login
Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2009-10-08 11:25 AM in reply to: #2449661 |
Champion  5376    PA |  Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPodDozier - 2009-10-08 12:20 PM I agree with DJS, what advantage is gained by an ipod?? some complain that it is annoying to other runners to hear it ... if thats the case, lets DQ every heavy breather and heavy striker that annoys me. Or me and my heart rate monitor. LOL J/K, I learned to set that to silent for the races. It was driving me nuts while training and I think I was getting more angry and in return that just raised my heart rate even more. The safety reasoning is out the window unless you are applying it across the board. It looks like Bear was able to clarify why it is only applied to some and not others. That's the only answer that makes any sense. |
| 2009-10-08 11:26 AM in reply to: #2449499 |
Veteran 294 Papillion, NE | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod Still no answer as to why "some" can wear it and "some" can't. I am hearing safety as being the number one issue(outside of everyone's "because it is a rule"). Ok, then, once again, why not make it a RULE and not something that applies to only certain people. That lacks credibility as a safety rule then and is not a legitimate reason, or no one would be allowed to wear them. Like I have already stated, just trying to understand the logic here. Not trying to tell anyone that you "need" one to race, or "so what, it is a rule" sort of thing. |
| 2009-10-08 11:27 AM in reply to: #2449672 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod DJS - 2009-10-08 12:26 PM Still no answer as to why "some" can wear it and "some" can't. I am hearing safety as being the number one issue(outside of everyone's "because it is a rule"). Ok, then, once again, why not make it a RULE and not something that applies to only certain people. That lacks credibility as a safety rule then and is not a legitimate reason, or no one would be allowed to wear them. Like I have already stated, just trying to understand the logic here. Not trying to tell anyone that you "need" one to race, or "so what, it is a rule" sort of thing. See Bear's answer. You are right that safety is out the window. |
| 2009-10-08 11:40 AM in reply to: #2449661 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod Dozier - 2009-10-08 9:20 AM I agree with DJS, what advantage is gained by an ipod?? some complain that it is annoying to other runners to hear it ... if thats the case, lets DQ every heavy breather and heavy striker that annoys me. I would say there IS an advantage... Much of racing is the mental game... Can't argue that. I hear it from the commentators in bike racing during time trials. If you catch up to your 1 minute man, it give you a boost. In running, getting out of someone's visual range, sometimes can break them... There are TONS of mental aspects to racing. If playing some music that gets one fired up for whatever reason and they can run faster because of it, then it's an advantage. If it can assist in cadence or pace, then it's an advantage. |
| 2009-10-08 11:47 AM in reply to: #2449499 |
Master 2327 North Alabama | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod Rules are rules... "Race photos showed Goebel with an iPod tucked into the waistband of her shorts and she admitted using the device in violation of a USA Track and Field rule that applied only to elite runners in the Lakefront Marathon. Runners competing for USATF championships and or cash prizes are not allowed to use electronic devices. The Lakefront serves as the Wisconsin USATF marathon championship." |
| 2009-10-08 12:01 PM in reply to: #2449672 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod DJS - 2009-10-08 12:26 PM Still no answer as to why "some" can wear it and "some" can't. I am hearing safety as being the number one issue(outside of everyone's "because it is a rule"). Ok, then, once again, why not make it a RULE and not something that applies to only certain people. That lacks credibility as a safety rule then and is not a legitimate reason, or no one would be allowed to wear them. Like I have already stated, just trying to understand the logic here. Not trying to tell anyone that you "need" one to race, or "so what, it is a rule" sort of thing. Because the USATF got fed of listening to whiney people who "can't" run without their iPod and changed the rules for all the recreational runners and left it at the discretion of the RD's as they are the ones who will get insurance for their race (quite often through the USATF ironically). It WAS a rule until this year. The USAT at least has some backbone and make it mandatory for all races to ban them. As soon as some jack azz steps on your heel or runs into you or refuses to give way because he/she can't hear you, you'll "get" it as to why they should not be allowed in a race. It's a race after all. Not a fun run. Even people who are further back in the pack are there trying to race and may even be going for an AG placing. Just because someone is slower in the field does not mean they are not working their butt off and trying to do well. Why should they have to deal with the jack azz wearing the MP3 player when the elites don't?? Ban them all ...... |
