then you are arbitrarily enforcing the rules ..doesn't seem far to decide who should be punished and let others do the exact same thing. Are you saying hypothetically that a 4th place finisher (if they are out of the awards) can have blasting 'pump up' music and drink from anyone yet if the 3 ahead ( who are in the awards) do it then they get the ax?
More cheaters.. too bad this lady is covering her number so she is not caught having this guy in jeans pace her
also another lady with a water bottle that was not handed to her at the aid station
stay tuned.. more to come
Wow, I didn't realize how many people cheated!
I am usually a "rules are rules" kind of guy. I have no problem w/ the competitors taking water from somebody on the side of the course but if somebody jumped out of a van and gave her water (and maybe paced her too?) I have a problem with that.
I agree, Rules are rules. They exist for a reason, and should be followed.
However, ALL rules are subject to discretion. Our society is filled with very important rules, but when it comes to enforcing them, people use their discretion. A police officer decides whether a ticket should be issued or not, a district attorney must use his/her best discretion on whether or not to prosecute. Judges must use their discretion when weighing the facts before them. The truth is that situations are more complex than we like to make them. That is why we utilize discretion.
The first place winner acknowledged after the race that she had taken aid when questioned. So she admits there was a rule, and that it is broken. The problem that the public is having with the DQ however, is that many feel the race committee did not use their best discretion in enforcing this rule. Did the offense really fit the consequences?
In my opinion, the DQ was incredibly harsh in light of the other facts: not a prestigious race, not an elite athlete, no elite water table provided, athlete only sited once for the violation (versus doing it the entire time), it was unlikely that the incident is what made her run 44 seconds faster than the other person...etc...
Now, I'm sure some of you think that the race committee applied proper discretion in DQing the winner. And that is your opinion. But if you are going to just say "rules are rules," you fail to recognize how this society works: all rules are subject to discretion.
then you are arbitrarily enforcing the rules ..doesn't seem fair to decide who should be punished and let others do the exact same thing. Are you saying hypothetically that a 4th place finisher (if they are out of the awards) can have blasting 'pump up' music and drink from anyone yet if the 3 ahead ( who are in the awards) do it then they get the ax?
From the 2009 USATF Rulebook:
144.3 (h) The visible possession or use by athletes of video, audio, or communications devices in the competition area. The Games Committee for an LDR event may allow the use of portable listening devices not capable of receiving communication; however, those competing in championships for awards, medals, or prize money may not use such devices.
From the Lakefront Marathon Runner's Guide:
The USATF Rules of Competition prohibit the wearing of headphones used with MP3 players and other similar devices for persons competing for USATF Championship awards or prize money. Other participants are allowed to use MP3 players.
then you are arbitrarily enforcing the rules ..doesn't seem far to decide who should be punished and let others do the exact same thing.
Oh make up your mind.
First you argue that the race director should have used her discretion on whether or not to enforce the rules with respect to DQ'ing the winner. Now you are complaining that some people (you, for example) are suggesting that races use their discretion in DQ'ing less-than-your-definition-of-elite runners.
Before you carry on in your holier-than-though crusade, have a re-read through several of the posts and try and grasp the general concept. Note specifically the posts that cite the exact wording of the rules.
Once you've done that, how about a suggestion as to where the line should be drawn for this discretion. If 3:02 isn't 'elite', then what is? 2:50? 2:40? 2:30?
How about instead of trying to confuse things with time standards that need to be altered for every race and weather conditions we go with something more universal, like drawing the line at those who win awards?
Very simple, if you want to win an award, you follow the rules. If you don't care about your award, then feel free to ignore the rules. If you're worried that your 3:02 might actually win a race, then pick another one where 3:02 will put you back in the pack and out of contention for prizing, thereby removing any obligation you follow the rules.
another cheater spotted at Lakefront
check 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.
"How about instead of trying to confuse things with time standards that need to be altered for every race and weather conditions we go with something more universal, like drawing the line at those who win awards?"
