Runner dies at London marathon

ThebitterLemon

Tragic, the man was only 31.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36129283

TbL

tang1

Very sad, ex Highland Gunner to.

Firedance

I saw this on the London marathon thread, so sad and tragic. His colleagues are completing the last 3 miles from where he fell -what a lovely gesture.

We had a discussion before about some marathons looking for medical certs before you can enter. I'm not suggesting for a second that this could have saved him as it might not have shown up - I'm just thinking out loud whether it should be mandatory and what the pros and cons of that might be.

Kennyg71

Firedance wrote: »

I saw this on the London marathon thread, so sad and tragic. His colleagues are completing the last 3 miles from where he fell -what a lovely gesture.

We had a discussion before about some marathons looking for medical certs before you can enter. I'm not suggesting for a second that this could have saved him as it might not have shown up - I'm just thinking out loud whether it should be mandatory and what the pros and cons of that might be.

last year chap died during a DCM tune up race and similar questions came
up on DCM Novice thread and consensus was it's a really rare event and
usually something underline that could have happened at any time, just
happened to be while running. suppose if body complains get it checked
out, lots of miles put in in Marathon training so you would imagine you
would get some feed back during training, suppose if you are not that active
prior to taking event on get check out first, I know I did before starting training last year.

Firedance

Kennyg71 wrote: »

last year chap died during a DCM tune up race and similar questions came
up on DCM Novice thread and consensus was it's a really rare event and
usually something underline that could have happened at any time, just
happened to be while running. suppose if body complains get it checked
out, lots of miles put in in Marathon training so you would imagine you
would get some feed back during training, suppose if you are not that active
prior to taking event on get check out first, I know I did before starting training last year.

That's the thing though, it turns out that common sesnse is not so common and people don't always do sensible things like get checked out before they embark on the training - me included! Yes it could well be that whatever reason he died could have happened anywhere but - if marathons had mandatory certs it might make people think about it more than they do now. I guess when someone dies like this we as people look for ways to avoid it happening again - not always possible I know.

ThisRegard

I don't think an examination for a medical cert to race would discover the underlying conditions that cause a lot of these deaths though would it?

Kennyg71

Firedance wrote: »

That's the thing though, it turns out that common sesnse is not so common and people don't always do sensible things like get checked out before they embark on the training - me included! Yes it could well be that whatever reason he died could have happened anywhere but - if marathons had mandatory certs it might make people think about it more than they do now. I guess when someone dies like this we as people look for ways to avoid it happening again - not always possible I know.

I think probably lots of people discover problems, because they are training
and things highlight them selves during training, that maybe would remain
under lying for longer if you where not pushing body, Off topic I did solo
parashute jump once, was told of risk of problem with shoot not deploying
and did it anyway, most fighting and exciting experience, that I will never
repeat, but can't say that about running even though play chicken with traffic
quite reguarly, it's all about being as sensible as possible.

RacoonQueen

ThisRegard wrote: »

I don't think an examination for a medical cert to race would discover the underlying conditions that cause a lot of these deaths though would it?

Exactly. Most of these events would be heart related and you'd be looking at ECG's for identifying any issues with the heart, you won't get that from a normal GP check up unless you have other symptoms or concerns I'd guess.

Firedance

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Exactly. Most of these events would be heart related and you'd be looking at ECG's for identifying any issues with the heart, you won't get that from a normal GP check up unless you have other symptoms or concerns I'd guess.

It's a fair point although when I had to get a cert for Milan my gp did an ECG . I'm not saying it's the answer don't get me wrong. I know most of the issues would be hard to detect in a normal gp check up. Anyway, ill leave it there. Hopefully we don't see too many more of these this year.

rom

It is very sad when people die during a race. This is often magnified if the person is doing it for charity which is often the case in places like London. We can all understand that people doing what the enjoy to do is tragic when this happens

The increased risk of death during a race really is very small and should not put people off it.

Running a race does not make people immune from death.

20.7 people approx die per 100,000 per week in England and Wales

With the average marathon time of 4.5 hours

Every 4.5 hours 0.5 people die per 100,000 in England and Wales
During a marathon time of 4.5 hours this would be 0.8 people per 100,000 according to American College of Cardiology
0.5 compared to 0.8 when the 0.8 is during the day and the time of day morning when more people die.

---
Maybe 25% more probable that you will die during a marathon compared to any another 4.5 hours of the rest of your life.

So if you really think that justifies everyone getting medical certs and having to go and have a ECG when there is no medical history risk factors then that is a complete waste of time as the is much better things a GP could be doing. A GP/nurse time would be better spend asking people about mental illness.

---

If a doctor/nurse was going to screen everyone for this and say it takes 30 mins per person then screening all 100,000 people to save the one life that this could possibly save would take 28 years of a medical professions working life. In any scheme of things if you were going to work that long as a nurse or doctor and only saved a single person life your training would be wasted.

---
If you have a medical history then get yourself screened.

