Men running in ladies numbers.

robinph

M.m.m. wrote: »

So you're saying that a woman for example would miss out on her gender award because Jack who came in ahead of her has gone up to collect her prize with his 12 o'çlock shadow and a pair of apples up his top.

But what would actually happen is nobody gets the award, the woman thinks she finished 2nd and that the person finishing 1st just couldn't be bothered to hang around for their award. Or even if it is figured out before presenting on the day and the 4th woman across the line has already gone home by then because the online results say she's 4th, but then shes really 3rd and misses out on her moment of glory. How is that fair on her because some bloke couldn't be bothered to enter on time?

Or the awards just get posted out to the wrong people and nobody knows any better. Only the really obvious errors such as a vf80 winning overall would get picked up at that point.

Stark

fletch wrote: »

Surely it's the timing companies that simply need to put a bit of development into their websites to facilitate swaps (up until a certain date)? Thus no cost to the organisers. (Perhaps the timing company may increase their fee slightly to pay for the dev cost but it should be nominal when divided out over all the races and tbh the companies should be looking at something to set themselves apart from the competition and this would definitely help).

Quite a few have this functionality already.

Lazare

robinph wrote: »

But what would actually happen is nobody gets the award, the woman thinks she finished 2nd and that the person finishing 1st just couldn't be bothered to hang around for their award. Or even if it is figured out before presenting on the day and the 4th woman across the line has already gone home by then because the online results say she's 4th, but then shes really 3rd and misses out on her moment of glory. How is that fair on her because some bloke couldn't be bothered to enter on time?

Or the awards just get posted out to the wrong people and nobody knows any better. Only the really obvious errors such as a vf80 winning overall would get picked up at that point.

The points you've made are all based on extreme rarities, the vast majority of swapping goes on unnoticed.

To say it's theft is frankly ridiculous. Laughable.

robinph

Lazare wrote: »

The points you've made are all based on extreme rarities, the vast majority of swapping goes on unnoticed.

To say it's theft is frankly ridiculous. Laughable.

It's not a rarity though.

Race I was in at the weekend which has been won by the same woman for the last several years but it happened that she was beaten by 2 seconds by another female this year, except a minute ahead of the pair of them was some male wearing a females number. It happened to be noticed at 3km into the race where we all ran back past the start/ finish and the females actually contending for the win were well known on the local circuit that even through the christmas themed fancy dress they knew exactly who was in the lead despite what the chip timing was telling them and the correct results were fixed by the end of the race. But how is it OK to be wasting the time and effort of the organisers and what they have to pay their timing service provider?

Happened that I was 4th in my age category as well, but I'll never know if I was due a prize* because some senior male was running under a vet male number instead.

I completely agree that it would be good if races did allow for transfers, for a fee, but because they don't is zero justification to do it anyway.

Theft doesn't have to be physically taking something, making use of a service and resources that you have not paid for is also theft.



*I've previously been given a £5 voucher for a local running shop but that is only valid for spending over £50, so I can live without that.

robinph

fletch wrote: »

Surely it's the timing companies that simply need to put a bit of development into their websites to facilitate swaps (up until a certain date)? Thus no cost to the organisers. (Perhaps the timing company may increase their fee slightly to pay for the dev cost but it should be nominal when divided out over all the races and tbh the companies should be looking at something to set themselves apart from the competition and this would definitely help).

I've seen it in some instances over this side of the water where it has been possible to make changes online through the timing company website, so it is likely to become more common eventually when they all get on board.

Hurrache

robinph wrote: »

zero justification to do it anyway.

Theft doesn't have to be physically taking something, making use of a service and resources that you have not paid for is also theft.

But it's not. As I said in a previous question to you, if I'm given use of a service paid for by another person who cannot use that service, you're saying that it's perfectly acceptable for the Gardai to be waiting to arrest me for theft of that service once I use it.

And god help all the kids at Christmas time, the gardai won't have enough resources to arrest them all for the theft of the gifts Santa left them.

Equally, you pay a company for a service which you cannot avail of, and they don't offer a refund or deferment, you're implying that's a lesser offence than someone using that service which has been paid for?

TheJak01

robinph wrote: »

Theft doesn't have to be physically taking something, making use of a service and resources that you have not paid for is also theft.

It's not like the registration hasn't been paid for though, is it? If a race entry is bought and swapped, the organiser still receives the money for it. If I give my pal down the road 40euro for the 40euro entry that he's not using it's exactly the same as me paying 40 euro directly. Duplicate numbers - sure, that would be theft, but to imply this is stealing is pretty daft. Is buying a second hand phone off ebay also theft because the manufacturer receives none of that money? Same deal.

I see the issue with prizes/health, but that's going to be a minority of cases. Picking out one anecdotal example, and a further example where you may have missed out of a prize is hardly strong evidence. Races should allow transfers, or certainly refunds up to a certain point before the race. You'd struggle to find another industry where this isn't possible. To say they're only licensed to 17,000 of the 20,000 that register due to dropouts is farcical too IMO. Health and safety would never allow that. Airlines do that, and pay great expense if everybody shows up. A race organiser would and should do similar, except that in this case nobody will be left without an entry.

robinph

What makes you think that races don't over sell above the number of places they have a license for, or at least genuinely expect to turn up on the day? If airlines do it (and they have an absolute fixed capacity that you can't just squeeze one extra person in and nobody would notice) then why do you think that other places don't do it as well.

And sticking with the airline example, would you expect it to be OK if you turned up with your mates plane ticket and just be let on?

RayCun

Race entries are bought on the condition of non-transferability (same as airline tickets). Yes, this means that sometimes you buy an entry that you can't use. It also means that anyone who wants to enter the race has to buy an entry from the race, so the race is collecting more entry fees.

