UKC

Oh dear!

http://mensrunninguk.co.uk/events/woman-pulled-race-one-mile/

In reply to Denni:

I can see Trimpell being a lot busier next year.

In reply to Denni:

could have been done in a better manner but I suppose the marshall did have a point if she was doing a pace of 12min/mile and there was a different start time for slower runners

In reply to Denni:

"I might not be fast but I am a RUNNER" claims Netty Edwards! then goes on to show some finishers medals.

Trust me its a women thing.

Reminds me of one of my wife's friends who announced (out of the blue) that she just had to run a marathon before her 40th birthday. I asked the wife if it was possible to lose 5 stone and do all the marathon training in 4 months? she told me to stop being mean.

Anyway to cut a long story short the marathon happened and low and behold she got a finishers medal! To this day she goes into great detail about the all the training and the running highs and lows and the achievement of 'running a marathon'

All well and good... just don't ask or go anywhere near asking what her finishing time was. Whisper 6 hours 12 minutes.
I could flipping walk it faster than that. In fact I suspect she did walk most of it. Yet all she ever goes on about is how she RAN a marathon. As I said its a woman thing.

Training and running (rather than walking) a marathon is a heroic thing it kinda pisses me off when people claim to have done it when they haven't.

In reply to Indy:

like those who have climbed mt snowdon (yr Wyddfa)

In reply to Denni:

depends really...

Sounds like they didnt handle it well, but if it was a pre-advertised cut off nothing new, also slower runners are often encouraged to start earlier.

But road running is struggling to survive and needs volunteers to marshall but also slow runners to put their money in.. its a hard balance between not pissing off marshalls and not pissing off runners, plus the police, locals, with road closures. Most marathons will have road closures for 6 hours or so and then the course is opened to traffic.

In reply to Indy:

I know someone who has run a marathon in 2:40 and I know someone who ran a marathon in 6:30 and I have much more respect to the latter for lots of reasons. Don't be so judgemental.

I ran the Lakeland 100 averaging 3.5 mph, or 17 min miles. I've run a 40 mile race in 7:48, that's 12 minute mile pace. I won a bloody trophy for that.

12 minute miles IS running, whatever people say. The organiser is a disgrace and you can tell that from his twitter account.

In reply to XXXX:

I think its fair enough to have a cut off, especially for a standard club race. It's normally somewhere in the 12-15 minute mile range. It looks to have been badly handled though, neither come off particularly well though.

re fast v slow runners, it depends when you want to suffer.. people go on about the slow runners suffering more but they aren't banging out 100-120+ mile weeks on dark roads through the winter.. that's when the quicker runners do their suffering.

In reply to Indy:

OK, say you met someone who said they had gone for a hike, and that they'd done 26 miles. You'd be impressed, wouldn't you? That's twice as far as most hikers would do in a day. Then, if they said that they'd done it in 6 hours, you'd be doubly impressed. Well, I can't speak for you, but I would be. That would be really shifting for a hiker, as well as being a long way. Give her a break.

In reply to XXXX:

You can respect who ever you want I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is you saying that a person RAN a marathon in 6:30 because it disrespects all people that do actually RUN rather than walk. Attending all the classes for a physics degree doesn't qualify you put that you have a physics degree on your CV.

Also not a factor in this case but it also pisses me off at how the charity sector seems to have taken over marathon running.

In reply to Indy:








Wow. Your wife is a lucky girl isn't she?

In reply to JJL:


I think so!

In reply to Indy:


I'm sure that's true

In reply to Denni:

I think her abuse of the English language retrospectively justifies her being pulled.

In reply to Indy:

Speaking as a semi respectable runner who has put in 100-120 mile weeks in the past and as someone who has helped organise club runs and finished more races than I can remember, I think you're talking shite. I don't feel disrespected at all and gladly defer to my friend's achievement in running a 6:30 marathon.

I bet you laugh at fat people in the gym too. Presumably gyms are only for thin people.

In reply to Roadrunner2:

No advertised cut offs it seems. One of the problems seems to be that the Vice Chairman of Spenborough AC has made a complete arse of himself on Facebook saying some very unpleasant things.

In reply to XXXX:



Sorry, we are going to have to agree to disagree because a 6:30 marathon is a walk not a run.

No, I think respect for trying to do something about it but if that same person stared to claim they were running 100+ mile weeks when in fact they were weren't or saying that they went to the gym 7 days a week or that they trained for 5 hours a day when they didn't then yes then I'd have a problem.

In reply to The New NickB:


Then they should have just accepted it.. bit silly for a long race not to have a cut off after 1 loop.

time out controversies are nothing new, the west highland way currently has a rival event along the route because of them...

In reply to The New NickB:

Netty wasn't exactly complementary herself and I suspect was trying to use social media to damage the run organisers reputation.

If your on Facebook pop along to Netty's Facebook page I think you'll get a much better measure of the person Netty is.

In reply to Indy:

One person's run is another person's walk. What about if someone had one leg? Would they need to tell you they had hopped it? It is perfectly possible to run at 4mph. It is also perfectly possible to do a run/walk strategy and finish in 3 hours. Is it ok to walk, like I did in my second marathon, because you have a stitch only to pick it up again and run a 3:20. Or did I walk it? What about the marathon I did last year when I was aiming for sub 3, totally overcooked it and walked/ran the rest to get back to the start? I finished in 3:40 but I did the second half in 2:15. Is that walking or running? People have walked the Bob Graham faster than others have run it, presumably the latter cannot claim to have run the Bob Graham?

Presumably you HAVE run a marathon by the way? Not that you have to have done so to have an opinion , but it would help me gauge the level of argument.

In reply to The New NickB:

That seems to be the main issue. No advertised cut off and a tw*t (or so he appears on social media) for a vice chairman. However, an early start was offered for slower runners and appears to have been declined in this case.

In reply to XXXX:


Could you explain why?

In reply to galpinos:

Because it's hard to put on a pair of shorts and a t shirt when your massively overweight and get out there. It's hard to leave the house. It's hard to get off your arse and completely change your lifestyle and break habits. It's hard to run knowing that people are in their cars thinking you're too fat for that, or that you shouldn't be running. Because the 6:30 runner spends every training run being overtaken by all the other runners, by cyclists, by young children and keeps going. Because even though someone training for a 6:30 marathon will probably be laughed at every time they leave the house, they keep going. Because there are a million reasons they have to dismiss before they put their trainers on. Because even though they only ran at 4mph, they had done more than run a marathon. They had turned a massive corner in their life, for the better.

The 2:40 runner, by comparison, had an athletic upbringing. Their mum and dad both ran, he was in an athletics club throughout his childhood. Running to him was as easy and as natural as eating. 2:40 is quick and believe me I understand how many hours he trained, but it's not elite by any means.

It's easy to do something you enjoy and that you're good at. It's a hundred times more difficult to do something that you hate, is unnatural to you and humiliating.

In reply to galpinos:

Running reasonably fast for under 3 hours and running fairly slow for over 6 hours are two different challenges. Just the sheer time on your feet can be mentally and physically challenging.

Also it is an individuals challenge, the faster runner isn't necessarily the one that has worked the hardest.

In reply to galpinos:

The early start seems odd. It would need marshals, they weren't going to run out of daylight, it's also not nice to say "you're not fast enough to run with everyone else".

In reply to XXXX:

So?

Plenty drift away, most do, especially good runners who get a taste of success then slow then quit...

Keeping at it for years is about the most impressive thing I see in running. Those 50+ year olds still running sub 3 marathons.. Still going out on dark cold February nights...

Most just retire to let's run or get involved in athletics, clubs... It's far from easy.

Even for me, I'm only 35 but have played competitive sport and trained most days for 25 years now.. There's not a morning I don't wake up and walk in pain for the first 3 yards. I can't imagine how those bodies who have done it for 40+ years feel. I never understood why people retired from sports in their mid 30s but I've got to say the last 18 months ive started to feel it more. I'll probably yet again run my highest mileage total ever but I reckon I've only a few years left before I'll have to cross train and no longer see the same training gains. It would be 1000x earlier to sit back quit and get fat and do the odd run...

In reply to The New NickB:

Pretty common in road races, saves road closures.. Most marathons here have them.

In reply to Roadrunner2:

"It's easy to do something you enjoy and that you're good at. It's a hundred times more difficult to do something that you hate, is unnatural to you and humiliating."

In reply to XXXX:


Who says that?

I disagree.. its easy not to put yourself out there.. try to eek everything you have out of yourself takes a lot of dedication.. when you look at what guys like Steve Way, Jason Cherriman put into training its just awe inspiring.

