Boston Marathoners can opt out ...

HTFU!

The 70.3 in FL each May has temps well above that.  Yankee weenies

The article I read says they could roll over their eligibility until next year.  Which I assume means sign up again, if they can get in, and pay for it again too.

Unless I lived in Boston, there's no way I wouldn't run!

90º is too hot?!?  WTF?!?

I've had the dubious distinction of coming in dead last two years in a row at a tri (Oly) that tends to have the run in weather over 100.  Last year I was probably borderline heat-stroke, but I finished it and recovered a few hours later after a sitting on my butt in the AC for a while.

90 just doesn't sound that bad. Is the humidity tropical there or something?

I would think that if you were able to even qualify for the BM you should be able to handle a warm day. You DO have to be fit and fast to even get into the race, right?

I think the big deal with the weather was:

People plan, and train, for something different.

Boston averages the mid 50s as the high this time of year. People train for similar conditions.

Kona averages 82 to 95 degrees. Imagine a Kona raced in 120+ degree heat!

That is where the comparison lies... not in the numbers themselves, but how the numbers compare to the conditions people are prepared for.

What made me question this is people are from all over the world that do that event how could anyone train to ones "average" temps at that time of the year.  Sure with Kona, Ironman Louisville and others we expect them to have extreme temps due to when they are and where but again everyone doing those events cant train under similar weather conditions can they? I'm doing an event this weekend in NV, they are calling for 80-90 and last year this same event they experience some snow on part of the course. Im really nervous if Boston was concerned over the heat and I have to go twice the distance YIKES!

It's harder to train for the heat than the cold.

For ING Miami, I knew race day could be brutal. I purposely did many of my long runs during the hottest part of the day.

Sure, it was a January race, so there were out-of-towners that had been training through the winter. Most of them weren't planning on PRing the thing.

Of the 4 people I knew running Boston, 3 of them changed their race plan last-minute. All 4 finished. None PRed.

Plus, BAA wants to cover their butts...

But this is mother nature.  Weather changes.  You play the cards you are dealt. I feel sorry for the 4800 people who barley missed qualifying and would have raced despite the "heat".

FYI, less than 430 deferred: http://bostonmarathon.runnersworld.com/2012/04/boston-marathon-deferrals-heres-the-deal.html

So, they might just have a field of 427 more next year to accommodate. 

This article from the day of the race stated 4800.  Wow, someone got their #s wrong...

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/16/11226905-northeast-and-boston-marathon-hit-by-blast-of-heat

I wonder if the % of charity slots were lower if they would offer this up?  As the Boston Marathon has grown, a great number of charity slots are available so the % of those running are not true BQ types. 

I just wonder if this is a reason for the decision to offer a deferment.  Thoughts?

Yeah the other article quotes the director of the BAA:

Why are some people reporting that 4,000 or more runners have deferred, or may do so?
Presumably they took two real figures -- 26,716 runners registered for today's marathon, versus 22,426 who actually started the race -- and concluded that the difference (4,290) equaled the number who could defer, or already had.

That's simply not so, said Davis, who pointed out that a certain percentage of registered runners don't make it to the starting line in any given race, regardless of the weather, due to things like food poisoning, family emergencies, injuries, and so on.

Davis said that the number of runners who did show up and run today was really quite high -- especially given the drumbeat of ominous weather warnings. More than 98% of those runners who did pick up their bibs, Davis said, started the race as planned.

Anyway, of the 427, not everyone is gonna end up running next year -- they just have the opportunity to. They still have to pay the entrance fee again and possibly travel/stay there...so it might be cost prohibitive to some of those people. I think possibly just adding 427 additional slots next year would not be a major drag on anything if the BAA decided to do that...

I think its cool what they did. 

I really do not think it takes away from anything.  26.2 miles is still 26.2 miles. 

I disagree with the wimpy comments.  I think there are reasonable fluctuations to expect, and then unforeseeable circumstance.  Right now I'm training for Las Vegas 70.3 which I know will be hot and I'm planning my training to let me acclimate better to the heat.  If I was training for Boston, I would have seriously suffered from the heat and absolutely no acclimatization because expecting 90s is not even close to normal.  

And a comparison to other hot tri's like IM Texas and other are not fair either, because athletes know to prepare and expect hot temps.  And just because some of you are from hot areas and are fine with heat, doesn't mean that everyone else is.  Running in temperatures that some of you mentioned (88 and it was humid) would really make me suffer, but I doubt you'd be out running in -20s like I do either (not saying either makes you tougher or anything, just what people are used to and can deal with is different).  

So by the same logic would they offer deferments if it were colder than normal?  I seriously doubt it.

The Disney marathon (and half) is always about 60-70 degrees.  A few years back it was under 20 and actually snowed at the start.  That's a swing of 40 degrees.  About the same as the avg Boston temps to the temp on Monday.  No one was ready for that sort of weather and people had horrible times.  But no one asked for a deferment.

interesting read on weather history and impacts on results

http://www.runtri.com/2010/04/boston-marathon-weather.html

Because they were not offered one.  If they had been who knows how many would take it.  It's their race to do with what they want.  They did not want a repeat of 2004.  I can't really blame them. 

I agree Kim, why are people putting this on the racers?  As for cold, Look at ITU worlds 70.3 last year, they canceled the swim because it was too cold.  Calif. 70.3 circa 2009 or so, gave people an option for a 500 yard swim due to 52 degree water.  Not deferments but adjustments. 

The isue of the deferment is on BAA, not the individual racers, the racers don't owe any other potential runners anything in making their decision.

This whole philosophy of calling people wimpy for not racing in conditions that may result in injury if they were not able to train in them is a bit frightening.  As an analogy, I do (or have done) a lot of beach diving, where going through surf presents challenges.  The MOST important skill I have is knowing when not to go.  This is a hobby, nothing more.  There is absolutely no reason to put your health in danger.