Dublin Marathon 2013: Mod Note #316 NO RACE SWAPS

jmcc99_98

Such sad news. RIP. Two tragic losses in the race series. Thoughts with both their families.

RIP

That's awful news

Oryx

We do this for fun, mostly, and as a hobby, but this is a reminder that we all need to keep an eye on our heart health and general health in the midst of all this. I know I for one, dont get checkups, and we all should.

My sympathy to that guys family, such an awful thing to happen.

dubrgn

RIP Ricki, at least, we can take some comfort, that his family from the UK where given the opportunity to be with him in the end.

RoryW

foxyboxer wrote: »

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rorywilliams/10539501213/in/set-72157637053400996

I was clean shaven when the gun went off

Your photo is now No 2 in the all time views on my Flickr Account !!

This is the No 1 http://www.flickr.com/photos/rorywilliams/3188777295/ and you are catching fast....

Krusty_Clown

Just did a quick analysis of the top 1,000 runners:

• 87% of the runners (myself included) ran a positive split (second half was slower than the first half).
• For those who ran a positive split, on average they ran the second half just under six minutes slower than the first half
• For those who ran a negative split, on average they ran the second half 1 minute and 37 seconds quicker than the first half
• Tunkuska ran the third most impressive negative split
• Some (genuine) runners improved by over 1,400 positions, between the 10k chip timing mat, and the finish line
• Success does not come cheap. Many runners with aggressive goals (1:20 - 1:30 first half) paid the price, and were passed by 300-500 runners.
• Most evenly paced negative split? Maria Mc Cambridge, with a 1:19:26 first half, and a 1:19:25 second half (despite having to stop).
• Most evenly paced positive split? Claire Mc Carthy, with a 1:19:43 first half, and a 1:19:44 second half
• Some people cheated

ecoli

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Just did a quick analysis of the top 1,000 runners:

• 87% of the runners (myself included) ran a positive split (second half was slower than the first half).
• For those who ran a positive split, on average they ran the second half just under six minutes slower than the first half
• For those who ran a negative split, on average they ran the second half 1 minute and 37 seconds quicker than the first half
• Tunkuska ran the third most impressive negative split
• Some (genuine) runners improved by over 1,400 positions, between the 10k chip timing mat, and the finish line
• Success does not come cheap. Many runners with aggressive goals (1:20 - 1:30 first half) paid the price, and were passed by 300-500 runners.
• Most evenly paced negative split? Maria Mc Cambridge, with a 1:19:26 first half, and a 1:19:25 second half (despite having to stop).
• Most evenly paced positive split? Claire Mc Carthy, with a 1:19:43 first half, and a 1:19:44 second half
• One cheeky runner managed a 1:50 first half and a 1:05 second half, out-performing the entire field in the second half of the race :eek:
• Another cheeky runner crossed the 10k mark in around 7,600th place, and managed to improve to a top 200 position overall :eek:

There is always one :rolleyes:

Krusty_Clown

ecoli wrote: »

There is always one :rolleyes:

There is always at least three.

It's a bit of a massive co-incidence that the first and second females managed the most even splits (out of the top 1,000 runners).

Dilbert75

And I'm sure deep down I'm happier with my 4 hr + non pb than he or she is with that "result".

Krusty_Clown

Dilbert75 wrote: »

And I'm sure deep down I'm happier with my 4 hr + non pb than he or she is with that "result".

He looked fairly happy crossing the finish line.

rob w

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Just did a quick analysis of the top 1,000 runners:

• 87% of the runners (myself included) ran a positive split (second half was slower than the first half).
• For those who ran a positive split, on average they ran the second half just under six minutes slower than the first half
• For those who ran a negative split, on average they ran the second half 1 minute and 37 seconds quicker than the first half
• Tunkuska ran the third most impressive negative split
• Some (genuine) runners improved by over 1,400 positions, between the 10k chip timing mat, and the finish line
• Success does not come cheap. Many runners with aggressive goals (1:20 - 1:30 first half) paid the price, and were passed by 300-500 runners.
• Most evenly paced negative split? Maria Mc Cambridge, with a 1:19:26 first half, and a 1:19:25 second half (despite having to stop).
• Most evenly paced positive split? Claire Mc Carthy, with a 1:19:43 first half, and a 1:19:44 second half
• One cheeky runner managed a 1:50 first half and a 1:05 second half, out-performing the entire field in the second half of the race :eek:
• Another cheeky runner crossed the 10k mark in around 7,600th place, and managed to improve to a top 200 position overall :eek:

Thats a great summary!

How did you work out the position of runners at the different markers? Was it just by sorting results on the tdl website or something else?

I would love to find out what sort of position I was in at the half and finish markers!

Krusty_Clown

rob w wrote: »

How did you work out the position of runners at the different markers? Was it just by sorting results on the tdl website or something else?