In reply to XXXX:

I know plenty of 2:40 marathon runners who didnt have an athletic upbringing, they arent naturally athletically talented and only got into running in their adult years.

However, most of them work their arse off, they get out on a Sunday and run 22 miles hard, they put in long track sessions in the week, they are up running at 5am weekdays in the winter before doing another run in the dark that that night. They get where they are through sheer hard work.

I have respect for anyone who runs and accept the different challenges an over weight person has who has to go out for a walk/run and have the perception that people are laughing at them - I think the vast majority would say "good on them" etc.

However, never underestimate the effort and misery a dedicated marathon runner goes through in their training. I therefore do understand why some people get frustrated when a 6 hour marathon "runner" who has perhaps done a couple of months of some training gets compared to the 2 hour 40 guy... In the vast majority of cases the 2 hour 40 guy will have put in considerably more effort and endured more pain than the 6 hour person

In reply to galpinos:

It's easy to appear to be an idiot on social media, I'd imagine, especially when you have put a large number of hours into organising it and someone makes what you feel is an invalid complaint in a poor way.

Social media training isn't always given to people involved in the club scene. They are tired and someone jumps on them.
Both parties are probably tired. The organiser from going going to bed late and getting up early to finish off the race organising. The put because they have run 20 miles or whatever, or in their case had expected to run 20 miles...

There are often cultures associated with events and when those cultures are challenged then you get issues.

I remember two occasions. The first when we introduced a cut off time on a 20. The previous year we had had one and a participan had taken 7 hours. There was real problem for volunteers being out for that long.. The was a real split of opinion. Some marshals liked the idea, as they know when they would have to be in place. Still didn't stop one for them having to leave their post to go to toilet. As you do when being in the same place for several hours in 4 degree weather. We got complaints even though there was an arrow in that place.

The second was where we cancelled a race owing to snow on the course. We did get a lot of flack for that. People wanting us to.process full refunds.. When most of the money had been spent on toilet hire, school hire, prizes, goody bags etc. We should have had insurance, apparently. Never mind that for most runners who enter multiple events having insurance on events.would make all events more.expensive more than the odd cancelled race.

We also had complaints when we banned headphones. In the race literature, not mentioning it on the entry forms. Gosh that was fun. It was obviously a problem when the race had someone who didn't hear the ambulance trying to get through! Also it's spoiled the atmosphere. It was 300 people running by themselves with headphones in. No one spoke to each other. Spacial awareness went right h down. Lots of people said they weren't the bad ones.and they would keep their headphones on. Not popular, but we made a stand. I'd like to think the events improved and were more enjoyable

We some times forget that most club events are.put on by volunteers, for races i have put on there were over 120 volunteer on the day plus all the preliminary work.

It's more.reasonable to hold.commercial races to.a higher standard. IMHO

In reply to bowls:

Irk is talking about two individuals he knows.

In reply to Roadrunner2:

In my experience on closed roads, the road reopens and competitors are expected to use the pavement after this point. Regardless of earlier start or later finish, marshals still need to be on the course. Starting earlier just says your not good enough to run with everyone else.

I'm an OK runner, usually finish top 10% and have even won the odd local race, but really believe the sport is for everyone.

Bits of injuries have also meant I have been marshalling and timekeeping more the last couple of years. So I have plenty of experience of waiting for slower runners to finish.

In reply to Denni: Yes but most people don't do that and also the vast majority of elite runners I know actually enjoy running. It might be a bit tough when you wake up your legs are destroyed and you have a do a steady 10k as your morning run but it just gets done.

I would not fancy being one of those people doing 3 1/2 hrs plus - it looks like a lot of work to me and I wouldn't knock it.

However, re. the original subject , it's a tough one to call. She would be out there for a few hours and a lot of races, especially the older ones are not set up for that. It does look spectacularly badly managed tho'. Lots of races have advertised cutoffs, Comrades being a notorious case.

I've been pulled out of a race for being too slow at about 5:10 minute miling. It was a short course XC for TV with short laps and I was in danger of being lapped.

In reply to bowls:

The problem is that we're trying to compare two different challenges. Doubtless a 6:00 min mile is faster than a 12:00 min mile, but both are well off the record pace, so what does it matter? My feeling is that a touch of humility would do us all a lot of good. So what if someone ran a marathon at a pace that you could walk at? They should be encouraged for getting out there and doing it, not slapped down by someone who doesn't think that's *proper running*.

As for what race organisers wish to do, I don't really care; so long as they tell people openly beforehand. It's probably unfair to judge any of those involved on their words in such a highly charged environment so soon after the event. It won't reflect their best sides.

In reply to The New NickB:


I'm not sure I agree with that. There are good logistical reasons why an early start for slow runners make sense. We run in a hill relay on the Lomond Hills in January which has an early start for teams expected to take longer than a certain time. It's accepted by everyone as a sensible way of managing the race. None of the early starters feel like they're being told they're not good enough, but it's a realistic recognition that some runners are quicker than others, and that some attention should be paid to the poor bloody volunteers who are freezing their arses off for hours.

What does seem to be the case in Netty's race is that it's been spectacularly badly handled by all parties and a bit of reflection wouldn't go amiss.

In reply to tony:
So the marshals are still out for same length if time, they just start earlier.

I would add that I compete in some fell relay events and the later stages have mass starts, rather than earlier start times. On legs 5 and 6 of the Calderdale relay, about 75% of teams are started together at 1pm and 2pm.

In reply to Dave B:

Oh, I agree, hence my caveat. He does seem to have particularly abusive which hasn't helped. The "media" have all reported this from the perspective of the runner though so what the true story is we don't know. (My club has had issues with people from the club making comments on social media that have been taken as the official line of the club, not a lone voice)

I'm part of a large running club that is so big due to its attitude towards slower/new runners. It's great to see so many people out running, some of the slower group have even started coming to track sessions which they all agree, despite loving it now, would never have considered doing not long ago.

In reply to The New NickB:

You've amazing....


I'm a member of a large south manchester running club you may have heard of and members have had abuse shouted at them during the south manchester XC league races that they were too slow, XC wasn't for them and some other nastier stuff. Pretty depressing.


And I thank you for it. Lots of people forget that these events don't run themselves and that a lot of people put in a lot of effort to make races happen.

In reply to Dave B:


To be fair, most things you pay for will give a full refund for non-delivery of the service for any reason. It's convention for that not to be the case for races, but it isn't made exceptionally clear on entry. A first-time entrant may well not know that and it is entirely understandable and reasonable that they might hold that view.

Can you imagine if Ryanair cancelled a flight and gave only partial refunds because they'd already bought some fuel or something? Can you imagine what the parents at our Scout Group would say if I had for whatever reason to cancel a camp and did not give refunds? It's something we have to build into our budgeting or take insurance.

As I say it is convention that it's different for races, probably because they are almost never cancelled and because they are one-offs where it's hard to build up reserves against cancellation like our Scout Group does (we self-insure that risk, which makes sense as I haven't cancelled a camp in years). But if it's a race where you're going to get a lot of novices it does need to be made rather clear as an unusual situation.


I would also agree with the complaints there - not because you banned them (as it's common for races not to allow headphones - some do, some don't) but because some people don't run without music, and if it's made very clear that that isn't allowed, they won't enter your race, which is fair enough. I think a ban like that does need to appear on the entry form or very clearly in the introduction and not just hidden away in other literature where people may miss it.


For those who don't wear headphones when they run. Those who do won't have liked it. Some people don't like socialising when they run - why should they be forced to? For them it's a personal thing.

You have every right to have whatever rules you like in your race, but if they're ones that are likely to affect whether significant numbers of people wish to sign up for it or not, I think they should be made very clear, rather than hoping to change peoples' culture on running by banning things but not making it clear.

Neil

In reply to The New NickB:

There aren't marshals on the first leg of the race. The Leg 2 marshals do have a rough time, but there are fewer of them. On the second half of the course, the slower runners have been overtaken by the faster runners, so the time slots for the marshals are shorter. Overall, the marshalling demands are less onerous. It also means there's less of gap between the first and last runner home.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Headphones can be a hazard in a race. I have absolutely not problem with them being banned, as long as it is stated on the entry.

In reply to The New NickB:
Agreed - it needs to be very clear on the entry form, so those who wish to wear them know and only enter races where they are allowed (there are plenty where they are, and despite the risk I would expect demand for allowing them to probably increase, not decrease).