| 2009-10-08 12:01 PM in reply to: #2449672 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod DJS - 2009-10-08 11:26 AM Still no answer as to why "some" can wear it and "some" can't. Umm, yes they have answered. It's at the DISCRETION of the RD. I think it should be enforced acorss the ebtire field, but its' at the DISCRETION of the RD, so that's that. ...and yes, Rick, if you need an iPod to race, don't bother racing. There I said it to. Let the flames begin!  |
| 2009-10-08 12:02 PM in reply to: #2449499 |
Champion 7550 Albuquerque, New Mexico Bronze member | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod The safety issue is there and increased by allowing "the unwashed masses" to wear them. The big difference is she was racing for $$, so the rules can be different. We were in Naperville a few years ago so my wife could do the Subaru Women's Tri. Lots and lots of runners wearing IPODS completely oblivious to the crowds cheering for them near the finish line. IMO, a poor tradeoff. |
| 2009-10-08 12:12 PM in reply to: #2449499 |
Runner | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod How about this: Headphones could be used to relay information to a racer related to the event (positions of other racers, conditions up ahead, etc.). This information advantage has been deemed to be unfair; the point is to race your race and not have the advantage of knowing any more than you know. Information is very powerful for the front runners. So the argument becomes what about coaches yelling out splits or information? That information is available to everyone within earshot, so no one person is getting an advantage to the exclusion of others. Shoes, clothes, and nutrition can be a factor, but they have been deemed to not be significant enough to make rulings against. That being said, there are rules against certain shoe types (anything with springs). |
| 2009-10-08 12:12 PM in reply to: #2449744 |
Expert 632 Cornfields of Illinois | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod bryancd - 2009-10-08 12:01 PM DJS - 2009-10-08 11:26 AM Still no answer as to why "some" can wear it and "some" can't. Umm, yes they have answered. It's at the DISCRETION of the RD. I think it should be enforced acorss the ebtire field, but its' at the DISCRETION of the RD, so that's that. ...and yes, Rick, if you need an iPod to race, don't bother racing. There I said it to. Let the flames begin! agreed...im not a RD so can't confirm this but my guess most RD's allow ipods so more people participate and they don't have to listen to the about not being able to use it from the recreational runners. Since the RDs are on the hook for the insurance I like that they have the OPTION to allow them although I don't feel there is a need to wear one. FWIW, I used to run with my ipod on all training runs and rides but quit when i started using my heartrate monitor and needed to hear the alerts. Do i miss it? sure on those harder training days but to me it's not worth the risks. |
| 2009-10-08 12:13 PM in reply to: #2449499 |
Champion 7595 Columbia, South Carolina | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod People say that they help, and guess we have to take them at their word, but I just don't get it. When I'm totally focused on trying to maintain a hard pace, just about the last thing I want is music blaring in my ear. And in just the two running races that I've done, I've already run into trouble with people lost in their iPod-induced alternate reality, one of whom I eventually had to literally shoulder out of the way to get by on a narrow path in the Kiawah Island Marathon. I spoke, and then shouted "PLEASE MOVE RIGHT" about 4-5 times and the guy was utterly clueless. Who knew that Los Lonely Boys could be that distracting????? |
| 2009-10-08 12:22 PM in reply to: #2449765 |
Extreme Veteran 417 Buford GA | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod Scout7 - 2009-10-08 1:12 PM How about this: Headphones could be used to relay information to a racer related to the event (positions of other racers, conditions up ahead, etc.). This information advantage has been deemed to be unfair; the point is to race your race and not have the advantage of knowing any more than you know. Information is very powerful for the front runners. So the argument becomes what about coaches yelling out splits or information? That information is available to everyone within earshot, so no one person is getting an advantage to the exclusion of others.
