Marathon runners called fat and slow.

Darius_Jedburgh

I would tend to agree. Anyone who "runs" a marathon in 7.5 hours could do it faster walking.
Pandering to the vocal minority who see it as their right to be deliberately uncompetitive. A marathon is a race, not a walk, and if they can't race then they should go away and loose weight and get fit.
Am I being too harsh? (Says he with a marathon PB of 2hrs 28mins)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48125731

graeme_s-2

If you do something as hard as you're physically able for 2 hours 28 minutes, and someone else (who's less fit and physically able) does something as hard as they're physically able for 7 hours and 30 minutes, then who's had the harder day out?

If people are challenging themselves and getting out and doing stuff then all power to them. Also the organisers had apparently asked that runner to help pace round people doing it in 7.5 hours.

lettingthedaysgoby

Franco di Banco wrote:

I would tend to agree. Anyone who "runs" a marathon in 7.5 hours could do it faster walking.
Pandering to the vocal minority who see it as their right to be deliberately uncompetitive. A marathon is a race, not a walk, and if they can't race then they should go away and loose weight and get fit.
Am I being too harsh? (Says he with a marathon PB of 2hrs 28mins)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48125731

What a thoroughly crappy attitude.

"I can go fast so others should too".

Nah.

robert88

Don't know a lot about marathons but I had this idea that if you had a good PB then you would tend to start way ahead of the slower runners and they would have no impact on your progress. Is that not the case?

haydenm

They might well be fat and slow (I doubt the fat and slow people would dispute that fact either) but being abused by race representitives is completely unacceptable given the context.

I am quite surprised at the number of out of shape participants there are at the London Marathon, if you'd signed up a year in advance you'd have thought you'd do a bit of training but then again we don't know where they started from, people have their own reasons for running/walking.

ugo.santalucia

Obviously unwarranted, but 7.5 hours is in essence a walk... and not even particularly brisk... so why enter a running event if the aim is to walk? There are charity walking events

robert88

HaydenM wrote:

They might well be fat and slow (I doubt the fat and slow people would dispute that fact either) but being abused by race representitives is completely unacceptable given the context.

I am quite surprised at the number of out of shape participants there are at the London Marathon, if you'd signed up a year in advance you'd have thought you'd do a bit of training but then again we don't know where they started from, people have their own reasons for running/walking.

Maybe the whole exercise needs to slim down or else they allow a fair bit more time before the broom waggon.

joe_totale-2

At least these participants are trying to do something about their fitness. Walking 26 miles is a decent amount of exercise, especially for someone who isn't used to exercise, we all had to start somewhere.
This kind of abuse is pretty uncalled for.

Also I imagine most of these participants achieving these kind of times were raising money for charity.

timothyw

To be fair, 7.5 hour marathon pace is a fairly brisk walk - 3.5mph, 5.6kph - I doubt the average person on the street (or more pertinently, in their car...) could manage that - hell, I'm not certain I could - certainly not without blisters and a bit of suffering.

For most people the marathon isn't a race, it is a challenge - ie can I run for 26 miles, can I do it in this amount of time, whatever - I'm sure the 7.5 hour bunch would love to be able to do it quicker.

haydenm

It's only a race rather than a challenge if you are in with a shot of winning the 'race', ie a select handful of elite runners, and not the OP

veronese68

I agree with the majority of responses to this, I wonder how many of the contractors dishing out the abuse would be willing to attempt something like that? I suspect a good number of them are lazy judgemental twunts.

Darius_Jedburgh

To the OP im guessing your a youngish person,

You couldn't be further from the truth. And I was considered to be a vet when I did my PB.

And despite what the precious darlings on here say I have no opinion on what went on. There are two sides to every story, and I'm not sitting in judgement for either side.

Seems like some on here cannot have a grown up debate without resorting to a slanging match.

aberdeen_lune

I watched it on the telly from the comfort of my couch. Some of the runners at the red charity start had to wait 53minutes to cross the start line. I reckon the organisers need to review the timing of their clean up squad and replenish the water stations for the later starters.