Neil

In reply to The New NickB:

Agreed, people rarely seem to adhere to the rules though. Wilmslow always seems to have a few people with headphones in, though they often get their head clipped by the old guard.

In reply to galpinos:

Chorlton at a guess! I know one of two people who are members, but you are a huge club.

Sad to hear about your clubs experiences at the South Manchester XC League. Quite surprised, never seen it myself in the various Lancashire Leagues I run in.

Our club President is an all time great in XC running (won the precursor to the World XC amongst other things) and is one of the most encouraging people I have ever met.

In reply to Indy:



Nice bit of casual sexism there. But then you knew that.

In reply to The New NickB:

Yep, not that active a member at the moment due to work/life getting in the way but a very encouraging and friendly club. They are struggling a bit with the size, it's gone from a few people meeting outside the library to the biggest club in the NW in about 4 years, I think 250-300 people were turning up for the Tuesday club run over the summer.


I think it was a one off but was upsetting for those involved. I don't get to do XC as it clashes with my wife's hockey, I just get the gossip....

In reply to Denni:

Looking at the results and the field of runners I would say she should have chosen a different race.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFp...

In reply to Denni:

Messy. Cut-offs are fine for all sorts of reasons - road closures and marshalls clearly. Handling them sensitively is another thing.

We have a sweeper that goes as slow as needed, even if that's dawdling pace. We just warn people not to expect the full race rigmarole and they may have a lonely time on open roads at the end. Like the club above we've doubled our numbers in the last couple of years, mainly by being better at welcoming beginners. Interestingly, it's also primed a load of fast people to come out of the woodwork too (not good at all - I'm much further down the pecking order now!).

A small % of the social media and email coming in is from belligerent fools. But I'd never respond in kind or broadcast that on a public forum. Oh

In reply to SteveRi:


While the organiser has been very rude on social media and in doing so rather discredited himself, do we know that the marshall *wasn't* sensitive? We only have one side of the story. The approach may have been apologetic but matter of fact, and the obviously stressed and embarrassed runner took it to heart?

Neil

In reply to The New NickB:




But it happens. And no, the same marshalls aren't out.. the end marshall's dont have to go out for a few hours. This is a constant problem and something handled at most races through the year. Certainly I remember a number of fairly heated discussions with the marshalls in Snowdonia Marathon and runners who had not made the cut offs.

I dont think running is for everyone, not all running, and very few do, hence why most longer races, marathons and ultra's have cut offs. Some very hard to actually even finish. There's plenty of people who won't finish Berlin in 6:15 or whatever the time limit is. They won't get a finish.

That doesn't excuse the poor handling of this both before and after this race, it just seems spectacularly badly organised.

Re cancelled races. I just had this due to snow, lost 2 x $50 entries, and $50 for a hotel.... we get a $15 discount for next seasons race. I think that's OK, they still, as said, did pay out on expenses, however I know some RO's who advertise races which just won't happen.. it's criminal and dodgy people are entering the sport.

Re ear phones, should be banned in all races...

In reply to Roadrunner2:

Yes. London is 8 hours. Which isn't a walk for most people. Anyone ever tried walking constantly at 3mph for 8hours?

I'm doing Paris next month 6hour cut off. That's definitely not walkable.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Because it's no longer "personal" when you've signed up to a run with lots of other people organised by another group of people.

In reply to Denni:

I'd half like to see the LWDA banning runners for being too fast!

In reply to Denni:

I shall be interested to see where Spen20 go from here. This seems to have spread like wildfire round the running community with some runners threatening to enter and walk next year. Talk about a PR disaster. Personally I would rebrand my race, move the date a little and hope people have short memories.

In reply to Robyn Vacher:

They shouldn't need to do that, the club probably need to clear up the rules, apologise to the lady in question and take away Kevin Ogden's keyboard.

In reply to Robyn Vacher:
The organisers could just state (as with another recent 20 miler) that if you take longer than 4 hours, don’t expect the marshals/race infrastructure/finishing timer to still be there. I thought there was meant to be a sort of rule of thumb for races (other than say the big events) that if you are going to take more than twice as long as the winner then it’s not the “done thing” to take part. I can understand veteran competitors (who may be highly ranked for their age group) wanting to keep racing for as long as possible, but for the younger and unfit/slow I think there should be an obligation to expect to beat that sort of cut off before entering a race.

In reply to The New NickB:


Only after rent-a-mob had turned up with the pitch forks and burning torches to lynch him.

There is a reasonable expectation in club races that you are actually capable of running the course which this runner did not meet. The orgainisers offered any runner who thought they were going to be slower than the field the chance to start early to reduce the time the marshalls are out on the course. She didn't take it up. She was then told at the start of the core lap of a 2 lap course that the suport would not be there in 4 hours time and that she ought to consider just completing the first lap (and actually a better training plan for her aims than the one she was persuing) at which her response is to storm off in a huff and orgainise a lynching for the people who have dared to challenge her self identification as a runner an identification that has more basis in her ego than it does in the physical activity she is performing

In reply to The New NickB:


No they aren't the marshal at mile 1 is in place an hour earlier for 10 minutes, stands down for 50 and is then done after an hour 10. The marshal at mile 15 or 16 is in place at the same time (the lead runners having passed the tortouses some time before) and quits probably a full hour or more before they otherwise would. It makes the whole job alot easier.

In reply to davidwright:


Very disingenuous and not an excuse anyway.

In reply to davidwright:

How dare she identify herself as a runner!

In reply to The New NickB:


I think as long as the runners remain non competitive it's ok. I know your suggestion is tongue-in-cheek but there was a runner at a recent event who had been out, recce'd and memorised the route before the event. He 'won'. I did plot the route beforehand but had to map read it.

Ethics in walking challenges that aren't technically races? Whole other subject.

In reply to Neil Williams:


In pretty much all the races I've done, this is made abundantly clear

In reply to The New NickB:


You have to self-identify as a runner as it is a very difficult label to achieve otherwise. When I ran 38-40 minutes for a 10k I was a "mere jogger" to those who ran 5-6 minutes faster than me. People always want to identify with the group they aspire to rather than the one they are alongside.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Re: headphones. Do what you like in training, not in a race. Recent trail race: almost taken out by someone dicking around with their phone. We were just coming into the trees and twisty rooty stuff after a congested start and he slows to a halt to adjust his playlist or start strava or something stupid. That's not about enjoyment.

In reply to Clarence:

I'm a member of a running club, we have a sub 4 minute miler, we 6 hour marathon runners and everything in between. They are all runners. They all run.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I have no problem with that, probably made a nice training run. Never looked at a map during an LWDA event.

In reply to Neil Williams:


I think that singling her out so early in the race is by itself a little insensitive. There would be plenty of time later to warn her about doing a second lap, let her at least get into her stride and enjoy the first part of her run. Then she won't feel so aggrieved with the marshal if she has already put some hours in for her money and can see the cold hard reality of getting lapped.

In reply to Denni:

Race organiser response http://www.athleticsweekly.com/featured/race-organiser-responds-spen-20-sag...

So she wasn't told to stop at 1.5 miles like she claimed, she was told she'd have to stop after 1 lap ( 10 miles ) if she didn't speed up. She then chose to stop at 1.5 miles and go back.

Not handled well by either party, but 2 sides to every story as always

In reply to The New NickB:

Somewhere about 6.30 for a marathon it is no longer running but walking. That's just a fact.

I don't think this applies to this particular lady, at that pace she'd have done a marathon in 5.30 - but there is a cut off where its not running any more.

In reply to Denni:

What a sad state of affairs, I'd be feeling quite ashamed if my club was at the center of this. In no way can this particular club state that they're 'open to all' with any credibility.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


It's not quite that simple. The difference between running and walking is biomechanical rather than speed, a fast walk can be faster than a slow run. The best race walkers would beat 95% of recreational runners over 20 miles.


I don't mind cut offs as long as they are published and fairly applied.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



doesn't it ? 15 min/mile => 6.30 hours ?

In reply to The New NickB:

I don't see why cutoffs have to be published. I suspect somewhere in the small print there is a caveat about the race organisers being able to withdraw competitors.

If I decided to enter a running race and wanted to pigeon step it over three days I can't expect the race organisers to marshall the course and keep the clock running for days.

It's bad enough when you're lined up at the start of a half marathon and they tell you the medal ceremony will be in an hour and a half's time!

The issue here is not how slow she was but how it was handled.

In reply to The New NickB:


What is the point of that?

It's not as if they're marshalled or provide any real support. You just run on your own. Although I suppose it depends which events you've entered. The two I've done would have been impossible without a full recce beforehand.

