How can you have the best time and not win??? (Page 2)

In the marathons I've particpated in (granted, onyl 4 different races numerous times) everyone started together EXCEPT in Boston where the female elites started earlier.  And they do that so the male and female winners cross the line at a similar time of day (the top women run in the 2:25 range, and the top men will run around 2:10 or better).

The elites usually just start at the front of the field and do not start earlier.  So if someone comes out of the pack of AGers and puts up a solid time, they will be in the money hunt.

In USAT racing, if the prize purse is over $4,999 then amateurs cannot win prize money, only pros.  That is not the case in running as Scout mentioned.

So, does she win now?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/22/BACI13MAIT.DTL

Tough for me to get too sympathetic as I'm almost certainly never going to be in a similar position, but if starting everyone at the same time makes everyone happy, so be it.

Therre is an article updating this whole thing in NYTimes today.  One of the things I get out of this is that she assumed that elite meant elite.  In other words, she thought the elite pack would be pulling times in the 2:35 region, which seems pretty reasonable based on the times kagoscuba posted above.  Nike is dropping the elite/AG from the race in the future.

A lot of people here are focusing on the finish line, and the gun time.  But I think the problem arose much earlier - before the race even - by not making a certain time criteria for "elite".  Either have people prove themselves with a previous race time, or at least identify what is expected to call oneself "elite" for the race.  Then people who are fast (but not sure how fast they are relative to other amateurs) can have a better idea of what would be a winning time. I have always been a BOP runner, but for a couple of years I competed in a kayak/canoe race.  The first time I did so, I had no idea what a top time would be, and only entered as a lark.  I almost came in the top three, and only missed out because I miscalculated depth within a quarter mile of the finish and grounded myself.  I was not upset until I saw the winning times and realized I was right behind the winner most of the time. Since the field had staggered starts based on category, there were a lot of boats ahead of me all the time.  But awards were based on race time, not gun time (no chips in boat races).

It is not just marathons, it is every footrace.  USATF is the governing body, and they cover everything from track to cross country to road races to trail running.

It's simple: footraces have been around since before there were clocks.  The standard way to determine the winner was the first one across the line.  That tradition has persisted, because you are racing people, not a clock.

Look at the time trials for the sprints.  Bolt slows down towards the end, because he has everyone in his heat beaten to the line.  Why?  Because he still has to race again, and he knows that he has won the heat so he advances.  If he was running alone, he would not have that luxury.

Another way to consider it is a football analogy.  Time of possession doesn't win the game, total points scored does.  You can have a team with more time of possession, but still loses.

Racing is less about the clock, and more about your competition.  You need to be aware of the people you are racing against, because you need to run with a plan.  At the competitive level, it's not a matter of simply going out and running as fast as you can; it's going out and running to win.  You do that by racing your strengths.  There are surges people throw in to see who can go with you; you can try to blast up hills to put the pressure on, try to roll down hills to get some momentum.  Most of these tactics can be counter to running the fastest time, because they hurt; but they hurt the competition as well, and in the end it's about beating them.

Racing people doesn't cause problems; poor execution of the race causes problems.  The issue now is that races, especially large races, have implemented a staggered start for elite men and women.  This staggered start is to draw media attention (so the cameras can get in there and tape the thing), and to allow the elite women a chance to race without getting mixed up with the sub-elite men.  Unfortunately, we also see events like what occurred at Nike.  I think the staggered start is a bad idea.  If everyone starts at the same time, no problems ensue.

No, a race is not about time at all.  Period, plain and simple.  Time is only a metric, and is immaterial for determining the winner.

The time it takes is for the sake of those running, NOT for determining who wins or not.

Where you line up at a race start should not be random; you should be with people who expect to run around the same time.  If you have seeded yourself poorly then you have disadvantaged yourself.  Further, if this were allowed, someone could start at the very back of a large race, run very fast and possibly win without the leaders ever knowing someone was ahead of them.  Elite runners do not always race for time; rather you race the field on any given day.

While you are correct about track meet starts, this is only for the 200m, 400m and 800m (after that there is either a waterfall or straight start line) but this is because you have to stay in your lane for all (200, 400) or part or the race; if the start lines were all at the same point, the inside runner would have a huge advantage.

Foot races have always been first across the line wins; why should athletes have to "suck it up and learn the strategy involved in winning based on chip time" so that they can compete against someone who sandbagged the start?