That was a point I made before noting the rules for USAT but wasn't sure if it applied to USATF as well are you saying that is the case? Also something I Was wondering about and this is more random then anything else but are these photos that were found official race photos or random photo albums posted by people attending the race? I ask because if the first women was DQ'd for receiving outside help why in theory is the RD allowed to receive outside help? In this case yes there is photo proof but think of if it was a tri and someone was just like hey I saw so and so drafting and you were penalized? It goes along with my belief that instant replays.. going to the "tape" etc shouldn't be allowed in sports. The ref saw it or didn't see it, when teh sport was invented they couldn't go to the "tape" why can they now.. Just saying if it was some photo on a fan site that is how it was found out i don't think that should apply. Oh and again she is cute.. really want to see more of that ink on her hip. |
| 2009-10-08 12:25 PM in reply to: #2449765 |
Champion 7595 Columbia, South Carolina | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod Scout7 - 2009-10-08 1:12 PM How about this: Headphones could be used to relay information to a racer related to the event (positions of other racers, conditions up ahead, etc.). This information advantage has been deemed to be unfair; the point is to race your race and not have the advantage of knowing any more than you know. Information is very powerful for the front runners. So the argument becomes what about coaches yelling out splits or information? That information is available to everyone within earshot, so no one person is getting an advantage to the exclusion of others. Shoes, clothes, and nutrition can be a factor, but they have been deemed to not be significant enough to make rulings against. That being said, there are rules against certain shoe types (anything with springs). Well, there goes my shot at a sub-3hr marathon. Thanks for bursting my bubble.  |
| 2009-10-08 12:27 PM in reply to: #2449807 |
Champion 7495 Schwamalamadingdong! | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod Experior - 2009-10-08 12:25 PM Scout7 - 2009-10-08 1:12 PM How about this: Headphones could be used to relay information to a racer related to the event (positions of other racers, conditions up ahead, etc.). This information advantage has been deemed to be unfair; the point is to race your race and not have the advantage of knowing any more than you know. Information is very powerful for the front runners. So the argument becomes what about coaches yelling out splits or information? That information is available to everyone within earshot, so no one person is getting an advantage to the exclusion of others. Shoes, clothes, and nutrition can be a factor, but they have been deemed to not be significant enough to make rulings against. That being said, there are rules against certain shoe types (anything with springs). Well, there goes my shot at a sub-3hr marathon. Thanks for bursting my bubble. My calc teacher in high school had shoes very much like that for high jump. |
| 2009-10-08 12:33 PM in reply to: #2449742 |
Veteran 318 Indianapolis | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod Daremo - 2009-10-08 12:01 PM DJS - 2009-10-08 12:26 PM Still no answer as to why "some" can wear it and "some" can't. I am hearing safety as being the number one issue(outside of everyone's "because it is a rule"). Ok, then, once again, why not make it a RULE and not something that applies to only certain people. That lacks credibility as a safety rule then and is not a legitimate reason, or no one would be allowed to wear them. Like I have already stated, just trying to understand the logic here. Not trying to tell anyone that you "need" one to race, or "so what, it is a rule" sort of thing. Because the USATF got fed of listening to whiney people who "can't" run without their iPod and changed the rules for all the recreational runners and left it at the discretion of the RD's as they are the ones who will get insurance for their race (quite often through the USATF ironically). It WAS a rule until this year. The USAT at least has some backbone and make it mandatory for all races to ban them. As soon as some jack azz steps on your heel or runs into you or refuses to give way because he/she can't hear you, you'll "get" it as to why they should not be allowed in a race. It's a race after all. Not a fun run. Even people who are further back in the pack are there trying to race and may even be going for an AG placing. Just because someone is slower in the field does not mean they are not working their butt off and trying to do well. Why should they have to deal with the jack azz wearing the MP3 player when the elites don't?? Ban them all ...... I agree 100%. I witnessed a guy at IMKY almost wreck out 3 people on the bike shoot coming out of t1. He was messing with putting ear buds in, swerving all over the place. I don't listen to mine at all anymore, even on a treadmill. The first week was a little rough, but then I loved it. Don't miss it at all. |
| 2009-10-08 12:43 PM in reply to: #2449742 |
