Boston rules enforcement

thanks for the information

like I said I understand the morally repugnant nature of this but am glad to hear that it sounds like the only repercussions for using another person's bib are possible "interdiction"

good luck

Wrong. If discovered, the person who the bib is registered to will be banned for life by the BAA

oldmanbythesea wrote:

Wrong. If discovered, the person who the bib is registered to will be banned for life by the BAA

the OP covered that in the OP

you be you Ill be me wrote:

but so long as no one uses the time as a qualifier for future then there are no repercussions for the runner right???

Wrong.

Iyyyyhhhyhfggj wrote:

Smoove wrote:

You agreed to pay that amount, no one forced you to. If you don't want to pay the entry, don't enter the race. But if you do enter the race, you are entering into an agreement with the race director to comply with the terms of the agreement that they set out. I don't think you can then ignore the terms of the agreement that you agreed to and reasonably argue that you are entitled to the things which they agreed to do.

The person being given the bib agreed to nothing.

The value if the bib includes medal timing support. If not the RD is unjustly enrich and the law abhors waste. You lose

You sound like a law school reject. The RD is not "unjustly enriched" if a person using someone else's bib is not provided with a medal, a time, and on-course support. Based on the BAA's rules, the person who earned the bib is not allowed to give it to another person for any reason, and, therefore, any person to whom a bib is given cannot be an authorized user of the bib. Your analysis is faulty because you are ignoring the "unjust" part of "unjust enrichment." There is nothing unjust about the BAA enforcing its rules. There is also nothing wasteful about the BAA enforcing its rules. The leftover drinks and food are donated, the medals are recycled or reused, and the time is not attributed to someone who did not earn it fair and square. You lose.

Let me axe you a question wrote:

done before wrote:

It is quite the tradition to bandit Boston. People do it all the time.

Times have changed. Since the bombings, that "tradition" is in significant decline.

2014, yes. It was eerie how few bandits were out there.

2015, not so much.

I suspect it will back to normal in 2016, if not more.

Yeah, I am curious too.

I looked up the bib number on the BAA website and found the person in question. Went to Athlinks and her times look generally within the ranges that you might expect of someone who ran a BQ time in the range that she did. Found what looked to be her qualifying race and saw that she ran even splits and did not miss any timing mats. I did not bother to check any race photos to make sure she didn't use a bib mule, but I did not see anyone else with identical times to hers (although I was losing interest at that point because the other things that I had already looked at didn't make me think that anything was obviously wrong with that race).

if you missed the cut off then you didn't get in the race. you qualified but you still missed it either way

done before wrote:

Let me axe you a question wrote:

Times have changed. Since the bombings, that "tradition" is in significant decline.

2014, yes. It was eerie how few bandits were out there.

2015, not so much.

I suspect it will back to normal in 2016, if not more.

Well that might have been true without recent attacks in San Bernardino, Paris, and Brussels. I live in Natick near the 10-mile mark and it feels like 2014 all over again this week.

repercussions are that if you are caught, you will be banned from Boston..

RD's perspective,

http://www.runnersworld.com/ask-the-race-director/why-banditing-is-wrong

Nope. Article says they discourage people. Bib 8891 gets to run this year. That's not being banned or too discouraging.

Have fun running.

Lurker wrote:

Yeah, I am curious too.

I looked up the bib number on the BAA website and found the person in question. Went to Athlinks and her times look generally within the ranges that you might expect of someone who ran a BQ time in the range that she did. Found what looked to be her qualifying race and saw that she ran even splits and did not miss any timing mats. I did not bother to check any race photos to make sure she didn't use a bib mule, but I did not see anyone else with identical times to hers (although I was losing interest at that point because the other things that I had already looked at didn't make me think that anything was obviously wrong with that race).

This ANONYMOUS person carried the bib for the other ANONYMOUS person who is also a blogger and was banned for life from Boston. The bib carrier ran a BQ at another marathon, so qualified under her own name. The bib carrier is still in the list of registrants, which I think means that the BAA is ok with bib swapping as long as you also qualify under your own merits. Otherwise they ban you.

Your the reject. You're analysis is way off. The person running is not part if the implied contract. And never was.

The RDs gets rewarded because of unjust circumstancec.

Iyyyyhhhyhfggj wrote:

Your(?) the reject. You're(?) analysis is way off. The person running is not part if(?) the implied contract.(?) A(?)nd never was.

The RDs gets(?) rewarded because of unjust circumstancec(?).

Judging by that post I think '1L Wanna-be' is right, 'Iyyyyhhhyhfggj' is a "a law school reject", sorry.

Doesn't get off first base. wrote:

Iyyyyhhhyhfggj wrote:

Your(?) the reject. You're(?) analysis is way off. The person running is not part if(?) the implied contract.(?) A(?)nd never was.

The RDs gets(?) rewarded because of unjust circumstancec(?).

Judging by that post I think '1L Wanna-be' is right, 'Iyyyyhhhyhfggj' is a "a law school reject", sorry.

In case you haven't herd. Typing is not a required coarse for 1Ls.

Enjoy working at Mcdonalds.

Iyyyyhhhyhfggj wrote:

Doesn't get off first base. wrote:

Judging by that post I think '1L Wanna-be' is right, 'Iyyyyhhhyhfggj' is a "a law school reject", sorry.

In case you haven't herd. Typing is not a required coarse for 1Ls.

Enjoy working at Mcdonalds.

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself with each feeble post.

Iyyyyhhhyhfggj wrote:

In case you haven't herd. Typing is not a required coarse for 1Ls.

Enjoy working at Mcdonalds.

But grammar, spelling and punctuation is. Also, a coherent, plausible argument helps.

Bingo

Macca wrote:

Iyyyyhhhyhfggj wrote:

In case you haven't herd. Typing is not a required coarse for 1Ls.

Enjoy working at Mcdonalds.

But grammar, spelling and punctuation is. Also, a coherent, plausible argument helps.

So is reading comprhension which you guys clearly lack. You know what they call the last guy to finish in his class. At law school. ATTORNEY.