In reply to steelbru:



The thing is, she hasn't claimed that. Her quote is in the article.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


As I said, nice training run. As for no support, the ones I've done have had a huge buffet at half way.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


If you are going to remove someone from a race for being too slow, guidance for entrants on cut offs is an important part of how it is handled.

In reply to Snoweider:


What did you expect? we are all responding to an article in "Men's Running" magazine

In reply to The New NickB:


Yes. But even for London the cut off time for a Medal and closure of the course is buried deep in section 1.5.3 or something. Who reads all that stuff?

Then you get a man in a diver suit or pushing a pea with his nose getting a medal a week later.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


But she was doing 12min/mile according to the story.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

It's also been covered in the sister publication, Women's Running. The responses have been, er, *vigorous*. As you'd expect.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I always need at least 2 recces for a race. On the first one I try to mark as much of the route as I can with paint, the second time round I follow this to make sure I haven't missed any.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The organiser said he estimated 15 mins for the first mile. I see one of the other"runners!" said she was "jog-walking" at 12 min/mile and wasn't "pulled" and there were runners behind her, although she appears to have speeded up.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Aha! I didn't realise that. Wow, seperate publications for men and womens running? I would have thought there would have been enough overlap for just one

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Possibly you're missing the point of the event. Besides it not being a race.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

The women's one has some useful articles but is, as you might imagine, quite heavy on pink/short distances/wearing lipstick to run.

In reply to The New NickB:


If a fast race walker goes faster than a recreational runner they are welcome to claim to have run a marathon. If a runner goes slower than a recreational walker they aren't.

Last year I ran a half marathon in just under two hours. Then because I was stupid and didn't book a place on their bus I walked home - another 7 miles in about 1.5 hours. Then I spent an hour having lunch and a shower before getting sent out on an errand walking another few miles to the shops and back. Adding it up it was about 6km off marathon distance in total in about 5.30. So if I'd walked another hour and notched off the last 6km I'd have done marathon distance in 6.30. There is no way a time that lets you walk half way and take an hour out for lunch and a shower (or just walk the whole way in street clothes without raising a sweat) should count as running a marathon .

In reply to DancingOnRock:


You do.


By special arrangement.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
How many marathons have you completed?

How many of them did you run the whole way?

I have 'run' 10, only 3 of them included no walk breaks. Some of them were mountain/hill runs where nobody was 'running' not even the winners.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It's usually just misuse of the verb, nowt to get het up about.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


4


All of them. Maybe a km or so of walking in the first one.


OK, but mountain/hill runs are a different deal from a normal street course.

In reply to Denni:

Looking at the image on Athletics Weekly
http://www.athleticsweekly.com/featured/race-organiser-responds-spen-20-sag...

it would seem the field was made up of club runners, there are plenty of races which cater for very slow runners or even walkers she should have picked one of these and had a nice social day out.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

So you ran and walked about 36k in 5:30 and had time to stop for some lunch, well done you. That of course doesn't mean that someone else couldn't be running and be slower.

Your half took twice as long as an elite runner and a fair bit more than half an hour longer than it would take me, but that's OK, I'm not going to claim you didn't run it.

In reply to The New NickB:


I did. Because of the statement above about Berlin having a cut off. I may have been aware of it as a friend of mine was still out 'running' London late afternoon when they opened the roads but he still completed before 6pm.

I didn't even consider it when I ran last year because I knew I'm a mid placed runner. So would be much faster than even he was (and he got a medal).

In reply to robert-hutton:


No more than a number of other events the runner in question has taken part in. Club runners aren't all fast runners, I've marshalled events where club runners are running 40 minutes plus for 5k, sometimes because they are old or disabled, but club runners still.

In reply to The New NickB:


It sort of does: if running is to mean anything it needs to be faster than normal everyday walking.

In reply to The New NickB:


I agree entirely but I now check previous results and usually get a feel of what the race will be like from the entrance price, before I enter.

If a half is over £30 to enter, there will be lots of slow runners.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Whereas it actually doesn't. The difference is bio mechanical.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I suspect there are many that would disagree. Good luck defending that one. The ability to run - albeit slowly - means a heck of a lot to many people.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Definition of Running:

To go quickly by moving the legs more rapidly than at a walk and in such a manner that for an instant in each step all or both feet are off the ground.

In reply to robert-hutton:

Race walkers have higher cadence than runners, the key difference is both feet coming off the ground.

In reply to Indy:
I wonder whether it's not a woman thing and if you're just being sexist?

In reply to DancingOnRock:



Exactly..

There's track races I wouldn't enter even as a sub 17 5k runner, I'd be lapped and it would be embarrassing for all.

I always look at results before entering.

In reply to The New NickB:


What I should have said is "If 'running a marathon' is to mean anything and we are talking about people without disabilities and not special circumstances like hill running it needs to be faster than everyday walking".

People see 'running a marathon' as a challenge and worthy of respect. When you start allowing 6.30 on a normal flat course to count as running a marathon all you have achieved is to let everyone succeed by removing the challenge. It is supposed to take some serious training but at 6.30 a relatively fit person could put on hiking clothes and carry a day pack and walk it. That's not what is meant in everyday conversation by 'running a marathon'.

There has to be some kind of time limit or would you allow someone to walk 13 miles, book into a hotel overnight and then do the final 13 miles the next day? It seems to me that taking normal walking pace as the slowest acceptable is a fairly reasonable rule of thumb.

All the discussion about high speed walking being faster than many runners is entertaining but beside the point because if these were high speed walkers they wouldn't be taking 6.30. Similarly, any kind of continuous running like movement is going to get you there before 6.30 unless you take an hour out for a rest.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

What is the marathon time limit worthy of your respect, and will you be standing at the end of the London marathon letting people who finish after your limit know that they are not worthy of your respect?

In reply to JMGLondon:


If it was up to me I'd call it did-not-finish after 6.30 except where there were special circumstances. Which still lets in all the fun runners doing 5.30 with an hour to spare.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Excluding special circumstances, plenty of people train hard, but still run quite slowly.


I suspect it is actually quite challenging to walk a marathon in 6.30, it is faster than most people walk even short distances, but yes I sure that some reasonably fit people could do it. They would definitely be above average though.


Lets use your rule of thumb, the problem is, your 'average' walking pace is well off, most people walk quite a bit slower than 4 mph, 3 mph is much nearer the mark. That is getting on for 9 hours for the marathon.


I know a lady at my club, she is late 40s and carrying a little extra weight, but by no means obese. She ran a marathon not long after joining the club and ran it in around 6.30. I know she trains hard, she often does sessions that I organise, whilst she isn't fast she gives it her all. She races regularly, 5k, 10k, half marathons and marathons. She runs all the way, she is sub 6 hours for the marathon, but not by much. She is definitely running, just slowly.

Judging other by your own physical standards isn't always wise. I could go out tomorrow and run a 3.30 marathon on no specific marathon training, many people would be very pleased with that time, but I would have put far less effort in to marathon than many people running much slower. It is about the personal effort of that person, time doesn't always tell you that.

In reply to galpinos:


Which is why the rule is reasonable. However, because it is not universal (which means there are race organisers who disagree with you) and it is fundamental to many people, it is only reasonable that it is clearly stated on the entry form along with any other stipulations (cut-offs, for example) which may differ from other races and may affect peoples' decisions to enter.

Neil

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Tom,

Running is a very personal thing.

I don't know what your marathon times are, but if I ran a marathon slower than 4:30, I know I have made an error somewhere and although I may have given it my best shot on the day would not be happy. I'm aiming for 3:45 generally.

I cannot, however, transpose my idea of a good time onto another person. That is for them to determine.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Seems unnecessarily officious and rather unkind to me, unless there is a sound logistical reason to do so. As someone in the midst of marathon build up I'm really not losing sleep about what word people use to describe their marathon experience.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
I just looked at one I'm going to enter soon. Only when you click on the T&C link do you get:

"Runner Declaration. You understand the organisers reserve the right to alter the arrangements and conditions should circumstances require. Entries are not transferable and are non-refundable under any circumstances. Competitors must be over the age of 17. To[sic] pushchairs or dogs are allowed."

However, most people would take that as meaning "under any circumstances initiated by the runner", and not that a refund for non-delivery of service would not apply. Therefore, for the benefit of those who might not realise that this situation is different from *every other service I have ever purchased, even from a voluntary organisation* I think it should say:

"Runner Declaration. You understand the organisers reserve the right to alter the arrangements and conditions should circumstances require. Entries are not transferable and are non-refundable under any circumstances, including in the event of the race being cancelled, whether the reason is under the control of the organisers or not. Competitors must be over the age of 17. No pushchairs or dogs are allowed. Headphones or other personal audio devices may not be used by competitors during the race."

