Slow London Marathon Runners 3.5mph Abused.

Morning All.

There is an article on the BBC site https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48125731 saying that the London Marathon organisers had a pace maker running the race in 7.5 hours in order to make the race more inclusive.

Those going at that pace were apparently insulted for going so slowly.

At first glance and and second and subsequent glances I just don't get the point of entering the London Marathon to walk it.

I certainly get those who jog it and find that it is harder than they thought and have walk breaks, I've only ever done half marathons. I just did them by myself during the week when I felt like it.

I find it hard to justify shutting down any town for a sporting event when those taking part aren't entering into the spirit by trying to do it properly.

Fairly near to me there are a few sprint triathlons and park races, sure some people are very slow but they are all running, cycling and swimming at a hard level for them and not causing much if any disruption to others.

I would have thought a 5mph pace (jogging) would be a fair cut off, if you can't put the effort in to achieve this then we can't justify the chaos caused by closing the roads.

The council/ race organisers could easily make the route easy to download so that if you want to walk it you can do so at anytime.

Am I the only grumpy one that sort of agrees that the really slow ones were taking the piss out of the event and the volunteers that make up much of the marshalling and water station staff?

Bye

Ian
 
Last edited:

Fab Foodie

hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
Are you human?
 

alicat

Legendary Member
Location
Staffs
I agree with Ian. I wouldn't condone insulting anyone, but I do think there has to be a cut off speed to justify the roads being closed. It could be set low and a bit of leeway given for someone who has run the race and hits the wall late in the rate.
 

T4tomo

Veteran
Fir some people doing a marathon in 7 hours is an achievement. At least they have got their unfit arse off the couch and are doing something about it.
The roads are closed anyway, leaving them closed a bit longer isn't a major issue.
 

screenman

Legendary Member
Isn't this similar to the argument drivers use when they moan about cyclists?

"If you can't pedal at 60mph you shouldn't be on the roads"
Yes it certainly is. Cyclist should only be on cycle paths or they can use the roads when I am not on them.
 

screenman

Legendary Member
I agree with Ian. I wouldn't condone insulting anyone, but I do think there has to be a cut off speed to justify the roads being closed. It could be set low and a bit of leeway given for someone who has run the race and hits the wall late in the rate.
You are wanting to ban a good few people there, many with disabilities.
 

winjim

✊🏻✊🏾 🌈 😷
I agree with Ian. I wouldn't condone insulting anyone, but I do think there has to be a cut off speed to justify the roads being closed. It could be set low and a bit of leeway given for someone who has run the race and hits the wall late in the rate.
There is a cut off. It's 7.5 hours. So the organisers need to stick to it. If you're ahead of the slowest pacer then you are part of the race and all the facilities should be available to you, not be packed up around you. And anybody connected with the event found to be abusing the participants should be whipped round the course in, say, winners time plus 10%?
 
OP
IanSmithCSE

IanSmithCSE

Über Member
Good morning,

Did everyone read the BBC article? :-)

The key point of the article was that the participants were complaining that the race organisers and volunteers manning the water stations (disputed) were not prepared to wait for them.

runners on Tower Bridge had also had "dodge round sewage collection lorries" and run through chemical spray used to clean the streets.

as early as the three-mile mark, water stations had been packed away

It was this sense of entitlement that I thought worth talking about.

Bye

Ian
 
Top Bottom