Women's Mini Marathon 2012

cbyrne11

tunguska wrote: »

What an eejit, complete bandit aswell for trying to pull that sh1t. ISPCAs response was very dismissive and vague too. Rosana davidson needs to hold her hand up and admit that she tried to pull a fast one instead of trying to p1ss down everybodys back and telling them its raining.

Shameful stuff, hope they didn't pay her for this! I know people who trained and ran it for charity and they deserve more recognition than this woman does!

jennyq

ThisRegard wrote: »

Back to the subject again, started by a caller who thinks running for times is disgusting.

CEO of ISPCA is on now, expect Joe to give him the easiest ride of his life and to completely ignore the fact that she was nowhere to be seen throughout the course until 'appearing' at 9k.

The CEO didn't have a clue what he was talking about - he said that as far as he knew all the pictures were taken at the start of the race, but the one in the Evening Herald supplement is clearly afterwards as it's just past the finishing line and people are clearly crossing it...but then again she also writes a column for the Evening Herald so not surprising that the Indo/Herald are happy to go along with the farce.

Krusty_Clown

CS_Runner wrote: »

I can tell 100% she did NOT run 43 minutes, I was at the finish line at watched every runner from Linda Byrne back to the ladies that finished 46 minutes and i did NOT see her...

You're missing the fact that she purportedly started a lot later than the top 100 finishers, so wouldn't have arrived in with the top-100. The '43' minutes is a chip-time, not a gun-time, so she would have finished among the masses just after 4pm, rather than at 3:43.

robinph

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

You're missing the fact that she purportedly started a lot later than the top 100 finishers, so wouldn't have arrived in with the top-100. The '43' minutes is a chip-time, not a gun-time, so she would have finished among the masses just after 4pm, rather than at 3:43.

So there should be several thousand witnesses that saw her flying along the course and overtaking everyone, if she finished at 1:07 with a time of 43. Can't see how it could be done without a Garda motorbike clearing the road ahead for her.

Sonia O'Sullivan did a similar thing in the Great North Run a couple of years ago where she was the last starter and I think was getting sponsored for each person that she overtook.

BTH

manwithaplan wrote: »

Just a quick question for you runners. My wife finished (just) inside the top 100 overall. She is over 40 and is mildly curious about where she finished within this age cohort. The Herald just published the top 3 over 40s, the last of which was in 23rd place overall. The website doesn't seem to facilitate searches by category etc as she has seen in other events - is she missing something?

Sorry buddy, doesn't seem to be anything to help her on this. Pity

Thats some good running though, does she swim and bike as well??

PaulieC

careful what you say about that one - she's seemingly quite trigger happy over stuff like this

robinph

cambo_gueno wrote: »

careful what you say about that one - she's seemingly quite trigger happy over stuff like this

When she gets that free flight off Ryanair she is welcome to come over to Bristol to discuss her running further. If she is running a 43 minute 10km through those crowds then I'm sure we could make use of her in our womens team.

gerard65

She's a fit bird:D

HardyEustace

gerard65 wrote: »

She's a fit bird:D

43minute 10k fit.

Quite the accomplishment.

tunguska

gerard65 wrote: »

She's a fit bird:D

Jaysus be careful, the male suffragettes will be after you for that

gerard65

I was going to comment on Robin wanting to invite her to Bristol to discuss her running, but decided not too.

Marthastew

manwithaplan wrote: »

Just a quick question for you runners. My wife finished (just) inside the top 100 overall. She is over 40 and is mildly curious about where she finished within this age cohort. The Herald just published the top 3 over 40s, the last of which was in 23rd place overall. The website doesn't seem to facilitate searches by category etc as she has seen in other events - is she missing something?

I emailed the organisers a couple of months ago to ask if they had a historical database of results by category (just about every event I've entered has) and the reply I got was

I am afraid not. With 40,000 entries each year we do not have the space for anything fancy like that.


Congrats to your wife, she has qualified for Elite entry next year if she made it into the top 100


With regard to Rosannagate I think it is disgraceful for her/the ISPCA to pull a stunt like that.

I'd have to agree she is a fit bird though;)

robinph

Marthastew wrote: »

I am afraid not. With 40,000 entries each year we do not have the space for anything fancy like that.

Well it is tricky to put results for that many runners up on line. But then again maybe it's not:

http://www.virginlondonmarathon.com/marathon-centre/race-results/race-results/

Not sure why they don't have anything from before 2007, been trying to find the results from 1996 myself.

rom

robinph wrote: »

Well it is tricky to put results for that many runners up on line. But then again maybe it's not:

http://www.virginlondonmarathon.com/marathon-centre/race-results/race-results/

Not sure why they don't have anything from before 2007, been trying to find the results from 1996 myself.

The only reason why is pure laziness. Putting up 2 years is no different than 100 years

"we do not have the space" excellent. A million row table of this would be less than 10MB. Unless they are running the site on a vtech calculator from like 10 years ago is that not true.

DeeRottie

jennyq wrote: »

drakefan wrote: »

I have a suspicious story regarding Rosanna Davison's illeged participation in the mini marathon....
I saw her coming out of a house on Leeson street and joining in the race at around 9km. Of course this in itself is not evidence enough as to her lack of running the previous 9km. However - then I tried to check what time she ran, and her name didn't appear in the finish list. There was a photo of her at the finish and I searched her number to find that the person with that number had run it in 43mins. This I found particularly bizarre since in a newspaper interview she said she ran it in just over an hour. The name associated with the number was Carmel Murray - who just happens to be the ISPCA public relations officer - the charity Rosanna ran for!!
So delving into further detail I looked up Rosanna's time from 2011 which was 51.54 - making 43mins an almost Michelle Smith-esque improvement of 9 minutes. Also Rosanna posted a photo on twitter showing her `starting' way back in the joggers section. 43 minutes would basically be impossible from starting so far back with so many walkers etc. to dodge. So my surmise is this:
Carmel Murray started the race in the joggers section but it took about 20mins for her to cross the start line. Her chip was not activated then till abut 3.20pm. She then left the race and ran over to leeson street and gave Rosanna her number. They planned that Rosanna would `finish' the race in about an hour. But they forgot about how long it took to cross the start line so Rosanna accidentally came in 20 mins early!! And suspiciously didn't even realise it!!

I call for a return of her mini marathon medal forthwith!! Anyone else able to corroborate this story??

On the FWMM facebook page people have also claimed to see her enter the race at the 9km mark here (might have to like the FWMM page to view this). Must say that's disgraceful carryon by her but also the ISPCA - I know it's tough out there at the moment for charities but there's no excuse for stunts like that.

The Independent claimed she came in at around 50 minutes, with "make-up was still firmly in place". No wonder after only running 1km! Ridiculous that media will give someone like her publicity - even if they wanted a famous face to report on, there were plenty who actually did complete the race they could have photographed!

I did the exact same thing yesterday, when I saw her in the paper yesterday with a face full of makeup and not a bead of sweat or hair out of place. I looked up her name and couldn't find it in the list of finishers. Took me 69 minutes to complete the race from the joggers section and spent the first 2K at least trying to get through all the walkers who put themselves in the joggers section. Unless I see a pic of her before the 9km stage on the course I refuse to believe she did it, which is a shame. I just think that it's very unfair to all the ladies who genuinely went and pounded the pavement for their charities - and while I support the work the ISPCA does, I think this is the last thing they need after the 'mongrels are worthless' comments made by their chairman last year.....

Anyway congrats to everyone who walked and ran the Mini Marathon - you should be proud of your achievement and what you've done for your respective charities x

cbyrne11

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

You're missing the fact that she purportedly started a lot later than the top 100 finishers, so wouldn't have arrived in with the top-100. The '43' minutes is a chip-time, not a gun-time, so she would have finished among the masses just after 4pm, rather than at 3:43.

Think your missing the fact that when you get the number that she wore and put it into the mini marathon website you get somebody else's name, who started early in the race, presumable early enough to give her the number to her and have her run the last mile!

I don't think this was a cheating thing though, I think it was a vain thing as she didn't want to be sweaty in the photo at the end!

robinph

cbyrne11 wrote: »

Think your missing the fact that when you get the number that she wore and put it into the mini marathon website you get somebody else's name, who started early in the race, presumable early enough to give her the number to her and have her run the last mile!

I don't think this was a cheating thing though, I think it was a vain thing as she didn't want to be sweaty in the photo at the end!

Of course it was cheating. If the charity just wanted her to show up and pose for the "spokesmodel" shots at the end then just get her to do that and she can spend as long as she wants faffing with makeup. Trying to claim that she ran the 10km in 43minutes is a lie and she cheated in order to get that time, both by running wearing someone elses number and by not actually covering the distance of the race. That the charity helped her do this is very poor judgement on their part if they thought that it wouldn't get discovered.

A nobody doing it would not be spotted, but if you are hiring a face for publicity then people will notice and if it looks wrong then someone will call them on it.

HeidiHeidi

Just catching up on all of this - and I'm agog :eek::D (not sure which is more appropriate!!!)

What I don't get (assuming it's all true about her popping out of a house on Leeson Street and legging it around the corner) is that the world and its mother (and a few more as spectators) were either running on or lining the pavement of Leeson Street - how on EARTH did she/they think she wouldn't be spotted?

They can't all be that naive/thick, surely

That alone makes it hard to believe.

Next stop is the Liveline podcast to hear that angle :eek:

vicwatson

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Just catching up on all of this - and I'm agog :eek::D (not sure which is more appropriate!!!)

What I don't get (assuming it's all true about her popping out of a house on Leeson Street and legging it around the corner) is that the world and its mother (and a few more as spectators) were either running on or lining the pavement of Leeson Street - how on EARTH did she/they think she wouldn't be spotted?

They can't all be that naive/thick, surely

That alone makes it hard to belive.

Next stop is the Liveline podcast to hear that angle :eek:

You'll be none the wiser after listening to that

My name is Mud

drakefan wrote: »

...So delving into further detail I looked up Rosanna's time from 2011 which was 51.54 - making 43mins an almost Michelle Smith-esque improvement of 9 minutes...

Just saw this story on broadsheet.

Her GIR 2012 time was 49:37

So went from 51.54 in 2011, improved to 49.37 a year later.... And shaved 6 mins off that time in 8 weeks? Suspicious???

robinph

vicwatson wrote: »

You'll be none the wiser after listening to that

Yep, that was a load of cobblers.

Everyone just kept on saying how great she was and that she looked great and was close to an Olympic qualifying time. The one going on about how she couldn't understand why anyone would even want to know their time was funneh though.

HeidiHeidi

robinph wrote: »

Yep, that was a load of cobblers.

Everyone just kept on saying how great she was and that she looked great and was close to an Olympic qualifying time. The one going on about how she couldn't understand why anyone would even want to know their time was funneh though.

It was like everyone was talking in code! Normally Joe would be goading people on, but he had a gag on today by the sounds of it.

Still can't believe they'd actually pull a stunt like that and hope to get away with it - but until someone actually has the balls to accuse them, I guess we'll never know.

I also believe that unless you got away with the first proper runners, there's no way you could manage a time like that - I started in the pink section, and it was absolute bedlam.

Still, it's quite a phenomenon, the whole thing, and despite its faults, I'll be back for more next year!

robinph

Maybe they have the Garmin data they can release to backup this fanciful claim of a 43 minute time.

derb12

If she was in a starting position that was 20 minutes back from the start-line there is NO WAY IN HELL that she could have run it in 43 mins.
The first time I did it, I was way back and didn't cross the startline for about 10 minutes. I spent the first 4k at least ducking and weaving between walkers - I probably ended up running a total of 12K by the time I crossed the line.
Even this time, starting with the fast joggers and running it in 55 mins, there wasn't really an opportunity to open up and really run fast for any distance until Donnybrook.

ger664

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the chip time of 43 Min is incorrect due to an error with the timing device.

Happenened in GLR with a girl I know who fell of the 2hr pace group @ mile 11 and was cerdited with 1:42 chip time in the results

cbyrne11

ger664 wrote: »

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the chip time of 43 Min is incorrect due to an error with the timing device.

Happenened in GLR with a girl I know who fell of the 2hr pace group @ mile 11 and was cerdited with 1:42 chip time in the results

Again it wasn't even her name!!! And he wasn't sweating after this amazing time

cynder

My self and my daughter took part in the mini marathon. We came in at 18,136 and 18, 156. And had a great time, we are proud of are achievements, I would rather do all 10k than skip under the line to get a better time, I would be cheating myself and the charity I walked for and all my sponsors, my daughter is 12 and diabetic yet never faltered, if r.d. Did cheat shame on you r.d.


Enough said, can't wait till next year hope to jog it next year...

Krusty_Clown

cbyrne11 wrote: »

Think your missing the fact that when you get the number that she wore and put it into the mini marathon website you get somebody else's name, who started early in the race, presumable early enough to give her the number to her and have her run the last mile!

I don't think this was a cheating thing though, I think it was a vain thing as she didn't want to be sweaty in the photo at the end!

Having stood at the 8k mark from when the first lady passed until the very last lady passed, I'm pretty certain I did not see Rosanna go passed me (but of course I could have missed her). I'm not defending her. I'm just saying that you wouldn't have seen her cross the finish line in the first 60 finishers, as her 'start number' did not cross the start line until 3:20pm (unlike the top 60 finishers who crossed the start line at 3pm).

If she started at the 9k mark and made representations of having completed the entire distance, she cheated.

robinph

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Having stood at the 8k mark from when the first lady passed until the very last lady passed, I'm pretty certain I did not see Rosanna go passed me (but of course I could have missed her). I'm not defending her. I'm just saying that you wouldn't have seen her cross the finish line in the first 60 finishers, as her 'start number' did not cross the start line until 3:20pm (unlike the top 60 finishers who crossed the start line at 3pm).

If she started at the 9k mark and made representations of having completed the entire distance, she cheated.

She would have been moving too fast for you to see.

She'd have been walking until at least the 5km mark at a guess if she was in the pack crossing the line 20 minutes after the gun. So the first 5km will have taken about 35 minutes, then there would have been a clearer road to complete the last 5km in the remaining 8 minutes.

HeidiHeidi

robinph wrote: »

She would have been moving too fast for you to see.

She'd have been walking until at least the 5km mark at a guess if she was in the pack crossing the line 20 minutes after the gun. So the first 5km will have taken about 35 minutes, then there would have been a clearer road to complete the last 5km in the remaining 8 minutes.