_Tombstone_

GP check up is pretty much a waste of time unless you've a big problem...like a screaming murmur or something. I know a lad who was going for regular check ups due to family history and had massive heart attack day after check up, ecg, bloods were all dandy.

Was clinically dead for near 7 minutes (didn't see any white lights or angels) The check ups came up in conversation with cardiologist afterwards when he spotted them in his charts, cardiologist asked whose idea was it, it was GP idea....cardiologist said it was load of bollox. Waste of time/money.

It's angiograms and MRIs you'd want to be getting as a check up.

morceli

rom wrote: »

It is very sad when people die during a race. This is often magnified if the person is doing it for charity which is often the case in places like London. We can all understand that people doing what the enjoy to do is tragic when this happens

The increased risk of death during a race really is very small and should not put people off it.

Running a race does not make people immune from death.

20.7 people approx die per 100,000 per week in England and Wales

With the average marathon time of 4.5 hours

Every 4.5 hours 0.5 people die per 100,000 in England and Wales
During a marathon time of 4.5 hours this would be 0.8 people per 100,000 according to American College of Cardiology
0.5 compared to 0.8 when the 0.8 is during the day and the time of day morning when more people die.

---
Maybe 25% more probable that you will die during a marathon compared to any another 4.5 hours of the rest of your life.

So if you really think that justifies everyone getting medical certs and having to go and have a ECG when there is no medical history risk factors then that is a complete waste of time as the is much better things a GP could be doing. A GP/nurse time would be better spend asking people about mental illness.

---

If a doctor/nurse was going to screen everyone for this and say it takes 30 mins per person then screening all 100,000 people to save the one life that this could possibly save would take 28 years of a medical professions working life. In any scheme of things if you were going to work that long as a nurse or doctor and only saved a single person life your training would be wasted.

---
If you have a medical history then get yourself screened.

Good point but you cant just take the time into account in this, you need to compare what your doing for that 4.5 hours or time and running a marathon does put extra stress on the body. It shouldn't put people off because you should really compare deaths other sports to running.

robinph

A medical check from a GP wouldn't have found anything wrong with that guy, he was an officer in the forces so they presumably keep an eye on their health pretty regularly. Any GP checkup, or fake GP note as required by French races, would have just passed him as fit to run based on him being in the forces, and the GP would have pocketed a few quid for zero effort.

I can't see what this guys split times were for earlier on as they seem to have removed him from the results, but I did pass someone collapsed and being attended to near an underpass towards the end, and my support crew were nearby at the same point and saw a bit more of what was going on and think it may have been this guy. If so he would have been going at way under sub3 pace. You'd be needing a very extensive medical checkup for every runner to be finding the 1 who has a really rare issue, but it wouldn't really make much difference as out of every random 40 thousand people one of them would be expected to die each day.

Enduro

Firedance wrote: »

I'm just thinking out loud whether it should be mandatory and what the pros and cons of that might be.

A big big con would be the "dangerisation" of running. It could create/add a perception that running marathons is a dangerous activity that requires medical oversight to participate in safely. This could potentially discourage some people from running (which, of course, would result in an overall increase in mortality at a population level, ironicly enough, as the health benifits of exercise massively outweigh any potential risks). This is a genuine concern, and you just need to talk to a random collection of punters about the "dangers" of cycling to see where this can lead.

Coffee Fulled Runner

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057589710

Firedance

Enduro wrote: »

A big big con would be the "dangerisation" of running. It could create/add a perception that running marathons is a dangerous activity that requires medical oversight to participate in safely. This could potentially discourage some people from running (which, of course, would result in an overall increase in mortality at a population level, ironicly enough, as the health benifits of exercise massively outweigh any potential risks). This is a genuine concern, and you just need to talk to a random collection of punters about the "dangers" of cycling to see where this can lead.

Yes you're right, all good points. As I said, I was just thinking aloud, I wasn't suggesting it was the answer and I agree, there is no answer. I certainly don't want to put anyone off running!

BeepBeep67

Don't go to football matches: http://gazzettaworld.gazzetta.it/off-the-ball/valencia-fan-dies-barcelona/

Kennyg71

Firedance wrote: »

Yes you're right, all good points. As I said, I was just thinking aloud, I wasn't suggesting it was the answer and I agree, there is no answer. I certainly don't want to put anyone off running!

Nothing wrong with thinking aloud AM, not to sure anyone posting here could
be put off:)

Firedance

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Don't go to football matches: http://gazzettaworld.gazzetta.it/off-the-ball/valencia-fan-dies-barcelona/

yes, OK, point taken :rolleyes:

Enduro

Firedance wrote: »

Yes you're right, all good points. As I said, I was just thinking aloud, I wasn't suggesting it was the answer and I agree, there is no answer. I certainly don't want to put anyone off running!

Yeah, that's exactly how I was interpreting what you were saying alright... putting it up for debate!

jamule

Firedance wrote: »

yes, OK, point taken :rolleyes:

Not to mention Golf or the most dangerous, Lawn bowls!