You really should put a comma after the word "conditions."
more cheaters wrote:
ok we have a DQ on a bandit runner..
no number and definately wearing headphones
Again, too bad these photos are from 2008, not 2009.
You really should put a comma after the word "conditions."
"How about instead of trying to confuse things with time standards that need to be altered for every race and weather conditions, we go with something more universal, like drawing the line at those who win awards?"
Rules Committee - I see what you are saying about the USATF rule that prohibits those competing in Championships for awards, etc from using an Ipod. The question is, was the Lakefront Marathon a USATF Championship Event? I'm looking at their website right now. There is nothing on their homepage that indicates they are a Championship Event. There are USATF and RRCA logos on the right side of the page, but no text indicating any sort of Championship status. Buried on the FAQ page, the 21st (yes, 21st) FAQ says "we serve as the Wisconsin Marathon Championship. If you compete for a USAF (sic) award or for prize money you may NOT use them." The next FAQ allows states that pacers are not permitted. The 31st FAQ point addresses that your friends MAY give you food or drinks "adjacent to dedicated water stops."
Related to their Championship status, I find it odd that the Runner Guide, a 12 page pdf available on their website, only mentions that they are the USATF Wisconsin marathon championship and RRCA Wisconsin championship buried in a paragraph titled "Assembling at the Starting Line" on page 4. On page 6, where they actually print the USATF rules about headphones, they don't say anything about being a Championship event. If they're going to enforce a headphone restriction on those competing for Championship awards, that info should definitely be included at that location! They also state on page 8, related to Chip Timing, that they are a Championship event, but again, this info is buried.
Also, on their Race Rules page (http://www.badgerlandstriders.org/lfm/index.html) rule #10 prohibits headphones for those competing in USATF Championship events, but nowhere on this page is there any indication that this race is any sort of Championship event.
Race Rule #7 is an interesting point in this discussion, as it pertains to unofficial aid stations: "With the exception of “citizen aid stations” where neighbors provide additional aid available to ALL participants, you may not accept aid outside of the designated aid stations. This means that your friends and family cannot meet you on the course to provide aid to you."
I would say it should have been reasonable for Ms. Peller (outside aid violation) to understand that rule. On the other hand, I think it's reasonable that Ms. Goebel (headphone violation) would not have known this race was a Championship event. If they had published their Championship designation reasonably clearly, or at least right next to the USATF headphone rule, I would feel differently.
At minimum, Ms. Goelbel should be able to be reinstated in the results, albeit without being awarded the Wisconsin Championship. After all, she could easily claim that by wearing headphones she was choosing not to compete for the State Championship, however she was not giving up her right to participate in the race and she did follow all the race rules to be an ordinary participant.
And based on the article linked to on the front page of LR today, Ms. Goelbel is quoted that she is willing to give up the $500 prize money but that "she should not be disqualified and her time of 3:02:50 and her ranking should remain in the official results."
Based on the Rules of the Race, as published on the race's website, I believe she is spot on.
I believe this is from the race director:
I have resisted comment - as second guessing of decisions is one thing that comes with the territory and one part of a club-owned race. I will not, however, allow the integrity of our other competitors to be questioned - particularly the reference to the other female elites and their families. The statements made about them are simply not true - absolutely and positively. The action was witnessed by a Race Official and was later confirmed by another competitor. The situation was handled under the direction of USATF Officials.Cassie knows what happened - she knows that her DQ was not for taking water from a 7 year old. There is a big difference between her statements and the reality of taking aid halfway between aid stations from someone who jumps out of a vehicle to run with her - clearly outside of anyone's definition of "vicinity". As an Elite runner she is also well aware of the obligations of Elites (in particular as they are competing for USATF Championship awards) to read and understand the Race Rules. Cassie has not disputed the facts in this situation.
