Vermont City Marathon Stops Marathon Prematurely

VerminMeat wrote:

Holding a marathon this late, aren't you pretty much asking for hot weather?

This is a fair point, but it is Vermont, almost Canada. On the website they said the average temps are a low of 48 and a high of 71 on the day with a noontime high of 68 (4:00 into race).

These are warmer than many would like for a marathon but nothing absurd. It ended up matching the record high for that day of the year in Burlington VT. Its like a 100 year storm.

I get your point, but history says this day was basically the worst it could possibly be.

The Great Millenial Uprising wrote:

Any more of you old dudes got some stories you want debunked? The Internet was the worst thing for the boomers since their wild azz claims can now easily be refuted. Lol

I am sure the 1990 MCM felt hot. On the day Im sure he heard it was in the 70s later in the day. A few years later he will say it felt like it was in the 80s. And now he says he heard it was 90 on the start line.

I keep looking up marathons to compare it to. Closest one I could find was Boston 2012. High temps reached 88, but according to the BAA the Temp on the start line for wave 1 was 65. A full 10 degrees cooler than at VCM. But I would say they are equal because Boston is more exposed than VCM.

Boston offered a freaking deferment that day. It was exceptional heat.

Not so. All the downed runners I saw the 1st 13 miles were all young, male, fit looking with the typical skinny runner builds. They haven't learned how to take care of themselves in the conditions we had on Sunday...until maybe now. Don't assume unless you were there. RD made the right call, no question.

2007 Chicago marathon: Temps in low 70's at start, topped out at 88 degrees by 11am. Huge numbers of mid & back-of-packers suffered and race was called off at 11:30am.

Actually, it was mid-70's at the start of the 2012 Boston. Maybe it was 65 in Boston, but the race doesn't start in Boston.

Also, it topped 90 that day on the course. Again, maybe not in Boston, but only a small part of the race takes place in Boston.

hot hot hot wrote:

Actually, it was mid-70's at the start of the 2012 Boston. Maybe it was 65 in Boston, but the race doesn't start in Boston.

Also, it topped 90 that day on the course. Again, maybe not in Boston, but only a small part of the race takes place in Boston.

I don't doubt the temp topped 90. I was at the race. And I know the course.

Here is the link I saw it on. Hopkinton Temp start of wave 1 is listed as 65.

.

Again I am saying that day was comparable. VCM was hot and humid. I remember Boston 2012 was hot. And I remember the absolute carnage of people running that race.

Weather that day in Worcester. - 75F @ 10am

https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KORH/2012/4/16/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Hopkinton&req_state=MA&req_statename=&reqdb.zip=01748&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=99999

This site has it at 76F at start of the race.

http://findmymarathon.com/weather-detail.php?zname=Boston%20Marathon&year=

OF wrote:

hot hot hot wrote:

Actually, it was mid-70's at the start of the 2012 Boston. Maybe it was 65 in Boston, but the race doesn't start in Boston.

Also, it topped 90 that day on the course. Again, maybe not in Boston, but only a small part of the race takes place in Boston.

I don't doubt the temp topped 90. I was at the race. And I know the course.

Here is the link I saw it on. Hopkinton Temp start of wave 1 is listed as 65.

http://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/boston-marathon-history/weather-conditions.aspx

.

Again I am saying that day was comparable. VCM was hot and humid. I remember Boston 2012 was hot. And I remember the absolute carnage of people running that race.

Boston 2012 is getting like Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game. Everyone claims to have been there.

I didn't run Boston 2012. I was a spectator. Sorry if that was misconstrued.

I live on the course so I have been at every Boston my entire life.

Xsww127inm wrote:

This wouldn't have happened at an ultramarathon.

The Vermont 100 has been run in mid-July for at least 25 years. There have been years with hot temps. In 1999 the race was run in a heat wave with temps well into the 90s. Of course, the finishing rate that year was only around 45%.

Buffalo was pretty much the same in Sunday. 4am the temp was already 70 and climbed up to 78 to 80 by 11am. Race started at 6:30 so I was done before the masses, but still. It was the humidity that I think was the worst. 80% humidity, the sweat would not evaporate.