I do think you should train for it and be able to run continuously for the first half. Walk run from the beginning is not really on for a marathon. That’s more for a walkathon. Feel for the people abused there is no need for that.

haydenm

Franco di Banco wrote:

To the OP im guessing your a youngish person,

You couldn't be further from the truth. And I was considered to be a vet when I did my PB.

And despite what the precious darlings on here say I have no opinion on what went on. There are two sides to every story, and I'm not sitting in judgement for either side.

Seems like some on here cannot have a grown up debate without resorting to a slanging match.

You are judging them for being overweight, unfit and unsuitable for a running event which is deliberately trying to encourage slower runners to sign up. You literally said in your first post they should go away and train. That is an opinion so I'm not sure why you're unhappy about people disagreeing with you, your post wasn't neutral

robert88

Veronese68 wrote:

I agree with the majority of responses to this, I wonder how many of the contractors dishing out the abuse would be willing to attempt something like that? I suspect a good number of them are lazy judgemental twunts.

..or maybe they are just under-paid members of the gig economy. some of who will be resentful about their lowly role. I suspect they didn't have to pass some sort of test to gauge their interpersonal skills.

DeVlaeminck

Abusing people for not being good runners is horrible. For me a "good" marathon time would be sub 3, for the OP maybe faster, for others sub 4 or sub 2:10. I would no more accept Mo Farah and his mates standing by the road abusing me for running only 7 minute miles than I would someone abusing people for running 17 or 18 minute miles.

joenobody

Franco di Banco wrote:

Am I being too harsh?

Yes.

ugo.santalucia

TimothyW wrote:

To be fair, 7.5 hour marathon pace is a fairly brisk walk - 3.5mph, 5.6kph - I doubt the average person on the street (or more pertinently, in their car...) could manage that - hell, I'm not certain I could - certainly not without blisters and a bit of suffering.

For most people the marathon isn't a race, it is a challenge - ie can I run for 26 miles, can I do it in this amount of time, whatever - I'm sure the 7.5 hour bunch would love to be able to do it quicker.

Yes, but it's a running event... if you can't run at least half of it and walk the rest (which probably puts you in the 5 hour + bracket), I don't understand why you want to do that, rather than a walking challenge.
It seems to me people suffer of FOMO they are scared of missing out on a big social gathering they can boast about on social media and so they sign up for things they are not prepared to actually do or train for.
I am not sure this is something we should encourage... maybe there should be more glamorous walking challenges around

tangled_metal

Isn't Naismith's rule 4km/h plus half an hour for each 100m climbed? So 3.4mph is faster than that even without taking into account height gain.

Don't forget the pace has to be kept for 26 miles. That isn't necessarily easy. I've been into challenge walking before now and my hardest one was 50 miles (I like a challenge but I'm not masochistic). I kept 4.5mph for the first 16 miles but overall managed 3.8mph over 50 miles. I'm not a runner but did do running to achieve that plus stops at checkpoints. It's more relaxed than a marathon so if you needed 30.minutes you took it at a checkpoint.

As for 26 miles? I used to do and early one in the year and it was 27 miles over some very rough fells and moorland. I was at my fittest (not very compared to the runners doing it) and got under 7 hours. On the flat I know I can keep a 9 hour pace for 40 miles. That's with a mixture of walking and running. It's for fun and charity so I'm not really fussed with PBs and getting good times. Plus I'm usually with mates when doing it.

My point is really that London marathon is one of those two sided events. One is an elite race, the other is a fun charity event. 7.5 hour runners are in the latter group. 7.5 hour pace is still decent for some people. The London marathon organisers decided to be more inclusive in extending pacers to 7.5 hour pace. They should at least make it friendly to beyond that pace. Clearing up shouldn't even be started until much later IMHO.

As to n offensive behaviour? Well it was contractors hired to clean up. Their employers probably put them under pressure to get the job done to make more money on our. Time is money and it's weekend rates too. I can understand why they started the clear up. But it's the organisers who should have stopped them until the course was clear of entrants.