Veteran 294 Papillion, NE | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod Daremo - 2009-10-08 12:01 PM DJS - 2009-10-08 12:26 PM Still no answer as to why "some" can wear it and "some" can't. I am hearing safety as being the number one issue(outside of everyone's "because it is a rule"). Ok, then, once again, why not make it a RULE and not something that applies to only certain people. That lacks credibility as a safety rule then and is not a legitimate reason, or no one would be allowed to wear them. Like I have already stated, just trying to understand the logic here. Not trying to tell anyone that you "need" one to race, or "so what, it is a rule" sort of thing. As soon as some jack azz steps on your heel or runs into you or refuses to give way because he/she can't hear you, you'll "get" it as to why they should not be allowed in a race. First of all, I don't need to get anything and pay attention to what my last post or should I say the one you quoted. If you would take time to read it, it states that I wanted to know the logic behind why some could use it and some couldn't. I already know it is up to the RD, that is quite obvious. Simple reading will tell you that. What I asked was, stay with me here, was WHY some could wear it and some can't. If it is a RULE, then make it a RULE, not a "well, if you are a.......then you can, but if you are a ..........then you can't". Consistency, look it up. |
| 2009-10-08 12:44 PM in reply to: #2449531 |
Expert 1092 St. Paul, MN | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod trishie - 2009-10-08 10:26 AM DJS - 2009-10-08 11:21 AM I really don't understand the rule of no ipod, whether it be marathon, tri, etc. It isn't like an illegal substance is being used. It is something everyone can do if they so choose. Now I can see if it is blasting in your ears and you don't yield or create a hazard, but really, what is the big deal with wearing these? that is exactly why they aren't allowed --- when you are running with other people during a race you need to be aware of what's going on around you. what if an ambulance was coming up behind the runner? I'd like to think she would HEAR it coming, but who knows? and, besides, rules are rules. If you don't like them (you being the proverbial YOU, not you DJS!), run an iPod friendly race. I'm TOTALLY with you here, Trishie!!! Took the words right out of my mouth! |
| 2009-10-08 12:45 PM in reply to: #2449871 |
Champion 7495 Schwamalamadingdong! | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod DJS - 2009-10-08 12:43 PM Daremo - 2009-10-08 12:01 PM DJS - 2009-10-08 12:26 PM Still no answer as to why "some" can wear it and "some" can't. I am hearing safety as being the number one issue(outside of everyone's "because it is a rule"). Ok, then, once again, why not make it a RULE and not something that applies to only certain people. That lacks credibility as a safety rule then and is not a legitimate reason, or no one would be allowed to wear them. Like I have already stated, just trying to understand the logic here. Not trying to tell anyone that you "need" one to race, or "so what, it is a rule" sort of thing. As soon as some jack azz steps on your heel or runs into you or refuses to give way because he/she can't hear you, you'll "get" it as to why they should not be allowed in a race. First of all, I don't need to get anything and pay attention to what my last post or should I say the one you quoted. If you would take time to read it, it states that I wanted to know the logic behind why some could use it and some couldn't. I already know it is up to the RD, that is quite obvious. Simple reading will tell you that. What I asked was, stay with me here, was WHY some could wear it and some can't. If it is a RULE, then make it a RULE, not a "well, if you are a.......then you can, but if you are a ..........then you can't". Consistency, look it up. It has to do with money and the hassle of DQing half the field when they wear their iPod anyway, thinking the rules don't apply to them. |
| 2009-10-08 12:55 PM in reply to: #2449499 |
Champion 5781 Northridge, California | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod I've always found life goes so much better if ya just follow the rules. Same goes for obeying traffic laws on the bike, in my book. (And not violating collective bargaining agreement provisions in the workplace, for that matter...but that's for another website...) Can't run without an iPod and it's against the rules for the race? Simple solution. Stay home. Bill of Rights doesn't provide for a constitutional right to run a privately-promoted marathon with earbuds in. Race director (or sanctioning body) doesn't want you to wear them and you think they're discriminating against you? Vote with your wallet...don't register for the race. |
| 2009-10-08 1:04 PM in reply to: #2449877 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod TheSchwamm - 2009-10-08 12:45 PM It has to do with money and the hassle of DQing half the field when they wear their iPod anyway, thinking the rules don't apply to them. Pretty much. They need entry fee's so they arbitrate the rules to ensure they have max participation. Lame, but simple to understand. |
| 2009-10-08 1:07 PM in reply to: #2449499 |
Runner | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod To end this bizarre debate, here it is from the USATF website: Approved at USATF's 2008 Annual Meeting held earlier this month in Reno, the rule now reads:"The following shall be considered assistance and therefore not allowed: "(f) The visible possession or use by athletes of video, audio, or communications devices in the competition area. The Games Committee for an LDR event may allow the use of portable listening devices not capable of receiving communication; however, those competing in Championships for awards, medals, or prize money may not use such devices."