And should be on the actual sign-up page, not on a link from it, with a checkbox next to it to say you've read it. (If you then haven't, your loss).

Though that does raise the question as to the legality of non-refundability for things within the organiser's control, such as a failure to contract the water supply (Sheffield last year). Did anyone take the organiser of that race to court?

Neil

In reply to DancingOnRock:
And I'm probably several years off that sort of pace. Though I am not going to attempt a marathon until I reckon I can get 4:something, preferably sub-4, as I know I can walk 26 miles without any difficulty, I've done many long-distance walking events of up to 55 miles before.

That said, walking 55 miles is more of a pain tolerance exercise than a fitness one.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

Like many things the demands for 'professionalism' have risen. One reason why races that used to cost £12 now cost £50 and pay a race director. This move on. When will we see a demand for damages on a park run for ways time if one was cancelled?



PS. To earlier. Yes, terms and conditions are now put out on all entry forms, or the least a link to then. The entry firm is now a entry booklet.
Pps. Credit was given for cancelled race, not a refund. try asking a volunteer to write 400 cheques and post them by hand and then see if you have a club treasurer and committee left.

In reply to Dave B:

Netty was given a refund back at the start.

She voluntarily stopped as the marshal (actually the race director following on a bike) suggested that if she hadn't reached 10miles by two hours she may be asked to stop running.

If she had managed to keep 12:00/mi up, all would have been fine.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

It was a club race locally where we cancelled it owing to the weather where people wanted us to refund.

I could see the writing on the wall for this kind of thing years ago. I couldn't be a club member any more for lots of clubs. There is to much risk unless it's a limited company. That's madness.

In reply to The New NickB:


That's where we differ. The interesting and motivating thing is a generally accepted standard that you can aim at and is the same for everyone. 'Running a marathon' is interesting for people trying to get fit *because* you need to be fit to do it.

We can argue about whether the cut off should be 6.30 - that seems generous to me but maybe I'm wrong - but I think a cut-off based on a fit person's walking pace is useful specifically to the not-so-fast people who are using the marathon as a fitness goal.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


As I have pointed out, that would be about 9 hours, doesn't have to be that slow.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Here's the Good For Age times for London. If you can run a marathon in these times you get into London automatically.

https://www.virginmoneylondonmarathon.com/en-gb/how-to-enter/good-age-entry...

My friend jogs round in 4:30 and gets a GFA every year. He's 73.

In reply to The New NickB:

Glancing at DancingOnRock's link to the London Marathon results the slowest time in the Men category was 8.52 (maybe they packed up at 9 hours) which got an overall place of 35,879 (the places are for the whole field not just the 'Men' category), 6.30 gets place 34,669. We're actually just talking about the last 3% of the finishers so I guess it doesn't make much difference whether there's a cutoff or not.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
From what the organiser was saying, they had previously set cut offs to deter people who were going to take a long time. So he was managing the kind of runners.

I assume they don't want the race full of people using it as a long run.

As can be seen by the London results, cut offs don't tend to be rigidly enforced. (London is published as 8) Because, as the spen20 director explains, it's difficult to stop people from running. They'll just reduce support out on the course.

You need a sweeper bus anyway otherwise runners still have to run to the end.

In reply to Dave B:

Consequential losses are excluded from most contracts, so I can't see that being any time soon. Whereas it is the norm in almost every transaction that if the service is not delivered at all, you get a full refund (unless the business fails as a result, of course).

No refund in the case of event cancellation is *such* an unusual term in general consumer contract law that it needs highlighting very heavily - certainly not on a linked page.

But then...as cancellation is so rare, I can't imagine insuring a race against it to be *that* expensive?


As more and more people enter via websites by credit/debit card, these days it really should just be a case of pressing a button for the vast majority.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

You're wrong on both counts I'm afraid. Event insurance is pricey. If an event is cancelled late because of the weather like ours and Dave B's above, most of your costs have already happened - chips, timing, numbers, road closures, T-shirts, water, PA, etc. The consumer focus of instant refunds for 'services not delivered' causes small club events hassle. Remember these are busy people squeezing an event organisation into their spare time. A lot of events are disappearing because of that hassle. And you're left with the 38 quid a head for 10k of the Great Run events, etc.

Nobody likes cancelling ...and if you sign up to an event in January you have to take a degree of responsibility that the weather may take a hand in things. And you've read the T&Cs on the entry of course.

In reply to SteveRi:
I've only had one race cancelled in January due to weather and we recieved free entry to the following year.

The medals were non year specific, the year was printed on the ribbons. The race was run on open roads.

If races are kept small then I can't see a great problem. The reason why it's £40 for a 10k are the policing costs, portaloo costs and road closures that have to be done for these huge races.

Parkrun has no costs at all. No medal. Website results are minimal and uploading of results hassle free. People know they are entering on their own. Any insurance required should be down to the individual. My worry would be if you are tripped by someone which causes an injury that puts you out of work.

In reply to SteveRi:

I'm one who does. Most people do not.

So *why not* put it in bold, red text right next to the "Check out" button? It almost seems a matter of principle that is causing races unnecessary hassle?

It is different from pretty much every consumer contract. So it is not unreasonable for people to assume that a cancellation on the part of the organiser = a refund.

I think you could argue that "if you organise an event in January you have to take a degree of responsibility that the weather may take a hand in things". I realise that is not convention, but as that convention differs from *near enough every other area of consumer service provision contracts* it seems to me to be right and proper that it should be stated VERY clearly, not just as a line in a lengthy set of T&Cs.

I see the ethic (you are sort-of buying a share in the event being organised, effectively, and contributing to its costs, rather than buying a service) - but it really is not the norm. It might not even be legal, though I suspect it probably is on some kind of get-out clause based on the nature of the organiser, given that it is usual for races.

What's the harm in a line ON the entry form (not a linked page) like "Because the race organisers incur significant costs even if the race does not go ahead, regrettably it will not be possible to provide refunds even in the unlikely event of the race not going ahead, nor for any other reason whatsoever"? It's just being honest and up-front with people who may not be club runners, but just people entering a few races (given that running has a very low barrier to entry unlike, say, proper road cycling).

Neil

In reply to DancingOnRock:

I would think no different to if that occurred on the street - your case would be against the individual, not against the race. In many countries, particularly Germanic ones, people carry general personal liability insurance as a matter of course, and it is seen as odd if anyone doesn't. In the UK it's often free with home contents policies (many cyclists are unwittingly third-party-insured because of this), but it doesn't always cover everything.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:


And if your race is not for profit, not insured, volunteer organised, charity fundraiser... who pays for the full refund, given that most of the money has been spent?

In reply to SteveRi:

One argument would be "don't organise it unless you can insure it", which would be the case if that were a legal requirement (I'm genuinely surprised it isn't, but I do see the point you are making). But that would be bad, as there would be fewer races. So it goes back down to the idea of this - where you are imposing a term that is very unusual in consumer contracts, make it *extremely* obvious that you are imposing it. Not hidden away in a lengthy set of T&C or on a different page, or just assuming everyone knows (because they don't). Maybe even a separate checkbox, though a clear, bold statement should suffice.

Neil

In reply to Denni:

Would any of you who are runners WANT your money back if an event was cancelled for a "good" reason eg weather (as opposed to a whim of the organisers)?

My running club sent a 20+ contingent to Lanzarote last year for their marathon/half marathon/10K which was cancelled the day before due to a storm. The organisers had no choice - the powers that be in the town banned all outdoor events . None of us gave a moment's thought to getting a refund. We just stayed in the bar longer (fortunately we were fully inclusive)....

In reply to Neil Williams:

We do make it clear (and are about to offer a 30-something % refund, which I hope the majority don't take up). There are lots of things we need to make clear and I'm not about to change the entry to introduce some bold capital red letters for a (hopefully rare) eventuality

In reply to Ava Adore:


I hope not. We surveyed everyone and the majority want to keep it in January and most said keep the entry. It seems to be the casual runner, with complicated 'manager of this that and the other' email signatures demanding a full refund in quasi-legalese. We spent a massive wodge gritting the entire course ...and still the police advised calling it off. Next year we'll do better. Good call on the bar, will add to Race Plan

Anyway, enough about us

In reply to Ava Adore:


If it was organised by a profit-making commercial company of any kind, yes. If it was a running club, I would be happy with no, provided any remaining money, if any, either went into club funds to promote running/help fund future events, or was donated to charity, PROVIDED it was made sufficiently clear at booking that this was the policy. (And indeed I see no reason why a club wouldn't want to make that clear, as it would save them the hassle of fending off quite so many refund requests if they did!)