I'm sorry but IMHO this sounds like bad organisation and no criticism should be put at the tired feet of the runners / walkers.

haydenm

Tangled Metal wrote:

I'm sorry but IMHO this sounds like bad organisation and no criticism should be put at the tired feet of the runners / walkers.

This.

graeme_s-2

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Yes, but it's a running event... if you can't run at least half of it and walk the rest (which probably puts you in the 5 hour + bracket), I don't understand why you want to do that, rather than a walking challenge.
It seems to me people suffer of FOMO they are scared of missing out on a big social gathering they can boast about on social media and so they sign up for things they are not prepared to actually do or train for.
I am not sure this is something we should encourage... maybe there should be more glamorous walking challenges around

Ultimately isn't that between the organisers and the entrants? If they want to set a cut off at 3 hours or 5 hours or 8 hours, then that's up to them. They had a pacer set to finish at 7.5 hours, they'd obviously decided to allow people to do it in that kind of time.

ugo.santalucia

Graeme_S wrote:

Ultimately isn't that between the organisers and the entrants? If they want to set a cut off at 3 hours or 5 hours or 8 hours, then that's up to them. They had a pacer set to finish at 7.5 hours, they'd obviously decided to allow people to do it in that kind of time.

Agreed, I just don't understand the logic behind it. It might well be that there is an inverse correlation between the finish time and the amount of money raised for charity... going from the winner = 0 to the last finisher dressed like Jesus carrying the cross who maybe would raise 10 grand

thistle_

Graeme_S wrote:

Ultimately isn't that between the organisers and the entrants? If they want to set a cut off at 3 hours or 5 hours or 8 hours, then that's up to them. They had a pacer set to finish at 7.5 hours, they'd obviously decided to allow people to do it in that kind of time.

+1
If there's a cutoff time it's usually well communicated when you sign up for these things.

Bumo_b

Personally, I am just plain disappointed. Find the elitist attitude of some quite shocking. Anyone completing the marathon should be commended on taking part as walking/running/jogging or crawling over 26 miles is a huge achievement. The idea of doing that distance not on two or four wheels is quite horrendous to me.
As for the speed some completed the course at, I can't comment! At the year before lasts L'Etape, my speed up the Col D'Izoard in one part topped 3.3mph.
Maybe I shouldn't have been allowed to take part as I was in the bottom half of the finishers!

kingstongraham

Franco di Banco wrote:

if they can't race then they should go away and loose weight and get fit.
Am I being too harsh? (Says he with a marathon PB of 2hrs 28mins)

2:28 isn't much use either if you're racing it. That's about 4 miles behind the winner.

Pross

For someone who has spent their life sitting on the sofa I have no issue if they decide to get up and make the effort, even if they do have to walk the whole distance and especially if they are raising money for charity. It can, however, be slightly frustrating when year after year you fail to get a ballot place and someone else gets one and does it in that amount of time as they haven't bothered trying to train.

To me it is all about how much effort it took someone rather than their time. I had a friend do it a couple of years back, she'd been a running club member for a few years and had done a few half marathons albeit at fairly slow paces. She seemed to run about the first mile or two and then walk the rest chatting with someone then posted all over social media with marathonrunner hashtags (it was her second marathon and on the first her photos showed her walking with the street sweeper in the background and regular photos of her stopping to hug family members). I felt it was taking the mick asking for sponsorship for what was pretty much a stroll.

john80

In my entry pack this year you were told that after 7.5 hours the roads would be reopened and then you would have to complete on the pavement. After 8 hours you would not be recorded as a finisher. It is therefore logical that the 42 kilometres of barriers would have to be removed prior to the road reopening and therefore some element of working whilst competitors are on the course is unavoidable. What is not clear to me is when the 7.5 and 8 hours starts but then I was aiming for sub 4 so it did not really affect me.

