For your safety and the safety of others, please do not wear headphones during the Races." (http://marinraces.com/)

wow. i can't believe how long this thread is. Typically, I could care less about the headphone wearers in races, because they are almost always at the back of the pack, and there is no danger of having them collide into me while I'm passing, except for at the very beginning of a race when a few of these folks make their way up to the front.

On training runs however, I feel like my training partners and myself are always having to deal with ipod wearing runners on the local trail that are drifting from side to side in front of us because they simply cannot hear us approaching behind them. This inevitably leads to the occasional collision or accidental catching-of-the-headphone cord while passing. Because this is so annoying to me on some runs, I can totally understand USATF's decision to make this a rule, and refuse to dismiss it as ridiculous or altogether unnecessary.

New question: How long before we see this rule overturned and have track athletes with a radio in their ear to receive instructions from coaches while racing a la cycling races???

Your new question is exactly what I have been presenting at our annual meetings. People are passionate about headphones when it comes to music, but what happens when technology allows for this type of communication between athlete and coach (spouse/friend/tv viewer at home)? It aint that far off folks.

Start contacting race's insurance carriers with clear pictures of violaters .. from race photographer sites .. and lobby permitting authorities to deny race permits to events that refuse to enforce the rules

Start hitting the races that fly in the face of not enforcing the rules

headphone police wrote:

Another 15 finishers were disqualified, per USATF rules, for wearing music listening devices." (http://www.marinij.com/sports/ci_9386785)

Race website stated "Headphones: For your safety and the safety of others, please do not wear headphones during the Races." (http://marinraces.com/)

Good for them.

And one runner with earphones getting hit by a bus does not prove causation. The earphones may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the accident.

There have been plenty of people that weren't wearing earphones struck by vehicles due to their own stupidity or lack of awareness.

6 pages

lol

RRRR wrote:

New question: How long before we see this rule overturned and have track athletes with a radio in their ear to receive instructions from coaches while racing a la cycling races???

No one is on the side of the course yelling instructions or information. That never happens. Who cares if they get info from a radio or from a screamer. Welcome to 2008, not 1988.