I would love to find out what sort of position I was in at the half and finish markers!

It's all on the TDL site; no sorting required. Just look at the stage position and chip position columns.

tunguska

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Just did a quick analysis of the top 1,000 runners:

• 87% of the runners (myself included) ran a positive split (second half was slower than the first half).
• For those who ran a positive split, on average they ran the second half just under six minutes slower than the first half
• For those who ran a negative split, on average they ran the second half 1 minute and 37 seconds quicker than the first half
• Tunkuska ran the third most impressive negative split
• Some (genuine) runners improved by over 1,400 positions, between the 10k chip timing mat, and the finish line
• Success does not come cheap. Many runners with aggressive goals (1:20 - 1:30 first half) paid the price, and were passed by 300-500 runners.
• Most evenly paced negative split? Maria Mc Cambridge, with a 1:19:26 first half, and a 1:19:25 second half (despite having to stop).
• Most evenly paced positive split? Claire Mc Carthy, with a 1:19:43 first half, and a 1:19:44 second half
• One cheeky runner managed a 1:50 first half and a 1:05 second half, out-performing the entire field in the second half of the race :eek:
• Another cheeky runner crossed the 10k mark in around 7,600th place, and managed to improve to a top 200 position overall :eek:

Nice facts but I think you should be busy writing a race report......
Did I say well done to you on monday? My brain was mush and my teeth chattering with the cold, I couldn't remember if I had congratulated you or not. Plus I was concerned about you're colour, I shouldve taken a picture. You were sitting on a step, face purple, shivering and drinking a can of cheap looking beer.....
Well done you ran a great race.

rob w

Thanks, only had a quick look yesterday, ill check it out later!

BrokenMan

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

He looked fairly happy crossing the finish line.

Feck sake. There's photos of one if them walking in the park. No bloody shame.

sassyj

BrokenMan wrote: »

Feck sake. There's photos of one if them walking in the park. No bloody shame.

It baffles me every time I hear of people doing this, it really does :rolleyes:

Gavlor

tunguska wrote: »

. You were sitting on a step, face purple, shivering and drinking a can of cheap looking beer......

Krusty is taking the username way to serious!

Great race and report by yourself Tunguska......

Dilbert75

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

He looked fairly happy crossing the finish line.

Put it another way I feel I've more to be proud of with a slow but honest time than he has with a fast but fictitious time.

Shedite27

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

It's all on the TDL site; no sorting required. Just look at the stage position and chip position columns.

Sorry if I'm being an idiot, but where are these links? Is it on this page somewhere? Leaderboard or Tracking tab?
http://track.rtrt.me/e/TDL-DUBLIN-2013#b=RSXMLT9P&v=lboard&c=top-men-marathon&l=10K

PWEI

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Just did a quick analysis of the top 1,000 runners:

• 87% of the runners (myself included) ran a positive split (second half was slower than the first half).
• For those who ran a positive split, on average they ran the second half just under six minutes slower than the first half
• For those who ran a negative split, on average they ran the second half 1 minute and 37 seconds quicker than the first half
• Tunkuska ran the third most impressive negative split
• Some (genuine) runners improved by over 1,400 positions, between the 10k chip timing mat, and the finish line
• Success does not come cheap. Many runners with aggressive goals (1:20 - 1:30 first half) paid the price, and were passed by 300-500 runners.
• Most evenly paced negative split? Maria Mc Cambridge, with a 1:19:26 first half, and a 1:19:25 second half (despite having to stop).
• Most evenly paced positive split? Claire Mc Carthy, with a 1:19:43 first half, and a 1:19:44 second half
• One cheeky runner managed a 1:50 first half and a 1:05 second half, out-performing the entire field in the second half of the race :eek:
• Another cheeky runner crossed the 10k mark in around 7,600th place, and managed to improve to a top 200 position overall :eek:

Funnily enough he doesn't have any chip time at the 20 mile mark. :rolleyes:

What ever happened to the guy who took a shortcut last year? Did he get banned from taking part again?

morceli

ecoli wrote: »

There is always one :rolleyes:

It's funny, myself and the brother were at that 10 mile mark and the finish, When looking atthe finish there were 2 runners who went well sub 3 it was very clear he had only just joined the course. Dont think I even need to check photos to know who they were.

scargill

Could any of those dodgy results be chip errors?
If not then I presume the result will be DQ'd?
Name and shame if they are genuine cheaters....

morceli

scargill wrote: »

Could any of those dodgy results be chip errors?
If not then I presume the result will be DQ'd?
Name and shame if they are genuine cheaters....

Nope, easy to check photos of people running and can see one of them walking in the park early in the race, won't post photos after what went on last year but its jsut silly.