Neil

In reply to SteveRi:
Perhaps you'd do well to offer a third option - donate it to a specific charity? You may find many would accept that?

It does to some extent depend on the reason, though. For the gross incompetence shown over the Sheffield Half last year, I could be quite tempted to pursue a full refund in a court if there was any scope for it. If it snowed or blew a gale, well, there's not a lot can be done about that.

Be honest and up-front, and don't screw up (and if you do, be honest and up-front about that as well), and I imagine most people will be reasonable

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

I'm not sure it's been established (or agreed) who's incompetence that was down to - was it the volunteer organisers or the professional water company ? The water company have their business to protect, whilst the organisers have given up and let someone else do the job . I think this years organisers are professional, not that I have a problem with that, but I do think people should lower their expectations on volunteer-run events. I also wonder if there are too many pro run events - not sure about running, but I'm uneasy about the boom in cycle sportives run by the likes of Wiggle.

In reply to Denni:

Here is the other side of the story

http://mensrunninguk.co.uk/events/spen-20-chair-gives-statement/

Personally, I think that running should be inclusive and supportive, and this guys attitude was the opposite of that

In reply to Neil Williams:


Exactly: partial refund after costs or donate to our charity groups.

In reply to Neil Williams:

You do know how insurance works don't you?

Underwriter looks at how many races are cancelled. Figures it cost of cancellation, then add profit to his price of insurance.

So, if a runner enters 10 events and one is canceled, the cost of each has to be considered raised sufficient to pay for the cancelled one plus the profit of the insurer.

What's the benefit to the runner? They now pay the insurer for being no better off! Or rather they end up worse off by the amount of their share of the insurance company s profits.

In reply to Dave B:


Yes.


That would be true if it were that simple. If it's insured, what it does is spread the load among *all* runners and *all* races.

Neil

In reply to Chris the Tall:

The statement sounds quite reasonable in and of itself other than that I think he should state a maximum time on the entry form whether he enforces it or not, so people know where they are.

He did however make an utter fool of himself on Twitter.

Neil

In reply to SteveRi:

That's pretty common in fell racing,

Normally you are offered a small amount back or if can be donated to the MRT..

As long as it's genuine I have no issues losing money for cancellations, in the US you can take our optional insurance when you sign up for a race to cover it, I never do.

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2012/12/thoughts-on-active-coms-new-race-insuran...

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Which part of what the race Directors statement is non inclusive?

In reply to Neil Williams:

No, that was someone elsr on twitter.

You are confusing the two.

In reply to Dave B:
I stand corrected, with apologies to the race director, though it does appear to have been a member of the organising committee.

Neil

In reply to SteveRi:

Has most of the money been spent? We any do small races, with our biggest sub 400, but 80% of our costs are prizes (vouchers and bottles of wine). A cancelled race means a small loss and some lost income, but most of the expenditure could recycled in to the next race.

Big closed road, paid marshalling, policed events really need to be insured. In my opinion.

As a committee member of a club, I'm firmly of the belief that if we have taken money for a race, we either deliver that race of compensate the entrant, ideally with free entry to the next race.

The only cancelation I have had personally was a fell relay event, the organising club offered a full refund, we chose as a group not to take the refund, but I think offering the refund is the correct thing to do.

In reply to Dave B:


The bit above it being a club event and not for slower runners, which is fine if that is what they want to do, but it isn't inclusive.

I won't avoid Spenborough AC races, but I know plenty slower club runners who will, simply think it isn't for them (that includes people who can easily run a sub 4 hour 20 miles).

In reply to Dave B:


"Its not for people like you"

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Did he actually say that? I can't find that statement in the piece you linked to.

In reply to tony:

The runner claimed he said that. He hasn't denied it, but to be fair we don't know. The statement does basically say that the race is aimed at faster runners.

In reply to tony:

By not denying the headline quote in the article he's responding to, he's effectively admitted it. His statement is an explanation of why he feels that not all runners can be accommodated in their race.

Which is not to say that he and the club isn't entitled to have that position. And people say things in the heat of the moment that they might phrase better at other times. Which is why I posted the link to his statement, even though I don't agree with his position.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Bloody hell, people do like making stuff up! You have no idea what he's admitting to - you're just projecting what you think. What's wrong with admitting that you don't know what he said?


His statement, which didn't include the words you attributed to him as a quote.

In reply to tony:

If it had been me and I hadn't said it, I would be making it very clear that the runner in question misunderstood, because it is a very damaging statement for the club. We don't know what was said, but to me it does seem odd.

I don't think the statement from the club handles it well, but as we all know, these aren't PR professionals.

In reply to Indy:

No, but it could make you a physicist. It's perfectly possible to run at the kind of speeds you're saying people can't run at - I should know as I sometimes walk past people running when I'm in a hurry...

(My only point here is that you're on to a looser with your thing about a 6.5hr marathon being a walk - it could be a reasonably fast walk, a slow run or a one legged hop for all I care.)

In reply to tony:

Of course I don't know what he said, I wasn't there, and even if I had been how could I be sure they weren't actors sent by our lizard overlords to confuse me. I don't know if the race actually happened, in fact I'm not even convinced Cleckheaton or Spenborough exist - either I've managed to avoid them or my memory of them has been erased.

However, the most likely probability is that the race, and the incident did happen, and that the website faithfully reported the statements of the two protagonists. The headline in the first piece is a quote from an as yet unnamed marshal. In the second piece the marshal identifies himself, but is not reported to have denied the quote, which is what I would have done if a false and inflammatory statement had been attributed to me.

I reckon that leaves us with 4 possibilities
A) he did make the remark
B) he didn't make the remark, but didn't consider it worth disputing
C) he denied making the remark, but the website chose not to report it.
D) he denied making the remark, but the dog ate the transcript

Which do you think is most likely?

In reply to Chris the Tall:


“I am sorry that the day was spoiled for Annette and I will write to her. The race is a well established mainly club runners event and while we are accommodating a level of slower runners who enter we do not have the resources to facilitate people who do not have a reasonable level of fitness to take part in this race.”

His other statement explains what he said. Unless he was directly asked "Did you say X", there is no reason for any further comment. Sounds like he wasn't being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


You're assuming the journalist gave him sight of the article before they published.

In reply to Robyn Vacher:


Athletics Weekly are quoting his statement, I would hope that it is accurate. I'm sure the full statement will be available so it should be easily checkable.

In reply to XXXX:




Excellent post!

In reply to Roadrunner2:
''It's easy to do something you enjoy and that you're good at. It's a hundred times more difficult to do something that you hate, is unnatural to you and humiliating''


Who says that? Life says that. Or it does if you slot the word 'relatively' in at the start of the sentence which I've quoted. Things are always easier if you enjoy them and they come to you (more) naturally.

Peace etc (:~))

In reply to Timmd:

I just think its easier not to compete.. not to put it out there.

If I compete at say Orienteering its totally unstressful, I never do it, will probably come last.. no pressure..

If I compete at a race I'll come towards the front, today 6th out of 8000 or so, but I find it stressful the whole day, the whole time out and sometimes it can be down right embarassing when a run goes badly.. because I put it all out there and to be beaten really really hurts.

Running is certainly easy for me, being competitive at running isn't. And TBH every runner I've met who is better than me is better because they hurt more in training, run smarter or more miles. It's almost never 'just because'.. of course the odd time it is, but its actually pretty rare.

In reply to Denni: if it's causing you that much grief then go and see a sports psychologist. You will race better if you can get over a fear of losing as ultimately that means you can't give it full lash ( the risk of blowing up becomes too high). It will be a more productive use of your money than new shoes or whatever.

If I'm going to suffer I'd rather do it for 2 hours than 4. As Robert Millar wrote 'everyone suffers, but some people go faster'

In reply to wbo:
I think it's a fun pressure though sort of. I love the highs and Lows of sport, the depths of depression you can go into for running 1 minute slower over a half..

Certainly with soccer I fell out of love with it , it had become about winning.

But I like the build up in running and more often than not perform well at the bigger races. But I know many who quit the moment they stop PRing. Especially college runners, 14-15 min 5k runners.

I love chatting to the 50 year olds still running 1:20 halfs when they were 1:10 runners, they have a genuine love of running. Others have a love of doing well so when that ends they leave the sport. They don't handle the decline well and walk away.. You see them on let's run..

