Cowtown Marathon Winner DQ'd

joho wrote:

This story is getting national attention for some reason. There was a headline on Google News this morning and they just talked about it on the Bob and Tom radio show.

At least running is making headlines.

The other thing I wonder about is how many of the Chicago finishers were running with someone else's bib. I figure out of those 37,000 finishers there had to be a lot of people running with a bib that wasn't theirs. We just don't hear about it because they didn't finish in the money. I know race directors worry because these runners didn't sign waivers and if something medically happened to them, they would have the wrong info on them. Allowing bibs to be transfered would hopefully take care of some of this?

I saw it on Deadspin yesterday. That's the first I heard of it and I live in Fort Worth but I was out of town Sunday morning.

The NBC local news here led with the marathon or maybe it was the 2nd story. I missed the very beginning but I don't think they talked about the DQ as they had more important things to talk about. It was a story on how the guy who organized the Cowtown Marathon in Afghanistan last year was running it here this year in honor of 9 people at his base including runners and volunteers in last year's race who were killed in an ambush:

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Airmen-Runs-Cowtown-In-Honor-of-Fellow-Servicemen-Who-Died-140496133.html

The first female should be DQed as well for wearing headphones.

http://www.dallasnews.com/health/fitness/headlines/20120226-photos-runners-sweat-it-out-at-the-cowtown-marathon-half-marathon.ece?ssimg=483847#ssTop483432

headphones appear to be okay but use "extreme caution"

http://www.cowtownmarathon.org/Upload/documents/2012%20Cowtown%20Brochure.pdf

Maybe it is just semantics but since the guy was never an official registered participant I don't really understand how he can be DQ'ed. He was never Q'ed in the first place.

seriously.... wrote:

headphones appear to be okay but use "extreme caution"

http://www.cowtownmarathon.org/Upload/documents/2012%20Cowtown%20Brochure.pdf

I'm running a marathon next weekend (where we were given the rules). Their interpretation of the below is that if you're competing for awards, you can't wear an ipod.

(b) The visible possession or use by athletes of video, audio, or communications devices in the competition area. The Games Committee for an LDR event may allow the use of portable listening devices not capable of receiving communication; however, those competing in championships for awards, medals, or prize money may not use such devices.

He SHOULD be DQ'd every time. Didn't sign up. Didn't sign a waiver. End of story. This is a logistical nightmare for race organizers. I know I am a RD.

The service was purchased. Why does it matter who uses it?

Seriously why does it matter? What if he fell down and broke his leg. Then he can just have a lawsuit against everyone involved (no wavier). Not to mention races have a no show rate programed into their expenses without that the entry fees would have to go up. Can't just allow random switching of numbers. Races aren't planned the day of the race they are planned months in advance.

It was paid for wrote:

The service was purchased. Why does it matter who uses it?

Did he sign a waiver?

If you run under a fake name or someone else's name and get caught you should be disqualified. Those are the chances you take by breaking rules. You can't break rules and then complain when someone calls you on it. If you don't like them, then start your own race and make up your own rules.

To this guy's credit he accepted the correct decision of the organizers with good grace.

Kick The Bums Out wrote:

Seriously why does it matter? What if he fell down and broke his leg. Then he can just have a lawsuit against everyone involved (no wavier). Not to mention races have a no show rate programed into their expenses without that the entry fees would have to go up. Can't just allow random switching of numbers. Races aren't planned the day of the race they are planned months in advance.

That's why they should be transferable. He didn't technically bandit. He used his friend's number. His friend paid for it and registered, but ended up letting him use it. I'm sure if it was transferable, they would have done that.

Not sure if you read my previous posts. Races count as part of their profit on people not showing up. Depending on the race they usually get about 86% or so of the people that sign up to the actual race. If you now make them transferable then you take away that profit margin and the expenses go up. Races cost enough now you make them transferable the cost goes up. Welcome to the real world.

It's a slow day in the office so I will give my opinion (against my better judgement).

The goal of most races is to minimize changes as the event gets nearer to race day.

The inclusion of a procdure to allow participants to give their number to an un-registered individual sounds workable but it has the potential for many problems. I think it can work as long as the group organizing the event has the oppertunity to ensure that all involved (medical,timing,broadcast, media, etc.)get the updates well enough prior to the event.

In this case, the athlete was just wrong to use someone elses number. Technically the athlete being DQ'd is not- he was never entered into the race. The performance just should not be considered...period.

There are many reasons why this should not be allowed beyond the compromising of the event's integrity. I will list some of the more obvious ones (in no particular order).

1. Athlete's in a race have the right to know who they are competing against before the race starts.

2. The organizing group often would like to know who their potential winners are so they can publicize them.

3. It makes for a bad day for people who are trying broadcast the event - even just reporting who the leaders to the crowd at the finish line.

4. Probably the most important is the medical well being of the participants. If that runners has an accident or medical problem it could compromise the medical treatment he/she gets. In addition every organization involved with the event will be liable and the continuation of the race for the following year would be in jeopardy.

Kick The Bums Out wrote:

If you now make them transferable then you take away that profit margin and the expenses go up. Races cost enough now you make them transferable the cost goes up. Welcome to the real world.

Not true. The Indy Mini has a transfer program that runs from Jan.-April (http://www.500festival.com/marathon/TransferProgram.asp), costing the person who wants the bib $20. 14% of 35,000 = 4900 x $20 = $98,000 extra - any added costs.... I guarantee they are making an additional profit.

Doesn't solve the "problem" really. I would guess 99% of the people that want to transfer want to do it closer than a month out. That transfer policy is a logistical nightmare for race organizers that have plenty to do. People don't really get what goes into producing a large top quality event.

Let's put it this way. Suppose you are a race director and you are putting on a little 5k. It will cost you $1000 to pay for timing, police, etc. You know from past experience that 50 people will sign up and 40 people will actually run.

You can either charge everyone $20 each and make the fee nonrefundable (=$1000) or charge everyone $25 and plan on making 10 refunds (=$1000). If you offer refunds, the cost for the people who actually run goes up to pay for the people who sign up but don't run and get a refund. If you charge $20 with no refunds the extra $200 paid by the people who don't run isn't "profit" - it's still paying for the fixed costs of the race because the race costs about the same to put on whether there are 40 or 50 runners.

The whole question with refunds is whether the people who actually run should have to pay more because of people get refunds and whether the race organizers want to add the hassle and expense of managing refund requests. I think it's perfectly legitimate for a race organizer to want to avoid that by making the fee nonrefundable.

Kick The Bums Out wrote:

Seriously why does it matter? What if he fell down and broke his leg. Then he can just have a lawsuit against everyone involved (no wavier).

Could you show me some case law to prove that the waiver is anything other than a meaningless formality? As far as I can see, the participant is willingly engaging in an activity that carries known risks. I can't imagine that the race, the RD, or anyone else would be liable unless the injury is the direct result of negligence. And if the injury is the result of negligence, then the waiver isn't going to help you.