SWOF wrote:
IMHO, Charity runners should be allowed to run Boston only if the race doesn't fill with qualifiers.
+1
SWOF wrote:
IMHO, Charity runners should be allowed to run Boston only if the race doesn't fill with qualifiers.
+1
I really hope no one is running in FL. It's pretty hot. Like, hot hot. I'm going to write an email about it. Let me know if you want to be Copied. I'd be happy to add you.
SWOF wrote:
IMHO, Charity runners should be allowed to run Boston only if the race doesn't fill with qualifiers.
+2, but we all know this won't happen.
The BAA (and a lot of other races) likes to brag they "raised X amount of dollars" for charity. In actuality, they didn't raise shit for charity because they simply gave charities a certain number of entries. It was the people that raised that money for charity, not the BAA.
The race organizes then use this to their advantage when selling sponsorships..."Don't you want to be part of a race that raised X amount of dollars for charity?"
Going back to the original topic. A high of 82 is NOT that hot, at all, like many have said. If you run smart, you won't have a problem. Is it ideal racing weather? Not at all. That being said, if you go in with a conservative plan, take plenty of electrolytes and water, you probably will finish within 10 to 15 minutes (at most) of your goal time.
Breaking news: All future editions of the Honolulu Marathon and all other marathons taking place in Hawaii have been cancelled!
Seriously, BAA, you're being fuc\king ridiculous.
SWOF wrote:
Latest prediction:
6:00 59F
9:00 69F
12:00 82F
3:00 85F
If this prediction happens, it'll be no worse than 2004.
In fact, it will be better than 2004 because the start is earlier. But I think the points is the BAA wants to prevent another 2004. They didn't exactly handle that well.
SWOF wrote:
IMHO, Charity runners should be allowed to run Boston only if the race doesn't fill with qualifiers.
Well then you're not just old, but also ignorant.....and selfish. Shame on you.
AlmostBQ wrote:
If there a lot of deferrals from this years race, I could find myself going faster and just meeting the 2013 standard but losing out to someone who was deferred and just met the 2012 standard (assuming age groups are the same)
It seems pointless to try for 2013 if this is the case.
That's the spirit. Why try if there's a risk of failure?
monkeyblossom wrote:
Seriously, BAA, you're being fucking ridiculous.
Why exactly? For advising runners to be prepared for near 90 degree temps? Or maybe acquiring extra water and ice? Or increasing the size of their med tents and adding air conditioning? Or maybe getting more busses to pick up stragglers and DNFs? Yeah, that's stupid.
Hmmm. If I was a novice knowing that I planned for this race knowing the heat alert. Plan accordingly. No PR's, go slow enjoy the run/jog, better to be safe then sorry. Take fluids, electrolytes after the half point. Especially watch your arms for dry salt (filmy white), get advice from an aid station to be safe. Boston is an exclusive race so why fuXX it up.
hold the phone wrote:
AlmostBQ wrote:If there a lot of deferrals from this years race, I could find myself going faster and just meeting the 2013 standard but losing out to someone who was deferred and just met the 2012 standard (assuming age groups are the same)
It seems pointless to try for 2013 if this is the case.
That's the spirit. Why try if there's a risk of failure?
LOL. What I meant was, if there are a substantial number of deferrals - the cutoff time for 2012 marathon times might very well be at -10 BQ or beyond. I might be able to get -5, but -10 is not going to be in the cards.
I'm gonna go with 3 deaths.
AlmostBQ wrote:
hold the phone wrote:That's the spirit. Why try if there's a risk of failure?
LOL. What I meant was, if there are a substantial number of deferrals - the cutoff time for 2012 marathon times might very well be at -10 BQ or beyond. I might be able to get -5, but -10 is not going to be in the cards.
Doesn't sound like you should be in it this year.
AlmostBQ wrote:
LOL. What I meant was, if there are a substantial number of deferrals - the cutoff time for 2012 marathon times might very well be at -10 BQ or beyond. I might be able to get -5, but -10 is not going to be in the cards.
Umm...this is 2012. Welcome to reality.
