Manchester marathon officially 380 metres short in 2015

TRR_the_turd

Remember the hoolaboola about this last year? Well it turns out the course was actually short and there "may" have been issues with the calibration of the measuring wheel.

Full statement here

tang1

What would the consequences be say if Eoin O Callaghan ran the Rio qualifying time last year and was in the current top 3 times? Would his result be null and void?

AuldManKing

wow - on the upside, I'm glad I didn't just make it to sub 3 in 2014.
On the downside, I didn't make sub 3 on a short cousre

TFBubendorfer

That's a shocker - I did not believe that an officially measured course in a fairly major marathon would be short 3 years in a row! :eek:

Good to see that 2016 was definitely correct though (then again - I'd have broken 3 if it still had been short :rolleyes: )

tang1

tang1 wrote: »

What would the consequences be say if Eoin O Callaghan ran the Rio qualifying time last year and was in the current top 3 times? Would his result be null and void?

His time was ratified from last year and he was Olympic qualified when the standard moved out to 2:19. As it currently stands he has the QT.

El Caballo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

His time was ratified from last year and he was Olympic qualified when the standard moved out to 2:19. As it currently stands he has the QT.

Not any more. The course wasn't up to IAAF standards so the results will be nullified. Not his fault and a major kick in the teeth for him because of an organisational problem.

yaboya1

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

Remember the hoolaboola about this last year? Well it turns out the course was actually short and there "may" have been issues with the calibration of the measuring wheel.

Full statement here

Did you ring your mate and let him know?

tang1

El Caballo wrote: »

Not any more. The course wasn't up to IAAF standards so the results will be nullified. Not his fault and a major kick in the teeth for him because of an organisational problem.

Would the same apply if you BQ'd or ran GFA for London?

demfad

They are saying that an error with the calibration of the measuring wheel accounted for half the 380m discrepency. That means that almost another 200m was lost somewhere else.... very poor from the organisers.

TRR_the_turd

demfad wrote: »

They are saying that an error with the calibration of the measuring wheel accounted for half the 380m discrepency. That means that almost another 200m was lost somewhere else.... very poor from the organisers.

I've been involved in measuring a couple of courses before and I was always suspicious of the manner in which the wheel calibration occurs. I'm not surprised that a calibration of the wheel could mess up a course measurement but am very surprised that it could happen in a big city marathon. You'd think that the course would be measured multiple times with calibration of the wheel each time. Regardless, it is very poor form

Racman

The error is 0.9% which is enormous given the precision that is supposed to go into course measurement, particularly as it is calculated after allowing for the short course correction factor of 0.1%. Therefore the real error was actually 1%. Shocking, sloppy. Probably carelessness on the calibration course.

All you need to know about course measurement here:
http://www.usatf.org/Products-/-Services/Course-Certifications/USATF-Certified-Courses/Procedures-Manual.aspx

I was going to run that one to aim at sub-3. Glad I didn't now.

demfad

Racman wrote: »

The error is 0.9% which is enormous given the precision that is supposed to go into course measurement, particularly as it is calculated after allowing for the short course correction factor of 0.1%. Therefore the real error was actually 1%. Shocking, sloppy. Probably carelessness on the calibration course.

All you need to know about course measurement here:
http://www.usatf.org/Products-/-Services/Course-Certifications/USATF-Certified-Courses/Procedures-Manual.aspx

Very true but the official report but the calibration error responsible for half of 380m which is 4.5%-5.5%.

A check of the calibration course used showed that it was short, the error accounting for about half of the deficiency.

Maybe they messed the check up too though!

PainIsTemporary

There are people on here who owe Bazman an apology. He got a lot of flack for pointing this out on here last year.

Sacksian

I thought Bazman's post last year was absolutely fine. He had put together a good case for there being a reasonable doubt about the length of the course.

I think a lot of runners will also know when a course is short from looking at results and talking to other people about their runs.

El Caballo

PainIsTemporary wrote: »

There are people on here who owe Bazman an apology. He got a lot of flack for pointing this out on here last year.

Relax the kaks there before you go around pointing fingers. The post by bazman had to be questioned and I'm sure he understands that.

And this is the next post by ultrapercy after bazman replied to the quoted text above.

I agree that based on that data the course needs to be proven to be the proper measurement. All races should have to publish or display a measurement certificate IMO. Until a race is proven to be inaccurate, however, it is just speculation. If you or anyone prove it to be short it's a disgrace on the organisers behalF.

BrokenMan

Between this and the baggage collection fiasco this year the races reputation is in serious trouble.

ger664

pac_man wrote: »

So if my maths is correct, someone that is in around the 3 hour mark, should be adding an extra(95-100 seconds) to reflect the full distance. That's a kick in the balls for anyone that was within the borderline of breaking three hours.

Doesn't matter a 41.815 K race is not a Marathon something a certain running coach will be told

tang1 wrote: »

Would the same apply if you BQ'd or ran GFA for London?

For Boston 2016 it was still publicly a valid distance on Monday. It cant be used for Boston 2017 as the years in question are outside the qualifying period. London is on Sunday doubt they are going to tell people sorry you cant run now.

The 2015 race is within the London 2017 GFA but I would say it cant be used.

TFBubendorfer

The organisers are certainly quick to insist that it's not their fault:
http://www.greatermanchestermarathon.com/#distance

bazman

If I was to go back in time, I actually wouldn't have posted my belief re the course - I posted in the heat of the moment. My annoyance at the time was actually not re people getting PBs, but the fact that UKA and AAI selected athletes for major championships based on this unratified course that had questions to answer. When this happens it does directly impact people.

I would have continued to challenge the organisers & certifiers (as I did back then, but to no avail), but there was no need for the public post as there will always be people who would assume I was the begrudging type (absolutely not the case).

It is fair to challenge when one feels something isn't right and my argument was balanced and based on facts. If we don't challenge, we don't hold people with responsibility to account, mistakes are tolerated, and eventually become frequent. Some of the responses at the time did use attack as a form of argument and questioned other marathons where there was absolutely no evidence.

The organisers cannot absolve themselves here as I pointed out the evidence and they chose to ignore it a year ago. This is not a good news story and I'm not here smiling. The only good news from the whole episode is that it should lead to organisers and certifiers becoming more thorough when it comes to course marking in future.

RacoonQueen

*Title was annoying me, had to fix it*

dna_leri

Racman wrote: »

The error is 0.9% which is enormous given the precision that is supposed to go into course measurement, particularly as it is calculated after allowing for the short course correction factor of 0.1%. Therefore the real error was actually 1%. Shocking, sloppy. Probably carelessness on the calibration course.

All you need to know about course measurement here:
http://www.usatf.org/Products-/-Services/Course-Certifications/USATF-Certified-Courses/Procedures-Manual.aspx

I was going to run that one to aim at sub-3. Glad I didn't now.

Can any of our measurers confirm that this is the method used in Britain or Ireland? I.e. an uncalibrated measuring tape and masking tape are used to calibrate the wheel! ! Anyone who knows anything about calibration knows that is fundamentally wrong. The tools you use to calibrate must be calibrated themselves first and traceable to national standard - Measurement101.

TRR_the_turd

RacoonQueen wrote: »

*Title was annoying me, had to fix it*

You annoy me. Any chance you could fix yourself

What was wrong with the title?

RacoonQueen

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

You annoy me. Any chance you could fix yourself

What was wrong with the title?

Jaysus, talk about harsh!

It was "Manchester marathon officially short in 380 metres 2015"

TRR_the_turd

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Jaysus, talk about harsh!

It was "Manchester marathon officially short in 380 metres 2015"

Harsh .......... but fair!