2018 Boston Marathon Thread (Read 554 times)

 

It is a race and needs to go by gun time.  How can the leader react to something that they don't have a chance to react to.  It is not the BAA's responsibility to educate people about the rules of racing.

Agreed.  Emphatically.

This discussion reminds me of a gun-vs-chip-time issue that arose some time ago.  A friend was competing for the masters win at a major road race that offers masters prize money (no, I'm not going to identify the race, the distance, or the year, to protect friend's privacy).  Race website clearly said that money was awarded based on gun time, and that those contending for masters money should line up at the front.

Friend outkicks a competitor to cross the finish line first by a second, only to be told that he/she actually was second.  Friend protests that he/she definitely crossed the line ahead of other person, but is told that the timing mat says otherwise.  Friend accepts second, and waits for photos to come out.

Finish photos clearly show friend crossing the line first.  Friend notes this to race organization, only to be told that the other person was faster on chip time, having started 5 seconds back, and so gets the win....  (despite, y'know, the rules on the website).

The whole story above still makes me very angry.

 

It IS the BAA’s responsibility to see to healthy and fair competition for both sexes.  

Agreed.  How does this get fixed?

 

Agreed.  How does this get fixed?

1.  Drown all sub-elite males in a gigantic boiling vat of oil, go back to conducting races normally, (mass start) everybody wins!

2.  Go back to racing as normal, accept there will be problems.

or

3.  Expand the field of the women’s start, since this has pooped up enough times that it is obvious that they aren’t getting enough of the contenders to the early start line.

 

It IS the BAA’s responsibility to see to healthy and fair competition for both sexes.  Considering the BAA’s notorious track record with women (#261!!!), I don’t think limiting female competitors to a small group really helps them out, AS WE’VE JUST SEEN.  Competition is open to *every* man in that first wave.

 

But thanks to the bros that just explained to us that the little ladies need to smarten up and play by the rules.

First of all, I don't think it's totally accurate to characterize this as a "ladies versus bros" issue.  I'm female, and I completely agree with DCGG's take on this.

Second of all, the background to all of this is we are trying to treat women as equal to men in a sport where women are fundamentally inferior to men as a whole.  I'm sorry if that's offensive, but it's also true.  Running is a sport where performance is assessed by speed, and women on the whole are slower than men.

So given that uncomfortable point, what is the best way to treat women equally?  The elite women's start is one way - it allows the women's elite race to get equal attention and television time to the men's elite race.  But, if you're going to start the elite women's race separately, then you also need to ensure that they're not going to get a nasty surprise by learning that they later lost on chip time to a woman who started much later and had the benefit of male pacers.

I do think it wouldn't be a bad idea, just from a PR standpoint, for the BAA to offer in future years a cash award to any woman who is explicitly denied the opportunity to start in the EWS, but later runs a time that would have finished in the $.

 

and

5. Updated the fucken BAA website to remove all mention of net time/gun time for placing and just go by finish order since it's a race not a goddam time trial anyway.

Problem with that is that you really want to use chip time, not placing, for age group awards.

You could go with finish order for cash awards and chip time for age group.

 

First of all...WHAT ARE YOU RAMBLING ABOUT?

 

Secondly, let’s change the rules because some really hard working, amazing athletes are getting screwed, and they deserve a chance to shine.

 

MTA:  As opposed to the loser in all this, which is me, because I responded TWICE to a no log/no profile troll.

This thread is quickly derailing I see, but DKG has a great point about elites, he wasn't rambling. If I was an elite woman, why wouldn't I just start in the corral with all the men and use them for drafting/working? Then, I could win on the chip time, when the entire point of this is that it is a race, not a time trial, and the women at the front who were running a "tactical" race would all lose to this person who started in the back with the men?

That is about as unfair as it gets. "Oh hey, I know you broke the tape first, but actually you came in third. Try again next time!"

You go for finish order for the money and AG can be done on chips (much less of an issue there).

Also (stupid me), this is the final fucking time I respond to someone with no profile or log visible.

There is a person here that has made hundreds of accounts and keeps posting on here, often starting threads with the same stuff.

There is no reason that you can’t spend the 15 seconds to create a profile or let us know about you if you want to don’t want to look like a troll or spammer.

You keep saying we should look into better ways, do you have any suggestions?

I assume having more women in the elite corral is easy and I'm not sure why they limit it by time. Should be something like the top 30 racers according to marathon times over the past 2 years or something. It doesn't make sense to limit it to a fixed number, would prevent this kind of stuff.

Edit: I do wonder how they handle people dropping out at the last minute though, like Jordan Hasay.