Huh? wrote:
AlmostBQ wrote:LOL. What I meant was, if there are a substantial number of deferrals - the cutoff time for 2012 marathon times might very well be at -10 BQ or beyond. I might be able to get -5, but -10 is not going to be in the cards.
Umm...this is 2012. Welcome to reality.
Meant in the context of a race I will run in 2012 in the hopes of qualifying for 2013.
Earth to nimrod wrote:
monkeyblossom wrote:Seriously, BAA, you're being fucking ridiculous.
Why exactly? For advising runners to be prepared for near 90 degree temps? Or maybe acquiring extra water and ice? Or increasing the size of their med tents and adding air conditioning? Or maybe getting more busses to pick up stragglers and DNFs? Yeah, that's stupid.
No, for telling people not to run. Or treat it as a fun run. That's being hysterical. Just tell people to be smart about what they're doing.
have to be frank wrote:
AlmostBQ wrote:LOL. What I meant was, if there are a substantial number of deferrals - the cutoff time for 2012 marathon times might very well be at -10 BQ or beyond. I might be able to get -5, but -10 is not going to be in the cards.
Doesn't sound like you should be in it this year.
I've been hearing that for five years now. One day I will prevail and get a BQ time. I may not get into the race itself, but I will have at least met that level.
Well then you're not just old, but also ignorant.....and selfish. Shame on you.[/quote]
Ignorant? About the Boston Marathon? I think not -- I have qualified for it over 40 times, and run it 7.
Selfish? I think not -- if Boston filled with runners that could run under 3:10, that would be fine with me. And I would not get to run it. How is that ignorant OR selfish??? Perhaps you should get to know a person before you resort to your judgmental and uninformed insults.
Back to the subject at hand: As I recall, the last person who died in the BM was a charity (T-i-T) jogger who was on pace for about a 5 1/2 hour marathon. (I hear that she was a wonderful person, and many of us learned a lot more about hyponatremia after her tragedy.)
I think maybe the BAA just really wants to avoid serious health issues/deaths, especially with their increasing numbers of inexperienced marathoners. And I have to admit, we "experienced" runners do not always run smart. In 2004 I had a fine race in Boston, having trained in Houston, but there were many better runners than me sick-as-dogs, throwing up and or collapsing before or at the finish line. Our will to finish sometimes is stronger than our common sense, and it was a mess for the medical folks that year.
You runners going from Hopkinton to Boston tomorrow, take care, slow down, enjoy the experience, be safe, and look forward to another marathon with better conditions :-) Heck, DNF if you have to. Boston is an awesome marathon, but it's not likely to be your PR. There are other awesome marathons. Your PR will come when many factors fall into place: training, nutrition, hydration, rest, general health, weather, great shoes, etc. Best of luck to you all, and I do wish you could have last year's Boston weather!
SWOF wrote:
IMHO, Charity runners should be allowed to run Boston only if the race doesn't fill with qualifiers.
This is correct. And SWOF has a killer body.
I think maybe the BAA just really wants to avoid serious health issues/deaths, especially with their increasing numbers of inexperienced marathoners.[/quote]
And not just for PR or liability purposes, but I would imagine also b/c with the number of charity runners, many of them who not just inexperienced, but also not incredibly fit or healthy people, isn't there a chance that medical service providers will be overwhelmed? How is medical attention provided and by whom? Are runners billed afterward? (I'm asking honestly out of curiosity.) It's like the ER phenomenon: everyone wants to do what they want to do, then roll in demanding a medic. Some of these people need one, some don't, but it will be much higher numbers than on a day with cooler weather.
Another poster made a good point: "Just tell people to be smart." But most people aren't smart, and don't know how to "be smart" on a hot marathon day. They'll go out too fast, they don't know how to listen to their bodies, they still weigh too much, have maintained a poor diet and habits while training. The BAA knows this, and can only provide so many medical services/transport to local medical centers.
monkeyblossom wrote:
No, for telling people not to run. Or treat it as a fun run. That's being hysterical. Just tell people to be smart about what they're doing.
Suggesting that people with underlying medical conditions and those who are not highly fit sit out the race is not "being hysterical". It is just what you say...telling people to be smart about what they're doing. The BAA is spot on.