I don't think i'll race as much on the roads when I think I have little extra left but I'll do more trail/mountain running. But I'm now V35 and quite enjoying winning my age group at most races but I'm also enjoying the challenge of racing people 10-15 years younger than me, I love racing collegiate XC.

In reply to Timmd:

Whilst I agree its a good post and makes a lot of good points like most things its not always as cut and dry. I run and would fall into the second bracket of runner but......... I get abuse from people most times I go running, people will wind down the window of their cars as they pass etc. It is also interesting to over hear people who seem to think its easier for you if you are up the front of races - it isn't! In fact if you go to a race there is a reason the people up the front aren't smiling and waving like the folks a bit further back - its because they are trying as hard as they can. Some track meets see most of the field cross the line and collapse on the floor, its carnage and a lot of runners don't realise how hard it is, especially when you are making effort to stay as relaxed as possible and therefore are trying not to have your face screwed up. If you want to run fast, running is hard, end of and if you want to run 70+ miles a week then you are going to have to be motivated because you are going to have to go out for runs when you feel knackered otherwise you won't do the mileage. Part of the "its easy for talented, fast people" fantasy is because its an excuse for those who don't want to try and get the best out of themselves (however fast that may be).

In reply to Roadrunner2:

Hard work will beat talent unless talent works hard!

In reply to Humperdink:
VO2 max is genetic.

You can train extremely hard and only ever reach your VO2 max.

It's not easy to be fast but it's also not easy to be slow if that slow is your version of fast.

Running while tired is a superb way to end up getting yourself injured.

The idea that we could all run 4min miles if we just put in the training is a tad disingenious.

In reply to Humperdink:

I was at a NCAA meet coaching last week, one 5 k heat, 24 runners, 22 broke 16, 2 broke 15, only one didn't break 16:20...

Great to watch, as you say, bodies on the floor as they finished. Some horrendous blow ups to, they were in agony. The guy in 2nd was 100 yards clear at 10 mins, hot caught, dropped to third but surged back to get 2nd.. He was in a world of pain.

This wasn't even a big meet, just a midweek philly collegiate meet.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

You can increase you VO2 max. I think there is a natural ceiling we hit but very few do. I'm fairly sure with a better diet if have ran sub 2:30.

But yeah guys like Steve way are the exception.. Not every fat guy is a future 2:16 marathoner.. But he worked his ass off to get there, very few athletes in the UK Would have put his miles and effort in.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I'm sure Steve would respectfully point out that he is a 2:15 marathoner. I know a minute is a big deal at those speeds.

In reply to The New NickB:

I couldnt remember, I had 2:13 in my head.. but thought that was too quick.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Yes you are right: to suggest that we could all run 4 min miles if we just trained harder would be a tad disingenuous - I don't think I was suggesting that, but apologies if it came across as if I was. I agree with you completely that trying to run "fast" relative to your "slow" is hard work no matter what your ability, which was what I was trying to suggest in my last sentence. It should be about trying to maximise your genetic ability and getting the best out of yourself. You aren't going to do that without running a ton of miles over years and whilst many folks may not want to do that (which is fine!) its also slightly disingenuous to look at the person at the front of the race as just "talented" or "genetically gifted" and it must be easy for them.

In terms of running whilst tired, yes you do increase you chances of getting injured but if you were to fully recover from one run before the next then you wouldn't be able to get the miles in! Not every run has the same purpose and whilst I might wake up tired and still do a steady/easy run and going to make sure I'm more rested for an interval session. By comparison if I have a race then I am going to ease off so I am completely fresh come race day (unless the race is for training when I wont!). Many people on high mileage will be tired all the time, listening to your body and balancing the fine line between maximising the benefit from the training overload and injury is all part of training/ racing (and can be thought of as a "talent" along with the genetics to withstand so many miles without getting injured). There are many people who are genetically very talented but injuries prevent them from reaching their potential. Indeed when training for a marathon is essential to run with "tired legs" because thats exactly what you are going to have to do in the latter stages of the race.

Steve Way mentioned above is a fine example of all of this, yes he is genetically gifted but its only through years of training and many thousands of miles (and a commitment to change his whole life around not only physically from where he was but also priorities wise as I believe he works part time to enable him to train more) which has seen him get close to his potential. Yet he is one of the hardest working runners out there, doesn't have it easy and will do a lot of training whilst tired.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Good stuff, "looking Forward" to collapsing across the line in a track race having run a PB this summer! (fingers crossed)

In reply to Humperdink:

Good post. Thanks.

I think the optimum rest time is supposed to be something like 18hours. That's between hard efforts.

I'm in my mid 40s and feel absolutely drained after a long run, usually around lunchtime on the second day. By the evening I'm ready to go again for an interval session. It doesn't have enough of an impact to stop me running an 'easy' run on the evening of day 1.

So getting the miles in is one thing and fairly easy to do if you keep your runs to around 90mins. But hard workouts are something else entirely.

I don't think even Farah is regularly running over 100mile weeks. When you consider he'll trot out 10miles in about 50mins at his easy pace.

That's a lot different to me, a mere mortal, who struggles to do a 60mile week when my easy 10mile run takes 1:30.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

50 minute 10 miles isn't easy pace for anyone, it's sub 2:12 marathon pace.

I follow quite a few elite and semi-elite athletes on Strava, they certainly put the hours in.

Someone like Andy Norman, who has the genetics, his Dad Jeff is a bit of a legend and his brother Dave is two time winner of the Manchester Marathon, still has to run 120 miles a week to run to a level that will never make him any proper money.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

I'm in my early 50s and do 50-60 miles week pretty much every week. I feel tired all the time!

In reply to mbh:

You have been really cranking out the miles lately Michael - 450km in March!

In reply to The New NickB:

...and 9200 m ascent I've just bought the line that you need to run and run to get better, and disregarded stuff about resting, my body seeming to hold up. I do laziness sometimes, mind. If I ran more or harder or included more structure in training, then I'd probably be better. The good runners around here are all doing that. It is quite likely that the next step up will require harder work of a kind that I have shied away from - - hard intervals. Eek!

In reply to mbh:


I'm in my (admittedly very very late) 30s and would feel tired all the time at that mileage!

In reply to yorkshireman:

And me. 3x10k seems to be my practical limit at the moment.

Neil

In reply to The New NickB:




You can take my 'about' and change that to 'sub' if you want. But Mo runs a sub 1hr half marathon. It should be relatively 'easy' for him to knock out 10miles in 50-55 mins.

They'll also (or should be) doing periodisation. Not running 120miles week in week out.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I haven't changed it to sub, 50 minute 10 miles is a hard effort for even the very best. 55 minutes is a different matter, but 55 minutes isn't about 50 minutes and realistically most elites run plenty miles a lot slower than that.


I'm sure they'd appreciate your coaching advice, but actually many elites maintain a high base mileage year round.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

You are right in that hard efforts need to be recovered from and you shouldn't (with exceptions before Re; marathons) be going into them feeling really tried. Depends what you call a hard effort but I do two interval sessions a week (used to do three but now find I can't recover between them so went to two) and a long run which depending upon time of year etc might also be a hard effort and thats enough! (with steady miles on top).

Even for Mo I think there will be a significant difference between 5:00 and 5:30 miling (50 or 55 min for 10miles). If you take his 10k time as roughly 27mins then by adding a min per mile to that pace gives just under 5:30's and even then he may not do that. I wouldn't be able to knock out 10miles at my 10K pace +1min per mile and it feel easy (but what would I know!). However, your general point is well made: the faster you run the less time you spend on your feet to do the same mileage. You are right that Mo won't run 120miles all year round but I'd guess (and happy to be corrected) that he runs 90+ for a lot of the year (in part due to the fact that he is running faster and on his feet for less time as previously stated).

It also raises a good point which is that for Mo (sub 60min half), a "good club runner" (75min half), a "mid pack club runner" (95min half), a "good non-club runner" (125min half) these people are all running the same distance but by the nature of the time taken they are running very different races. (I realise these are arbitrary categories and times and that there are a lot of people finishing a half behind these and there is nothing wrong with that!). To illustrate the point Mo is running for the amount of time it might take the good club runner to do a 10mile race and the good non-club runner the time to do 10K. So the physical effort/ requirements for all of these folks to do a half is very different.

In reply to The New NickB:



I can never quite work out the tone of your threads. I'm taking your remarks as quite sarcastic there. I'm not giving advice to elite runners I'm quoting their advice and philosophies. Unless the elites are actually reading this thread (I somehow doubt it)

A typical training week. Note the mileage is given in ranges.


http://www.trainingarunner.com/2014/10/09/mo-farahs-typical-weekly-training...

