There is a petition that has been signed by 20,000 people requesting that the 5,000 or so runners who didn't get to finish the Boston Marathon this year get guaranteed entry into next year's race. BAA has pointed out that doing so would require either reducing by 5,000 the number of people who can get in without having run in 2013 or expanding the number of entrants by 5,000 which they are loathe to do. I can see good arguments on each side. The petitioners argue that the participants were prevented from finishing by the Boston police when the race was canceled. The flip side is that races sometimes get canceled due to bad weather and you don't get a refund for that just as you wouldn't get a refund if a race is canceled while it is ongoing if it was canceled due to bad weather. What say ye?
There is a petition that has been signed by 20,000 people requesting that the 5,000 or so runners who didn't get to finish the Boston Marathon this year get guaranteed entry into next year's race. BAA has pointed out that doing so would require either reducing by 5,000 the number of people who can get in without having run in 2013 or expanding the number of entrants by 5,000 which they are loathe to do. I can see good arguments on each side. The petitioners argue that the participants were prevented from finishing by the Boston police when the race was canceled. The flip side is that races sometimes get canceled due to bad weather and you don't get a refund for that just as you wouldn't get a refund if a race is canceled while it is ongoing if it was canceled due to bad weather.
What say ye?
I haven't seen the BAA make any comments like that. In fact I haven't seen any statements about what they are going to do next year outside of what they have posted in the FAQ section of their website.
I posted this elsewhere but I'd let them pay there way in for next year. I initially thought that they could offer them entry spread over, say, three years but now I'm thinking one year deal only. Keep everything else the same. They shouldn't get much push back for wanting to make next years race a little bigger.
They expanded the field for the 100th running so it isn't unprecedented.
If I had to make the decision, I would allow the ~5000 runners who were prevented from finishing to enter again in 2014. They would have to pay the registration fee, and would be allowed to register for two days before the registration opened up for the qualifiers. If you don't take advantage of the early registration, you are in the same boat as any other runner.
Having a race cancelled due to weather is disappointing. Not being able to finish a race due to a bombing may be traumatic. I would give the non-finishers an opportunity to replace the bad memory with a better experience.
To answer the question, I would like to see the 5,000 offered the chance to come back by a certain date. Whatever # signs up (not all will obviously) take that from the BQ runners. I just don't think that it needs to be cleared up this month.
Yeah, ^ this. Wonder how many of the 5,000 were BQs vs. charity runners? Charities could allow repeats without the fundraising requirements and allow those runners in their count. BAA would not have to make any adjustments for that.
Yeah, ^ this.
Wonder how many of the 5,000 were BQs vs. charity runners? Charities could allow repeats without the fundraising requirements and allow those runners in their count. BAA would not have to make any adjustments for that.
This was my exact thought. My non-qualified solution would be to give a one-time extension for those BQ qualifiers (non-charity) to use their 2013 qualifying race time for 2014. Chances are if they just squeaked below BQ time for 2013, they won't get in for 2014 because of higher demand. However, if somebody in that last group had done a BQ-10, they'd likely still be good for 2014 (maybe). Things happen ... races get canceled or black flagged (Green Bay last year) and you dust yourself off and get back to running...but that's just my random thoughts.
Train smart ... race smarter.
I think they should open the field for them to come back next year. I really don't think that ALL 5000 will take advantage of the invite but it I think it should be available to them.
I can think of a couple of other races that were canceled due to weather.
Actually, my beef was with the general lack of compassion for the runners' plight, and running in general by some in the media, which trickled down to the public.
The Boston runners and the sport of running has experienced the exact opposite in terms of how it is viewed by the public, and rightfully so based on the terror act itself. Whereas the New York runners were in a sense, vilified, which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. ; )
I spoke to a runner that was stopped 1/2 mile before the finish line. She was still given the the chance to pick up the medal, but she doesn't want it. I didn't ask her if she would go back, but it just seems the right thing to do.
Take Charge. Train Harder. Suck Less. No Excuses.
I like the idea of creating a special wave for them after all the others. Course is already set up and staffed, and maybe it takes longer than normal to get everyone done, but that would also alleviate a crunch on qualifying times.
^ This. The runners who did not finish were most likely in the third wave, so I'm sure they wouldn't mind starting in a special wave. Like I said before, to let more runners in wave 2, the most crowded wave, I suspect, would be almost dangerous because of the narrow road and the crowded conditions.
PRs: Boston Marathon, 3:27, April 15th 2013
Cornwall Half-Marathon, 1:35, April 27th 2013
18 marathons, 18 BQs since 2010
Lily, I don't know this with certainty but I'm not sure it was less crowded in the first wave. I would assume they had about 1,000 people per corral and they had the same number of corrals per wave. Of course, the front end of the second wave would have caught up with folks who had blown up in the first wave. I might add that if you really want to run your best Boston time, a great strategy is to move back from the first wave to the first corral in the second wave. You'll be substantially faster than everyone else and you'll hit that gap between waves and have the course essentially to yourself for several miles. The only reason I know that is from talking to a runner who did exactly that.
Short term goal: 17:59 5K
Mid term goal: 2:54:59 marathon
Long term goal: To say I've been a runner half my life. (I started running at age 45).
Lily, I don't know this with certainty but I'm not sure it was less crowded in the first wave. I would assume they had about 1,000 people per corral and they had the same number of corrals per wave.
True... I'm not sure of what I'm saying either. But looking at your pictures, and those that Fuzzy and Goo posted, it seemed so much less crowded than where I was running. Wouldn't it make sense than there is a fewer number of runners able to run sub-3:05 than there is for a sub-3:40, for example? Anyway, my corral was full of women, young and middle-aged, and older men. T.O. was both in heaven and embarrassed at the same time....LOL... (his official corral was #2 I believe, but he stayed in corral 6 to be with me).
Beer-and-waffle Powered
I might add that if you really want to run your best Boston time, a great strategy is to move back from the first wave to the first corral in the second wave. You'll be substantially faster than everyone else and you'll hit that gap between waves and have the course essentially to yourself for several miles. The only reason I know that is from talking to a runner who did exactly that.
I seem to remember reading that while you're allowed to drop back a wave, you are not allowed to start in the first corral of the later wave.
In the words of my late-coach : Just hang in there, relax... and at the end of a race anyone you see.....just pass them
Anyway, my corral was full of women, young and middle-aged, .............
Lucky. My corral was a sausage party.