Whilst I don't agree with workers being rude if we assume that this is true but lets face it they may also have been getting comments from members of the public who by this point are probably asking what the point of their endeavour is. We have got to remember that the London Marathon is probably the most oversubscribed race in the UK and as such all those messing around at over 7 hours are taking a place from someone who could train and do it much quicker if they could get an entry. Road workers can't work in free moving traffic picking up litter from 42000 runners can they.

tangled_metal

Aaah! So 7.5 hours had a pace setting runner but it was also the point they started to clear up according to race pack notes. Will that's good but the pacer for 7.5 hours was passing through areas being cleaned. If that was right then the cleaners were starting early and also being offensive which has no justification.

The other point, I think the reports were that a 6 hour finisher was running in areas being cleaned and got a chemical burn as a result. That suggests the event wasn't allowing for what was written in their race pack. Bad organisation on the day I still maintain.

OK so you think the event should operate with cut offs and keep it for those who are faster? Well that's up to the event. However whatever cutoff is applied to an event needs to be followed by those clearing up afterwards too. This year it was 7.5 hour pace for clearing up and 8 for recording.

Whatever the nature of the race the organisers want to create they need to be consistent with everything including the people they use in the running of the event. But even more important IMHO is that being offensive to anyone doing the event should really not be tolerated. That's from participants and those working on the event and clear up.

morstar

KingstonGraham wrote:

Franco di Banco wrote:

if they can't race then they should go away and loose weight and get fit.
Am I being too harsh? (Says he with a marathon PB of 2hrs 28mins)

2:28 isn't much use either if you're racing it. That's about 4 miles behind the winner.

This! Unless you won, you're just on a sliding scale of how much you lost by.

I'm a middling runner / cyclist. Hit some long term objectives riding TT's a few years back and decided to go do something different. I was never going to win a race, just get slightly further up the scale of middling which I decided counted for nothing.

To the OP: 2:28, you're a better runner than I but still just another nobody in the greater scheme of running. Get off your high horse and accept that some people who are slower got up and got out. Within that group, some would have been sauntering, others would have been in a whole world of discomfort.

Maybe the OP is just a lazy runner who is physically capable of 2:10 but too darn lazy to deliver. Where does that leave you in the greater scheme of judgement?

Pross

I suspect the OP has never been near a 2:28 marathon (which would have put them just outside the top 50 in this year's race which no matter how much of a dickish post they've made would be a seriously good run) and is more likely to be one of our regulars under a new name stirring the pot.

john80

Tangled Metal wrote:

Aaah! So 7.5 hours had a pace setting runner but it was also the point they started to clear up according to race pack notes. Will that's good but the pacer for 7.5 hours was passing through areas being cleaned. If that was right then the cleaners were starting early and also being offensive which has no justification.

The other point, I think the reports were that a 6 hour finisher was running in areas being cleaned and got a chemical burn as a result. That suggests the event wasn't allowing for what was written in their race pack. Bad organisation on the day I still maintain.

OK so you think the event should operate with cut offs and keep it for those who are faster? Well that's up to the event. However whatever cutoff is applied to an event needs to be followed by those clearing up afterwards too. This year it was 7.5 hour pace for clearing up and 8 for recording.

Whatever the nature of the race the organisers want to create they need to be consistent with everything including the people they use in the running of the event. But even more important IMHO is that being offensive to anyone doing the event should really not be tolerated. That's from participants and those working on the event and clear up.

The event has to run with cut offs as whilst a lot of the residents will enjoy the closed roads and spectacle I doubt they would agree to a midnight road closure to suit the slowest person alive. There are also a large number of volunteers how are located along the course. Should they be out till 8 and night on the off chance Mavis comes past having essentially sat on her arse all year instead of training. I attended the event and was pretty impressed by the organisation to be honest. Storm in a teacup comes to mind on this one. The woman with the blister that turned into a chemical burn. What were the contractors using and what were they doing. I imagine it is a mixture of road sweeping, maybe a bit of pressure washing and a bucket load of sign and barrier removal.