Peller keeps Lakefront DQ in painful perspective
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/lifestyle/63551897.html
Violation takes title from top finisher
Fastest woman accused of taking aid
Peller keeps Lakefront DQ in painful perspective
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/lifestyle/63551897.html
Violation takes title from top finisher
Fastest woman accused of taking aid
Cassie Peller won the marathon.
The organizers stole the official recognition of her victory.
didn't read the article, could care less but I'll put in my .02 anyway....no rule against taking water anywhere you want in a marathon. They changed that rule in the late 70's. Having said that, noone can hand it to her. If they did, that is assistance and she is DQ'd if they are a sanctioned event.
J.R. wrote:
Cassie Peller won the marathon.
The organizers stole the official recognition of her victory.
Why? She didn't follow the rules.
taper madness wrote:
J.R. wrote:Cassie Peller won the marathon.
The organizers stole the official recognition of her victory.
Why? She didn't follow the rules.
A lot of rules are pretty stupid. You know that.
That doesn't matter. The rule may be stupid, but it's still a rule.
walker, indiana ranger wrote:
A lot of rules are pretty stupid. You know that.
Ok, so who gets to decide which rules to follow and which rules are stupid (and shouldn't be enforced)?
You? A letsrun.com committee? The race/meet itself? USATF?
rooler wrote:
That doesn't matter. The rule may be stupid, but it's still a rule.
Yes it really does matter, hence this thread
Um, yeah wrote:
[quote]walker, indiana ranger wrote:
Ok, so who gets to decide which rules to follow and which rules are stupid (and shouldn't be enforced)?
You? A letsrun.com committee? The race/meet itself? USATF?
Common sense.
So I decided to actually read the thing. Yes, she should have been DQ'd. Sanctioned event, if you are up for a prize you follow the rules. No rules = no prize. simple.
By the way, it also sounds like she wasn't DQ'd for taking water "from a little boy." She completely neglects to mention running with a friend who jumped into the race to hand her a water bottle and accompany her for awhile. That's not a stupid rule, that's cheating. Again, it may be stupid for the 250th place guy running along behind her trying to break 3:20, but he's not competing for a $500 prize. Who gives a shit if he cheats?
Um, yeah wrote:
walker, indiana ranger wrote:A lot of rules are pretty stupid. You know that.
Ok, so who gets to decide which rules to follow and which rules are stupid (and shouldn't be enforced)?
You? A letsrun.com committee? The race/meet itself? USATF?
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? To say nothing of the 5000 or 10000 meter fiasco on the womens side where a third of the field cut to the rail at least 25 meters before they should have. Again, who makes the call. If all rules aren't enforced, then too many shenanigans will follow selective enforcement.
Unfortunately for both Ms Peller and the race organizers, the rules were ambiguous and somewhat contradictory and also selectively enforced.
You are kidding, yes?
Peller had won a race (Indy) before, so it was not as if she was a 4 hr runner who happened to have a great day. (The discussion about a 3 hour winner is a sepate thread) If you win a race you are subject to ALL the rules, stupid or not. If you are in the middle of the pack nobody cares and almost none of the rules will actually be enforced by race officials. If she wants to play with the big girls she knows the rules. Judging from her reactions it seems she knows she made an error and is over it. She is not an elite runner and she does not seem to care about this as much as the people speaking up for herseem to.
Ray wrote:
If they did, that is assistance and she is DQ'd if they are a sanctioned event.
Sanctioned by who? Does the USATF "sanction" road races? Not sure what that means. If you don't follow USATF guidelines in your road race then.....what?
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? To say nothing of the 5000 or 10000 meter fiasco on the womens side where a third of the field cut to the rail at least 25 meters before they should have. Again, who makes the call. If all rules aren't enforced, then too many shenanigans will follow selective enforcement.
Ahh, so we are using the 'two wrongs make a right' line of reasoning? Rules weren't followed in Berlin, therefore it is ok to ignore rules in Wisconsin?
Berlin women's 10,000 should have had a whack of DQs. Why the ref didn't, who knows?
In the marathon incident you cite, who gave the athlete the bottle? A race official/volunteer or some random spectator? One is allowed, the other not.
how about wrote:
Common sense.
You do realize that common sense really isn't very common?
It's also subjective, so whose common sense do you use? Yours? What about the meet director who figures it is common sense that you follow the rules or you are DQ'd?
Most people would say it is common sense that you make yourself aware of the rules of the game before you take part, especially if you are in contention to win prize money. Obviously that isn't part of your common sense.
As expected, this thread has turned into a battle between the "marijuana isn't that bad - it should not be illegal" crowd and the "pot is illegal and should be treated as such" crowd. The latter is correct, while the former is not.
You, sir, are an idiot.
Um, yeah wrote:
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? To say nothing of the 5000 or 10000 meter fiasco on the womens side where a third of the field cut to the rail at least 25 meters before they should have. Again, who makes the call. If all rules aren't enforced, then too many shenanigans will follow selective enforcement.
Ahh, so we are using the 'two wrongs make a right' line of reasoning? Rules weren't followed in Berlin, therefore it is ok to ignore rules in Wisconsin?
Berlin women's 10,000 should have had a whack of DQs. Why the ref didn't, who knows?
In the marathon incident you cite, who gave the athlete the bottle? A race official/volunteer or some random spectator? One is allowed, the other not.
You missed my point...either enforce all the rules or none of the rules otherwise it is all a big joke
As to your other question, in the Womens marathon, one of the leading women missed or dropped her special bottled at one of the water stops. Someone at the water stop, don't know who handles these stops (volunteers or officials)came around the table, picked up the runners bottle and chased after her for about 20 to 30 meters and gave her the bottle. At no time did the runner stop and go back for her bottle...it was run to her. Isn't this an unfair assist? The runner should have at least had to pick up a "normal" bottle due to her failure to grab her own bottle.