By my reading of that posting, the consider anything with headphones, FOR ELITES, to be a portable listening device, and they are banning it due to the fact that it COULD provide an unfair advantage. Not safety, not insurance; an unfair advantage. Portable listening devices capable of receiving communication are banned for EVERYONE. This would include radios, and probably cell phones. This makes my statement earlier about it providing information to racers and creating an unfair advantage pretty much true.
|
| 2009-10-08 1:14 PM in reply to: #2449871 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod DJS - 2009-10-08 1:43 PM Simple reading will tell you that. What I asked was, stay with me here, was WHY some could wear it and some can't. If it is a RULE, then make it a RULE, not a "well, if you are a.......then you can, but if you are a ..........then you can't". Consistency, look it up. And simple reading will tell you the answer. I already wrote it. Perhaps you glazed over it when you got a bit too uptight: Because the USATF got fed of listening to whiney people who "can't" run without their iPod and changed the rules for all the recreational runners and left it at the discretion of the RD's as they are the ones who will get insurance for their race (quite often through the USATF ironically). It WAS a rule until this year. That is the reason there is a difference and that is why there is a disparity in the rule. And that is really the answer. Whiney recreational runners bit-hed and complained until the USATF said, "Fine" and put the responsibility on the RD. The elites have their own drink locations on the big races. Why don't the masses? The elites are required to submit for drug testing. Why aren't the masses? Perhaps before one starts questoning the "Why" maybe they should have a firm grasp on what the rules are in the first place? Does every law out there make sense? No. But you are still legally bound to follow them if you choose to participate. |
| 2009-10-08 1:24 PM in reply to: #2449499 |
Extreme Veteran 3177 | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod Wow a lot of interesting (and some ignorant) comments under that article. Some people do not seem to understand that unless a runner registers to race as an elite, they are not eligible for Prize money in the race. If you are eligible for prize money you need to know and follow the rules, no matter how you train or if you agree with them. For the non elite/ag runners they are there for a different reason (racing against themselves, their PR, with friends, having fun etc...) and so it is in some ways two different races, at the same place, same day, with similar but not exactly the same rules and guidelines. Good going for the race director DQing the two racers. Stinks to be them but it is their own fault for either knowing and ignoring the rules or not bothering to learn them in the first place. |
 2009-10-08 2:15 PM in reply to: #2449499 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2009-10-08 2:35 PM in reply to: #2449708 |
| Master 2210 Columbus, Ohio Coaching member | Subject: RE: Marathon Winner DQ'd for iPod LostSheep - 2009-10-08 12:47 PM Rules are rules... "Race photos showed Goebel with an iPod tucked into the waistband of her shorts and she admitted using the device in violation of a USA Track and Field rule that applied only to elite runners in the Lakefront Marathon. Runners competing for USATF championships and or cash prizes are not allowed to use electronic devices. The Lakefront serves as the Wisconsin USATF marathon championship." The point here for me is that it is fine to break the rule and use an iPod, but you know going in that you will forfeit your prize if you do. I have done many a triathlon where the water was too warm for a wetsuit. The RD would announce that you are free to wear a wetsuit, but if you qualify for an AG prize or overall prize, you forfeit that by wearing the wetsuit. Sounds like that was a similar rule here, only the person registered as an elite, and so was DQ'd. It's not like they are dragging people off the course. They are just saying, if you are going to use music and it gives you an advantage, then you do not get to compete for prizes. Sounds totally fair to me! Edited by ahohl 2009-10-08 2:38 PM |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK