'Officially', 9th in my age group of 188. Top 5%. 1:41:17
The race was my fourth outdoor run of 2017. The first being the 5 mile Madison / Fleet Feet New Years Day Dash, the second an Arboretum run with Endurance House and the third a slow 7 miler in Austin the day before the race.
Austin was a 'destination' race. With limited outdoor miles, my expectations were not high and the finish was a pleasant surprise. I finished the race and got the results print out - 8th place - nice. And then when the official results were posted I dropped to 9th. It happens. Gun time and clock time are different.
My (bib number 12598) online splits ...
5k 24:11 7:45 Rank 310
10k 47:07 7:33 Rank 272
15k 1:11:26 7:38 Rank 239
20k 1:36:16 7:43 Rank 222
Finish 1:41:17 7:44 Rank 216
Then I noticed a gap in the time of the 7th place finisher - bib number 12039
5k 31:11 10:00 Rank 3000
10k 1:01:26 9:51 Rank 2916
15k - missed the mat... and then reappears at the 20k mat...
20k 1:33:29 7:29 Rank 159 - what?!? huh?!?
Finish 1:39.42 7:37 Rank 183
If the 10k and 20k times are 'accurate' - that means the 10k between the 10 and 20 were run in 32:03 or 5:17 per mile.
And the last 0.7 mile - the difference between the 20k and the finish - were run in 6:13 or 8:53 per mile.
What happened to the missing 10k? My theory is a 2.93 mile cut. A run totaling 10.1 miles run at a 9:40 pace is consistent with the 5 and 10k times.
The map below shows the location of the 15k timing mat - the one that was missed - the 8 mile and 11 mile locations, and a direct path on Winsted back on to the course.
Here 2017's 12039 Bib 2015 results. Much more consistent with a 10:00 runner than a 7:45 runner. (Especially after the 5 and 10 k start).
I don't think so.
Let's give 12039 the benefit of the doubt. Just some hapless occasional runner that cut the course for whatever reason not trying to improve his official finish. Why is this is important? It questions the integrity of the race and race officials.
The Boston Marathon is a qualified time event. The Austin Marathon is a "Boston Qualifier". Having a 'Qualifying Time' does not necessarily gain entrance in to the race, as there are more people applying than there are spots. Race entries are awarded from fastest to slowest qualifying times, by age group, until the race is full.
For example, my age group qualifying time is 3:40:00. I've missed qualifying twice. One with a time of 3:40:28 and then again at 3:40:08. Eight seconds. The difference between running good and bad tangents. I ran a qualifying time in 2016 of 3:37:45. The 2017 cut off time was 2:09 under standards. Or 3:37:51. My time would have been six seconds below the race entry time. Six seconds over the course of 26.2 miles and hundreds of hours of cross training.
Six seconds; that's about ten feet.
Hundreds of times are thrown out of major marathons each year because the numbers don't 'add up'. It is the responsibility of the race director and timing company to analyze the data and qualify the race and racers as having integrity. A half marathoner in a mixed race that is allowed to course cut questions just when are the rules of fair play allowed? Top 10 top 100? When I feel like it? Evidently not in the half marathon age group M55-59 top 10. I trust there was not course cutting allowed in the marathon age group M55-59 allowing some runner to 'qualify' with a time less than 3:37:51. It could make a difference.
I did email the timing company from a link on the online results page (and a follow up with the new owner of the Austin Marathon). After the acknowledgment below, no response.
From: Raul Najera <raul@runfarusa.com>To: kriswalker99999@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 5:11 PMSubject: not about results
Hi Kris,
Thank you for the note.
We're looking into the issue.
Raul
Raul Najera
President/CEO
RunFAR Racing Services, Inc.
512-569-0165 (direct)
817-394-1215 (eFax)
The subject line caught my attention. "Not about Results". Interesting comment by the timing company president. It is about the results. It's important that they are correct. It matters. Otherwise, don't time anybody, make the race not a qualifier, and call it a fun run
Post Script
Interesting read New York Post March 1, 2017...
http://nypost.com/2017/03/01/how-i-hunt-down-cheaters-running-the-boston-marathon/
No difficult algorithm needed here. Simple math. Top 10 finishers. 5k split times. 5k in minutes. Missing 10k calculated ((20k minus 19k) divided by 2). Final 1.12k divided by .62 = 5k pace. Variance is maximum pace in minutes minus minimum pace in minutes. No great detective work needed here. The course was cut.
| Class | 5K | 10K | 15K | 20K | FINISH | 5kt | 10kt | 15kt | 20kt | fin | var |
| 1 | 20:29.7 | 39:41.0 | 59:33.8 | 20:12.6 | 24:20.3 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 18 | 3 |
| 2 | 21:06.7 | 41:08.6 | 03:03.0 | 25:28.3 | 29:49.0 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 19 | 3 |
| 3 | 22:02.4 | 43:36.5 | 06:18.2 | 29:43.3 | 34:37.7 | 22 | 21 | 23 | 23 | 22 | 2 |
| 4 | 21:47.4 | 42:57.0 | 06:14.3 | 31:17.1 | 36:06.1 | 21 | 21 | 24 | 25 | 21 | 4 |
| 5 | 23:19.6 | 45:12.4 | 08:29.3 | 32:23.7 | 37:05.5 | 23 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 21 | 3 |
| 6 | 22:28.5 | 44:10.2 | 07:18.1 | 33:17.4 | 38:44.3 | 22 | 22 | 23 | 26 | 24 | 4 |
| 7 | 31:11.6 | 01:26.6 | 33:29.2 | 39:42.2 | 31 | 30 | 16 | 16 | 28 | 15 | |
| 8 | 23:04.5 | 46:11.4 | 10:01.9 | 35:40.3 | 40:52.2 | 23 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 23 | 2 |
| 9 | 24:11.6 | 47:07.8 | 11:26.4 | 36:16.4 | 41:17.5 | 24 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 22 | 3 |
| 10 | 24:36.5 | 47:53.0 | 12:09.5 | 37:10.4 | 42:03.3 | 24 | 23 | 25 | 25 | 22 | 3 |
She ran the entire 13.1 miles ...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/good-news/woman-becomes-the-first-person-with-down-syndrome-to-finish-austin-half-marathon/ar-AAnkbUI?ocid=spartandhp
I love you honey
ReplyDelete