Comments on: 2007 Chicago Marathon Trainwreck

By: stacysaw

stacysaw — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:13:50 +0000

I’m late to this party, but how can “slow, fat, out of shape” runners drink all the water when there are 35,000 people ahead of them? David’s comment above is probably more to the point - people running faster were doing everything they could to stay hydrated and the supply just gave out. I’m a way back of the packer myself, and the only thing I’ve ever seen “my people” take too much of is time. :-) i’m doing the vegas marathon in a few weeks, so we’ll see if they’ve got their organizational act together.

By: Terrell

Terrell — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:12:05 +0000

I agree with everything you’re saying. What’s strange is that here in Atlanta where I live, local organizers stage the Peachtree Road Race every year on the 4th of July, which is among the hottest days of the year here. It draws around 55,000 runners, outstripping even the Chicago event. I guess the difference is the distance — the Peachtree is a 10K, vs. 26.2 miles for the Chicago Marathon. Still, they’ve got the logistics down.

By: david

david — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:32:44 +0000

I think the motive was not bean counting stinginess. Their reputation is more valuable than the moeny, over the long term. A friend of mine ran the race and he relayed to me that he stopped at every aid station and drank whatever was there. That from a guy who trains in Florida heat. He must have taken in 2-3 time more fluid than normal. I think their planners screwed up and under-supplied the route. Same thing happened in Atlanta last March. For a first time race they bit off too much mega-race identity for their ING sponsor and blew it with none or none-left water stations on the hottest day on record in Atlanta for March 25.

By: Vickie

Vickie — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:24:34 +0000

Well my comment may be long, but hopefully worthwhile. I agree with you about the huge numbers for marathons, or any event for that matter. While my first marathon was Chicago (I do live in the Midwest, so its a popular choice), numbers were down that year because of extreme COLD temperatures. The next year, they moved the race up on the calendar by 2 weeks and ran into warm (75*) weather. Still, nothing close to this past weekend. Since then, watching the numbers in that race climb, I have never had a desire to go back. The 5,000 or so I ran with was plenty. And I have avoided as much as possible other mega events mainly because I hate the hassle of the crowds. And the expense is a factor too, with Chicago not being a cheap place to stay. I have purposely looked for smaller venues in doing race distances I am interested in. Same with triathlons. Even the Ironman events have a cap at 2000-2500, and for good reason. It is a number that can be managed well under any conditions. (That and you just can’t put more people in a body of water at one time and still be safe.) And then there is the other factor for me. I am often last at events, meaning there will be nothing left at the finish for me to eat or drink. So I come prepared and always bring everything I think I will need. And when they run out, do you think anyone cares? No. Just as more than likely no one really cared about the unfolding events at Chicago–until there was a disaster. Then there was the usual scramble and the blame game later. I actually read one article that blamed the whole mess on the slow, fat, untrained runners, blaming them for trying to take on something that was out of their league. What most races are starting to recognize is that the average finishing time for most marathoners, particularly women, is in the 5 hour range, and have extended their cutoff times to reflect this. When I ran Chicago, the cutoff was 5 hours, and remained at 5 hours until (I think) close to the year 2000. And while I ran a 4:10 marathon, I was terribly worried about not making the cutoff. And then to add insult to injury, my 4:10 was scoffed at by several people I work with (who ran faster marathons on a regular basis) and by a guy at the gym who ran a 2:35 the same day. Was there any comparison between him and me? No way. He was a 29 yr. old male, close to elite male; I was a 40 yr. old first time marathoner. It took me years to get over feeling inadequate for that performance, while I would kill for that time now. And that attitude persists apparently and came out loud and clear after the weekend fiasco. I would highly recommend a boycott of the Chicago marathon for a good long time, until maybe they get an attitude adjustment. Its highly unlikely a repeat situation would occur in the future, and to anticipate and prepare for the possibility of something like this happening again isn’t practical. But I would not feel comfortable ever again entrusting myself for however many hours it took to complete that race.