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I'm not being sarcastic generally, although obviously that comment was.



What are you trying to prove apart from the fact that Farah's training typically ranged between 125 and 135 miles a week and his easy running pace is 6 minute miles.

I've not specified Farah or any other elite runner, but this is exactly what I have been saying.

In reply to The New NickB:

I'm not so sure. Farah and other elites definitely rest completely for two weeks then spend two weeks gently jogging after a big competition. Then they'll ramp up the mileage again.

I just think saying running more miles week after week isn't the whole picture.

In reply to The New NickB:

What??? Farah is training approximately 13 hours a week then? What a slacker. I'll show him how it's done, as soon as I get out of my armchair.

Seriously this training program is even more amazing when you realise relatively how little time it takes him.

In reply to drolex:

Well he'll be doing a bit more than *just* running. Also being a pro is as much about being able to rest properly as train hard, so he'll train almost to exhaustion but can then rest whereas you or I have to go to work which even if we are sat on our backsides, isn't *rest*.

In reply to Bob:

Hey I am doing a bit more than just running too, I'm faffing around looking for my running socks, or I reward myself with a pint afterwards. Surely that is professional too?

(In case it is not clear, I am joking. I am truly amazed that a/ you can run that much in a week, b/ he has become so good at it that it takes him so little time.)

In reply to drolex:

That doesn't include time in the gym, but your body generally can't take much more than that.

Rest is important and I once heard that Paula Radcliffe slept 13 hours a night.

Of course plenty people train at this close to this level and hold down full time jobs.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Who said it was, but you will struggle to find any elite or semi elite distance runner (5k+) doing less than 80 miles a week and many will be doing much. Even for an average club runner like me, sustained high mileage (50-60 rather than 40) makes a huge difference. If I could sustain higher mileage, I would do it.

In reply to drolex:

Don't worry I did realise your comments were tongue in cheek

Agree with the pint BTW.

In reply to Denni: if an elite distance runner says he's doing < 80 a week I'd assume he was lying or 'forgetting' his morning runs. Some of them have an 'interesting' idea of what a 6 minute steady mile feels like as well.

It's interesting mo only has 2 hard sessions a week. I've run a similar schedule to his and I tried 3 sessions a week. Not good

In reply to The New NickB:


I can just about sustain 40miles a week, 50 approaching a marathon then maybe 60 in a peak week. Given that I can average 5-7mph that's over 10hours running.

I am noticing a massive improvement though and the 50mile weeks were not a hard as they were last year and the speed is increasing. But time is not on my side and I wonder what the objective is. Maybe a GFA for London after 2020? I'd have to go some to get that!

In reply to wbo:


That schedule is 6 years old.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

It depends.. 60 mile of fell terrain is a lot of time. 90-100 mile of road is about 10-12 hours for me.

The recovery is the big one , sitting at a desk instead of snoozing after a run. Then you run again with psoas et al in a mess as you've been sat down all day..

In reply to The New NickB:


The article was dated October 14, I assumed it was fairly up to date.

That is three hard sessions. Tempo, Interval and Long run.

I'm guessing that he has worked out the best times to do his hard sessions. I think I quoted 18 hours earlier, I meant 36. Most of us leave 48 hours because we workout in the evening.

I've toyed with the idea of having a two week program to fit 7 hard sessions in rather than 6, which could be alternating Sat and Sun for the long run but I have a life

In reply to DancingOnRock:

My mistake, I thought it said 2009 for some reason when I read it.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

What are you aiming for?

In reply to mbh:

I have Paris marathon next weekend. Hoping for something around 3:50 but I'll probably mess it up by going out too fast.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Well good luck with that

In reply to DancingOnRock:

I run about the same each week but I am slowly pushing up the mileage with 12 miles my limit at the moment. Only started 3 months ago, late 40s and a bit over weight at 14 stone. I wonder how long it would take to be able to do a marathon in my present format. Should I do things differently. At present I run 4x 5 miles up hill moor road and 2 x 12 miles mixed road, track and cross country.

In reply to fmck:

You're running 44miles a week after starting running 3 months ago?

If you start increasing one of those 12 mile runs over the next 3 weeks. Something like 15, 18, 20. Then another 15, 18, 20, then three weeks doing a taper you'd be 8-9 weeks away max.

I'm very surprised at the mileage you're doing already though. How did you build up to that?

Roadrunner and NickB might have more ideas.

I would enter a 10k race to get an idea of how fast you can run.

In reply to Denni:

I'm not a runner. Can't see the point of it. Was this race on a public road? Could she have just told the marshal on the bike to f*ck off and just continued to run the course? I don't get how he could tell her to stop running on a public road?

What is the fascination with running anyway? seems to be really fashionalble at the moment

In reply to Denni: She certainly could, but he's not then obligated to give her a time and a nice t-shirt is he?

Yes, it's very popular. It's very straightforward, accessible and usually a good exercise and helpful for reducing stress. You should try it

In reply to fmck:

I'd say you are doing too many runs that are the same.

Increase your longer run, but by no more than 1-2 miles a week.

Drop a few of your 5 milers, mix it up a kits 5k, 10 milers.

What sort of pace are you doing, are you varying pace, pushing hard on some runs, steady miles on others and recovery runs.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Good Luck! Don't "probably mess it up by going out to fast" - go out sensible! now repeat after me one hundred times: "I will go off at the correct pace, I will go off at the correct pace........." There is nothing wrong with slowing in the second half of a marathon but doing the first few miles too quick is criminal! All the best.

In reply to fmck:

I would say you are dong great, don't worry too much about the total miles you are doing and listen very closely to your body: do you feel tired at the start of runs? Lacking motivation to go out for a run? A niggle which dosn't go away after 3/4 days? These are all signs that you are doing a bit too much at which point take 3/4 days off and start to build up again. You've already build up well over the first 3 months so now you need to find out how fit you are and then maybe add a bit more focus to your training depending upon the target. As suggested do a parkrun or a 10K and see how you get on. To be honest I would say forget the marathon until you've been running for a few years and have got faster - it'll be much more enjoyable running one in 3:55 than it would be in 5:55 and the training will be more enjoyable to. Better to do some 5/10K's and build speed (and strength) and then apply that to the marathon. There is so much more to running than the marathon. (But I would say that because I've not done one ) The other problem is if you go straight to the marathon, what do you do next? You could do an ultra but then thats even more time on your feet at a slower pace.....

In reply to Humperdink:
I would certainly agree there is a lot more to running than the marathon and too many people rush in to doing a marathon. A couple of years of enjoying regular running is a good base for a respectable marathon performance.

In reply to fmck:

There's a difference between doing one and actually doing a good enjoyable one. You'll be able to get through one now probably.

I'd wait as others said. There's a huge surge in it all being about distance and ultras and marathons dominate way too early. Become a better more efficient runner then step up I'd say.

Sounds like a good start. Early on I just think the main thing is be consistent, dont get injured. learn to enjoy running then slowly add a bit more structure. Consider extending one of your 12 milers every few weeks. Add the odd park race, 10k, trail race etc and just keep going.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Thanks for the feed back everyone. I am very new to this spending my life hillwalking and climbing.(been out of the game a number of years) I may of come across as someone who runs but after three months I jog 12 miles. To be honest it can take me some nights 2 hours and lucky to reach under this but there are hills and muddy fields involved in defence.
In reply to Dancingonrocks : The 5 mile run I started with 200m ascent in the first mile followed by 50m ascent and 50m decent in the next 1.5 mile then turn around. First time I did it after being a slob for several years it took me 3 days to be able to walk properly again. Took me three weeks before fat stuff was able to go there and back without a gasping walk break! I like to include this as its intense lung bursting ascent for me while the 12 miler (was 10, 2 weeks ago) is more stamina which I find more a problem.
I guess what everyone is saying slow increase and vary your runs.

Cheers for the advice

In reply to fmck:

Just don't get injured. It sounds like you listen to your body anyway which is the key early on. You'll have strong legs and decent stamina from walking so its not like you've been inactive til now.

If you can run for 2 hours non-stop now, regardless of the actual distance, you must have decent fitness/stamina to be at that stage so quickly.

Maybe look for a few trail/fell races locally to mix it up, where are you based? If you look on the FRA website uou'll get a calendar.

NS means nav skills required, which normally means you need a map and compass - but sometimes RO's put this down regardless..
PM means Partially marked so often taped traily races.