RD was prepared though. They originally had water every 2 miles for the first 12, that changed to every mile for the entire 26. At the end of each water stop there were cups of ice and ice cold towels. Those towels was a godsend. It was hot, hot, hot.

No major injures says the buffalo RD, despite the conditions. The city came out and supported everyone, there had to have been 150 different lawns with sprinklers or hoses along the course. Everyone knew and was repeatedly warned it would be hot and muggy.

I think many came to terms that it would not be a PR day since it was obvious the conditions were far from ideal.

I get that starting at 70 and climbing to 80 might not sound hot to some, but we are talking about Buffalo, Vermont and Ottawa. It's been in the 60s for barely two weeks, let alone 80s.

Trolls will troll and it sucks it had to come to a cancellation. But the in poster above nailed it with his comment saying you kind of kknow what you might be signing up for when the marathon is occurring on memorial day weekend. The chance for hot weather is definitely there.

I managed to finish Vermont City on Sunday, but it was rough. By far the worst conditions of the 12 marathons I have run. The out-and-back stretch on the highway (from the 4-mile mark to the 8-mile mark) was particularly tough - almost no shade out there.

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet in this thread, but a few days before the race the race director set an objective criteria about cancellation. Something like if the wet bulb globe temperature reached 82 degrees. Apparently it did, so the race was black-flagged.

They need to seriously consider an earlier start for future years. Starting at 8:00 in late May is just asking for trouble.

The spectators in the various neighborhoods we ran through were great. Lots of unofficial aide stations, water sprinklers, and garden hoses. My vote for most creative was someone (around mile 18, I think) offering maple syrup shots.

The out and back on the high way was what killed everyone. (4-8)

The sun sapped everyone. They had signs at the water station with a conditions chart that was either low, medium, high, or extreme (cancellation).

The race started at medium but I hit mile 7 and the sign was up to high. That's when I knew it was in danger of being cancelled and I knew that my dreams of a decent time were done. I didn't actually hit a wall until 14 or so but by mile 7 and after that brutal stretch of sun I knew that this was an exceptional day and things were going to be bad.

It sounds as though Buffalo was much better prepared that Vermont. Adding 13 more aid stations? Wow!!!!!!! And I heard they moved the start up too!!!

OF wrote:

I didn't run Boston 2012. I was a spectator. Sorry if that was misconstrued.

I live on the course so I have been at every Boston my entire life.

Mom's basement?

Haha actually 3 different spots. But I have never been more than a 5 minute walk to the course.

In 2012 I was at BC.

early 1970s was before the big miles and depth really emerged:

see this quotation from a runner's world article>>

"The 1983 Boston Marathon produced the fastest, deepest men’s results an American marathon has ever seen--this in a marathon 30 years before the current “second running boom.” In 1983, 84 mostly North American runners broke 2:20, and 263 bettered 2:28:30.

By comparison, in the super-fast 2011 Boston, where Geoffrey Mutai and Moses Mosop ran 2:03:02 and 2:03:06, respectively, only 22 runners broke 2:20 (and half were East Africans), and 68 runners beat 2:28:30."

I also recall that a 2:46 at NYC in recent years was worth around 200th, but 630th back in 1983.

jjjjjjj wrote:

early 1970s was before the big miles and depth really emerged:

see this quotation from a runner's world article>>

"The 1983 Boston Marathon produced the fastest, deepest men’s results an American marathon has ever seen--this in a marathon 30 years before the current “second running boom.” In 1983, 84 mostly North American runners broke 2:20, and 263 bettered 2:28:30.

By comparison, in the super-fast 2011 Boston, where Geoffrey Mutai and Moses Mosop ran 2:03:02 and 2:03:06, respectively, only 22 runners broke 2:20 (and half were East Africans), and 68 runners beat 2:28:30."

I also recall that a 2:46 at NYC in recent years was worth around 200th, but 630th back in 1983.

Thanks, gramps.

The thing is. Nobody cares about your 40 year old PR.

86 The Trolls wrote:

P.S. Anyone who bashes someone for a "slow" marathon time is a jerk.

I think there would be less bashing of "slow" marathoners if those slow marathoners didn't conflate failing to shower them in congratulations for finishing with bashing them.