TFBubendorfer

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Just did a quick analysis of the top 1,000 runners:

• 87% of the runners (myself included) ran a positive split (second half was slower than the first half).
• For those who ran a positive split, on average they ran the second half just under six minutes slower than the first half
• For those who ran a negative split, on average they ran the second half 1 minute and 37 seconds quicker than the first half
• Tunkuska ran the third most impressive negative split
• Some (genuine) runners improved by over 1,400 positions, between the 10k chip timing mat, and the finish line
• Success does not come cheap. Many runners with aggressive goals (1:20 - 1:30 first half) paid the price, and were passed by 300-500 runners.
• Most evenly paced negative split? Maria Mc Cambridge, with a 1:19:26 first half, and a 1:19:25 second half (despite having to stop).
• Most evenly paced positive split? Claire Mc Carthy, with a 1:19:43 first half, and a 1:19:44 second half
• One cheeky runner managed a 1:50 first half and a 1:05 second half, out-performing the entire field in the second half of the race :eek:
• Another cheeky runner crossed the 10k mark in around 7,600th place, and managed to improve to a top 200 position overall :eek:

• One runner managed to finish in 2:59:59. Impressively precise pacing, that!

PWEI

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Just did a quick analysis of the top 1,000 runners:

• 87% of the runners (myself included) ran a positive split (second half was slower than the first half).
• For those who ran a positive split, on average they ran the second half just under six minutes slower than the first half
• For those who ran a negative split, on average they ran the second half 1 minute and 37 seconds quicker than the first half
• Tunkuska ran the third most impressive negative split
• Some (genuine) runners improved by over 1,400 positions, between the 10k chip timing mat, and the finish line
• Success does not come cheap. Many runners with aggressive goals (1:20 - 1:30 first half) paid the price, and were passed by 300-500 runners.
• Most evenly paced negative split? Maria Mc Cambridge, with a 1:19:26 first half, and a 1:19:25 second half (despite having to stop).
• Most evenly paced positive split? Claire Mc Carthy, with a 1:19:43 first half, and a 1:19:44 second half
• One cheeky runner managed a 1:50 first half and a 1:05 second half, out-performing the entire field in the second half of the race :eek:
• Another cheeky runner crossed the 10k mark in around 7,600th place, and managed to improve to a top 200 position overall :eek:

He did his first 10k in 57:57 but finished in a time of 02:53:00 in 157th position.
At least the other fella ran the first half.

Krusty_Clown

PWEI wrote: »

He did his first 10k in xx:xx but finished in a time of yy:yy:yy in zzzth position.
At least the other fella ran the first half.

Less of the lynch mobs, please folks. I kept the statistics intentionally vague to avoid any finger pointing. They know they cheated. It's enough.

cian_r

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Less of the lynch mobs, please folks. I kept the statistics intentionally vague to avoid any finger pointing. They know they cheated. It's enough.

Maybe I'm naive here, but I dont get it. What do they gain from cheating in a marathon? Unless you are in with a real chance of actually winning the race, you are only really competing against yourself. So whats the point of cheating??

shoottherunner

Shedite27 wrote: »

Very sad. Experienced club runner too, although first time at the marathon distance - finished in 3:10

Ironically running it to raise funds for the British Heart Foundation

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/dublin-marathon-runner-dies-following-collapse-on-monday-29712049.html

Had just sat down to write a race report when I read this. Quite a shock. Ricki finished a few places ahead of me, the paramedics were arriving as I passed the finish line. I was too busy over celebrating by my own finish to take much notice, it was only a few hours after the race that I started to wonder what had happened. Like everyone else, i've been hoping he'd pull through since then.

Monkey Allen

How is it possible to cheat in this?

dechol

Monkey Allen wrote: »

How is it possible to cheat in this?

Take a short cut! Missing chip times from Timing mats / unusual splits though would mean disqualification I would think.

Monkey Allen

dechol wrote: »

Take a short cut! Missing chip times from Timing mats / unusual splits though would mean disqualification I would think.

Yes I understand they could take a short cut but, I would have thought they wouldn't register a finish time if they didn't reach every checkpoint.

overpronator

So are people actually biking or driving from certain points in the course to another and jumping back in, is that the general jist? Jaysus that's about as sad as it gets in marathon terms.

patsypantaloni

I finished in 5.15 which for most people is a very slow time, but I know the effort that went in to covering every step of that 26.2 miles to get to the finish line, and I know the sense of achievement that comes with that...

Just can't get my head around the mentality of those who would cheat, in the end they're fooling only themselves and have absolutely nothing to be proud of. I guess I'd rather be a very slow finisher than a very fast cheat

nerraw1111

Richie's charity page has gone up by 10 times the amount today. Was £200 or so, it's now over £2600

https://www.justgiving.com/RickiSavage/

Duanington

PWEI wrote: »

He did his first 10k in 57:57 but finished in a time of 02:53:00 in 157th position.
At least the other fella ran the first half.