This is apparently from the VP of racing for the Badgerland Striders, which put on the event:
As many of you are aware that ran today's LFM, the first female to cross the finish line was disqualified. You may not be aware that she was not the only runner disqualified in the event.
This runner was disqualified for breaking the rule regarding receiving aid not in the immediate vicinity of an aid station that is not available to all runners. The rule violation was reported to the LFM management team and corroborated by another runner. Indeed, the other runner reported multiple instances of this rule violation by this runner at other locations in the race, and the runner in her protest admitted receiving aid not generally availble to other runners at a different location in the race than what was reported.
In all fairness to the females finishing behind this runner, the aid received could well have been the difference in the race. If the aid received made no improvement in this runner's performance, then why was it offered to her, and why did she accept it?
The decision of the Race Director was to disqualify this competitor. This decision was reviewed and supported by the Wisconsin USATF. As is acceptable, the runner protested the decision. Following USATF protocol, a jury (of local runners) reviewed the facts and sought opinions of others that have considerable experience in scorekeeping and race officiating. In the end, the jury upheld the decision of the Race Director and the Wisconsin USATF.
Although the entire LFM team feels badly about any disqualification of an obviously well trained and quailified runner, it is only fair to the other elite athletes that the rules of an event be followed. Therefore when rule violations are reported and verified, the Badgerland Striders are committed to taking appropriate action to ensure a fair event for the participants.
He is later quoted as saying
Jahnke agreed there is some selective enforcement of the rule that Peller violated by receiving assistance from a friend between official aid stations. Runners farther back in the pack, those not contending for overall or age group prizes, are not scrutinized or penalized for a similar bit of extra help, he said.
The elite runners are held to a higher standard, Jahnke said.
Incidently, that last link is to an article that discusses that the guy seen in photos finishing with his wife and kids would not be DQed.
This runner was disqualified for breaking the rule regarding receiving aid not in the immediate vicinity of an aid station that is not available to all runners. The rule violation was reported to the LFM management team and corroborated by another runner. Indeed, the other runner reported multiple instances of this rule violation by this runner at other locations in the race, and the runner in her protest admitted receiving aid not generally availble to other runners at a different location in the race than what was reported.(quote)
A big reason Cassie was DQ'ed is because of the other runner that corroborated the violation and said he saw her do this mutliple times. This runner is a former elite ultra marathoner and I believe a friend of the race director. He posted on the badgerlandstriders forum the following:
"It was a clear violation and sad as it my be, she deserves to be DQ'd. I was in somewhat of a unique position running just in front of her by about 30-60 seconds, and on multiple occasions over the last 6-8 miles (when she was close behind)her entourage would jump out of their vehicle and provide aid. I know the course extremely well, along with where the location of the aid stations are. It is black and white in my mind and a valuble lesson for this young women as she continues to compete. I am sure their are other violations out there, but being the leader with money on the line, there is added scrutiny (duh!). The Badgerland Striders did a great job with the entire event and the enforcement of the rules is part of this.Thanks for a great event!"
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. How he was able to see her get aid is beyond me when he admits he was 30-60 seconds in front of her. Yes he could have seen her entourage get out of their vehicles to cheer her on, but since he was past her entourage by the time Cassie got there, how would he know there was illegal aid or pacing going on. He has not come on to post since then to give an explanation as to how he was able to see what went on behind him or apologize to Cassie for publicly calling her a liar. Cassie admitted to taking water from an 8 year old boy in front of his house (since determined to be legal) and a sip of water from her friend around the 19 mile mark. Cassie is one of the most honest people you could ever meet and if she had taking water multiple times like the other runner said she did, without proof, she would have admitted it. Yes she did break a rule, but the rules state the officials can decide if she gained an unfair advantage or not. Did one sip of water give her an advantage. I think most people would agree it didn't, especially since lakefront has great aid stations and it was a cool day.
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 can't believe that no one has questioned why the race director is calling out these black runners.