| |
Main
Date: 18 Apr 2006 10:26:29
From: dwjones45
Subject: a boston marathon question
|
realizing that one has to qualify to run boston then why is it that there
were runners who took up to 7-1/2 hours to complete the race which is by the
way is 2 hours longer than the highest qualifying time? i just do not get
it.
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2006 07:33:02
From: Phil M.
Subject: Re: a boston marathon question
|
dwjones45 wrote:
> realizing that one has to qualify to run boston then why is it that there
> were runners who took up to 7-1/2 hours to complete the race which is by the
> way is 2 hours longer than the highest qualifying time? i just do not get
> it.
Some of these people could have been allowed to participate for
charity.
--
Phil M.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2006 01:35:53
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: a boston marathon question
|
"Phil M." <pmarg@charter.net > wrote in message
news:1145370782.244336.19490@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> dwjones45 wrote:
>
>> realizing that one has to qualify to run boston then why is it that
>> there
>> were runners who took up to 7-1/2 hours to complete the race which is
>> by the
>> way is 2 hours longer than the highest qualifying time? i just do
>> not get
>> it.
>
> Some of these people could have been allowed to participate for
> charity.
True, or possibly bandits. Did they have numbers? And then there is the
case where people have a bad day, what I call shit the bed, and decide
to walk rather then bail. Also so remember even those that did qualify
did in the last year or so. It's impossible to have come to the dance
under/un/not trained compared to their qualifier.
-DF
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2006 09:32:10
From: Newsdude
Subject: Re: a boston marathon question
|
"dwjones45" <dwjones45@comcast.net > wrote in
news:2d2dnYTau4aPatnZnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com:
> realizing that one has to qualify to run boston then why is it that
> there were runners who took up to 7-1/2 hours to complete the race
> which is by the way is 2 hours longer than the highest qualifying
> time? i just do not get it.
>
Well, there were 94 runners over the age of 70, 18 visually impaired
runners, and 9 mobility-impaired. They could account for some of those odd
times.
But, after watching the start on OLN yesterday, I saw more than a few folks
'running' who made me realize that the vaunted qualifying times must not
matter if you know the right person or pay the right price.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2006 18:48:31
From: R Walter
Subject: Re: a boston marathon question
|
dwjones45 wrote:
> realizing that one has to qualify to run boston then why is it that there
> were runners who took up to 7-1/2 hours to complete the race which is by the
> way is 2 hours longer than the highest qualifying time? i just do not get
> it.
>
>
As Phil previously said, there are many people who run the Boston
marathon because they have raised money for charity. The charity
runners do not have to meet a qualifying time standard. I have known a
few "slow" runners who have done the charity thing just so they could
run Boston. In addition, anyone can have a bad day or get injured on
the course. Even the Kenyans DNF sometimes.
|
|