I love reading through these types of stats - I would not have even checked my own split stats if I hadn't looked at these, having done so, I have just realised I had a completely even split - DOWN TO THE SECOND :eek:



Marathon's are good

Duanington

nerraw1111 wrote: »

Richie's charity page has gone up by 10 times the amount today. Was £200 or so, it's now over £2600

https://www.justgiving.com/RickiSavage/[/QUOTE]

This really does put perspective on the whole thing - similiar to the poor lad in the half earlier in the year. RIP

foralongtime

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Less of the lynch mobs, please folks. I kept the statistics intentionally vague to avoid any finger pointing. They know they cheated. It's enough.

You're far too nice! "They know who they are" works fine if someone makes a mistake, wins at something and then feels remorse or guilt. These guys put a lot of planning and organisation into ducking out somewhere in the PP, hopping on a stashed bike and sneaking back in on the other side. I don't like internet vigilantism either but a marathon is a hard fought achievement and these people cheated.

That aside, fair play on the numbers, I love seeing statistics

Big Logger

foralongtime wrote: »

You're far too nice! "They know who they are" works fine if someone makes a mistake, wins at something and then feels remorse or guilt. These guys put a lot of planning and organisation into ducking out somewhere in the PP, hopping on a stashed bike and sneaking back in on the other side. I don't like internet vigilantism either but a marathon is a hard fought achievement and these people cheated.

That aside, fair play on the numbers, I love seeing statistics

I think KC is right saying what he said there, its not being nice its being civilised, especially if you have an influence on other peoples opinions.

foralongtime

Big Logger wrote: »

I think KC is right saying what he said there, its not being nice its being civilised, especially if you have an influence on other peoples opinions.

I'd love to know why they did it though. Was it an idea from the very start or did they go through with the training, realise they wouldn't be able to do it and then rather than pull out, do this. People go to all sorts of lengths to protect their pride, like that guy in the UK who got arrested for phoning in a bomb threat on his wedding day because he hadn't booked a venue!

Big Logger

foralongtime wrote: »

I'd love to know why they did it though. Was it an idea from the very start or did they go through with the training, realise they wouldn't be able to do it and then rather than pull out, do this. People go to all sorts of lengths to protect their pride, like that guy in the UK who got arrested for phoning in a bomb threat on his wedding day because he hadn't booked a venue!

haha, that's bloody crazy!

Yeah, id say a lot of it is to do with pride and ego, knowing their friends and family will look it up and they can claim to be this great runner.
Its a bit extreme and you have to feel sorry for them.
I wouldn't even bother getting annoyed about it, they won't experience the exhilaration of actually achieving an honest finish.

Dilbert75

Big Logger wrote: »

Its a bit extreme and you have to feel sorry for them.
I wouldn't even bother getting annoyed about it, they won't experience the exhilaration of actually achieving an honest finish.

Exactly this.

Hard Worker

I know there's a lot of posters here who volunteered all through the weekend and on Monday. Well done and thanks. Also, well done to the pacers who again did an excellent job. Can't really thank you all enough.
The runners did the easy bit

runsir

Hey, could anyone tell me if these guys from http://www.sportstravelinternational.com/STI/Home.html had the stand in the expo or was it another company.

Thanks

RayCun

http://www.dublinmarathonexpo.com/
lists them among the exhibitors

Cabaal

Sent off a link to the charity page for the runner that died to thejournal.ie asking them to post it, they've just posted it
Figured some good might as well come from the tragedy

http://thescore.thejournal.ie/dublin-marathon-runner-charity-donations-1154088-Oct2013/

Might be no harm trying to get any other news sources to list the link,

vitani

There's a story in today's Irish Mirror about Gary O'Hanlon having his phone stolen at the Marathon Expo. He had his hand broken when trying to get it back, and thinks that's why he didn't break 2.20 on Monday: http://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/other-sport/athletics/dublin-marathon-phone-thieves-cost-2657662

Duanington

vitani wrote: »

There's a story in today's Irish Mirror about Gary O'Hanlon having his phone stolen at the Marathon Expo. He had his hand broken when trying to get it back, and thinks that's why he didn't break 2.20 on Monday: http://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/other-sport/athletics/dublin-marathon-phone-thieves-cost-2657662[/QUOTE]

Some going to finish where he did all considered

Sparkles2012

runsir wrote: »

Hey, could anyone tell me if these guys from http://www.sportstravelinternational.com/STI/Home.html had the stand in the expo or was it another company.

Thanks

Yeah they were there, Boston was the only tour sold out incase you were interested.

runsir

Sparkles2012 wrote: »

Yeah they were there, Boston was the only tour sold out incase you were interested.

Have my Boston entry, just looking to see their travel arrangements, be good to go with a group.

walshb

Condolences to the family of the man who passed away. Desperately sad. To go for a run and to not return home. Tragic!