Shane

The events you mentioned aren't even really like time trials, because most time trials are run by multiple people at the same time.  If the races were run by only one person at a time, then time would be the only method that makes sense.

However, there are very few races that are run this way (I know of one).

Keep in mind these races are so old, they existed before there was even a way to time them.  They have always been judged by finishing place, because it's the way that makes the most sense.

Part of the strategy is position yourself at the start.  If you want a shot at running with the top people, then start at the front.

Look - plain and simple - race organization screwed up - and they screwed up by not defining "elite".  Anytime, as an RD, that you set up an "elite" status in your race - you need to let people know what that means.  I ran in a 5k a couple of weeks ago that was a small, countrified little race.  If they would have had an elite class, I would have assumed that was 15:30 or better.  Winner ran this race in just under 20.  That would have put a lot of folks in "elite" that I know, that would never put themselves there. 

The elite status in not clearly defined throughout distance running or triathlon.  You need to be smart enough to know that and if your field will not be as fast as other large events (NYC, Boston, Chicago) "elites", then you need to state who you think that the "elite" status is defined by. 

You also should ask if you have the potential to run a sub-3 Marathon if you are unsure what "elite" means in the race.

Those that are saying it is a foot race and this woman should have registered as an elite, what if she would have asked that question and she was told "normally, elites run between 2:30 and 2:45"?  Would you then find an issue with her not being declared the winner because she didn't register as "elite"?  She knew she couldn't run that kind of time.  Just a curiosity.

No one is arguing about the elite issue.  I think most agree that the 20 minute start was the primary problem.

I think the issue now is the fact that races use finishing place rather than time.

In a "time trial" the fastest time wins (unless regulation rules dictate that only pros are awarded overall prizes for money events and those are clearly spelled out).

In a mass start race, it is the first person to cross the line.  Plain and simple.

If you think you even have a REMOTE chance of placing in AG or overall in a running race, you seed yourself at the front at all cost.  It is not a question, it is pretty straight forward.

When you are fast with any sort of racing experience, and you know you might be in contention for something, it is pretty much automatic that you seed yourself near the front.  It is once in a blue moon that someone comes "out of the back of the pack" in a large race and puts up big numbers, so it is really not that much of an arguable statement.

The problem here was that they started a group 20 minutes ahead of the mass and it sounds as if there were no set criteria for "elite" times.  A 3:05 "winner" out of 4,000 women in the event??  That would not even get them an elite bib in most events.

That phenomenon happens at road races (running).   There is the clock time and there is your chip time.  The first one to the line wins, regardless if someone who starts behind runs faster.

Matt Cazalas
Technical Writer

Network Cables

You are right.  Yes she is out of the money because she was 9 minutes behind the elite winner.  I am curious if she passed any of the elite females out there though.  If she would passed them up she would have gotten money. 

I think they should have reconized what she did and made a special annoucement for her. 

honestly I think all footraces should start at the same time.  If your getting caught up in the field well that is something everyone has the same risk.  Look at the Chicago triathlon where the pros have to pass alot of amatuers.  At any moment one could get taken out by an age grouper but that is something each pro faces.

I understand the history behind foot racing, and why the first person across is the winner.  But, that being said, I think the argument of "it's always been done like that" is total crap.

Just because it has always been done like that, doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved now that we have the technology to do so.

A street is only SOOO wide.  The width of a person is pretty standard, no?  So you see you cannot fairly start everyone at the same spot, some people end up running a longer race...how is that fair?  Say 20 people can fit across a street (random guess).  Say there are 60 people out there who are trying to compete for place...mixed in with the other random thousands of people.  By using finish line instead of chip time, you have essentially made pushing and shoving for starting line position a PART OF THE RACE.

Guess if you want to win, you should start doing some upper body exercise, and ensure that you start with your toe on the line.

I dunno, as I said above, the "history" argument just doesn't set with me.  We have a way to do it better now, and we should use it.  If someone slacks off because they don't see anyone around them...too bad...don't make that mistake twice.

(I realize my opinion goes against the grain, and things probably won't change anytime soon (or ever), but I still felt I should voice it.  Everytime I look at race results, and see chip times vs gun times listed side by side, with clearly faster placing behind slower people...I just shake my head and chuckle.