If the race collects fewer entry fees but their expenses remain the same, what happens? If expenses are going to stay the same, and fewer entries are going to be sold, those entries will have to be more expensive.

so that's the deal, really. Entries that are slightly cheaper and non-transferable, or entries that are transferable but slightly more expensive.

How many people would happily pay an extra 10% for race entry if it meant their entry was refundable?

robinph

Hurrache wrote: »

But it's not. As I said in a previous question to you, if I'm given use of a service paid for by another person who cannot use that service, you're saying that it's perfectly acceptable for the Gardai to be waiting to arrest me for theft of that service once I use it.

And god help all the kids at Christmas time, the gardai won't have enough resources to arrest them all for the theft of the gifts Santa left them.

Equally, you pay a company for a service which you cannot avail of, and they don't offer a refund or deferment, you're implying that's a lesser offence than someone using that service which has been paid for?

It may not be the crime of the century, but if you are making use of a service that you do not have the right to use then it is theft. Pester the organisers and timing companies to allow for legitimate way to carry out transfers, but doing transfers by other means that the organiser has said are not permitted when you sign up is wrong however you want to try and twist it though.

Ultraman100

Lazare wrote: »

The points you've made are all based on extreme rarities, the vast majority of swapping goes on unnoticed.

Happened this year at a national championship,Dude running under a Burds number came first in the F age cat

Hurrache

robinph wrote: »

What makes you think that races don't over sell above the number of places they have a license for, or at least genuinely expect to turn up on the day? If airlines do it (and they have an absolute fixed capacity that you can't just squeeze one extra person in and nobody would notice) then why do you think that other places don't do it as well.

And sticking with the airline example, would you expect it to be OK if you turned up with your mates plane ticket and just be let on?

Nobody's problem but the organisers if they oversell a race and run into trouble then.

And if you want to stick to your airline analogy
A) they offer compensation if you're bumped,
don't call the gardai on the excess number because they're trying to steal airplane seats.

robinph wrote: »

but doing transfers by other means that the organiser has said are not permitted when you sign up is wrong however you want to try and twist it though.

But not theft, nor a crime. Only person twisting things is you who's trying to argue from the outset that it's theft.

robinph

Hurrache wrote: »

But not theft, nor a crime. Only person twisting things is you who's trying to argue from the outset that it's theft.

Taking something you've not paid for. What would you call it then?

Causing extra expense/ costs for the organisers, however tiny that might be. What would you call that?

Causing gender/ age group winners miss out on prizes. What would you call that?

incentsitive

Did the OP just assume their gender.......

EDit

Genuine question...if (using an example given earlier) DCM sell 20,000 tickets, but are only legally allowed 17,000 participants, what happens on the morning of the race when they realize they have screwed up and 18,763 runners have actually turned up? What do they do...arbitrarily pick a random selection of 1763 people and tell them to go home? Seems like it would be a slightly foolhardy policy.

Hurrache

robinph wrote: »

Taking something you've not paid for. What would you call it then?

You've ignored this twice now, I'll try again.

If your mate gives you the use of a service which he can't use but has paid for, and you use it, lets say a cinema ticket, are you stealing if you go watch that movie?

I think you've dug yourself into a hole by initially claiming that it's theft and aren't willing to accept it, but are rather doubling down on it, no matter how silly it makes the argument.

robinph

Hurrache wrote: »

You've ignored this twice now, I'll try again.

If your mate gives you the use of a service which he can't use, and you use it, are you stealing?

Wasn't deliberately ignoring, but it depends on the service and the terms associated with it.

If he bought a sandwich and I then ate it, nope.
If he'd booked in for a hair cut and I went instead, nope.

If he'd bought a plane ticket then yes.
If he bought a Glastonbury ticket then yes

manonboard

robinph wrote: »

Wasn't deliberately ignoring, but it depends on the service and the terms associated with it.

If he bought a sandwich and I then ate it, nope.
If he'd booked in for a hair cut and I went instead, nope.

If he'd bought a plane ticket then yes.
If he bought a Glastonbury ticket then yes

They seem incredible arbitrary and personal preferences, not based on anything substantial at all.
Why would a hair cut be any different than the others?

Hurrache

robinph wrote: »

If he'd bought a plane ticket then yes.
If he bought a Glastonbury ticket then yes

No, it's not stealing. It may be against the terms and conditions, but you'll be laughed at by anyone in the law and legal profession if you try call the police to arrest someone for using a Glastonbury ticket a mate paid for and gave them.

To call anyone who uses a number paid for someone else a thief is ridiculous, and moreso the fact you're trying to argue more and more that it is.

RayCun

manonboard wrote: »

They seem incredible arbitrary and personal preferences, not based on anything substantial at all.
Why would a hair cut be any different than the others?

Conditions of sale

robinph

Hurrache wrote: »

I think you've dug yourself into a hole by initially claiming that it's theft and aren't willing to accept it, but are rather doubling down on it, no matter how silly it makes the argument.

I don't see any hole. Maybe the word theft is too emotive a word, but if you have another term for making use of a service that you don't have permission to use then let us know:

http://kbcdublinmarathon.ie/rules-and-regulations/

Dublin Marathon wrote:

Entry fees are non-refundable and non-transferable. No exceptions

https://www.virginmoneylondonmarathon.com/en-gb/general-conditions-entry/

London Marathon wrote:

Participation in the Event is personal to you; you are strictly prohibited from swapping, selling or transferring or offering to sell, swap or transfer the place in the Event or allowing any other person to wear the Event number.

walshb

manonboard wrote: »

They seem incredible arbitrary and personal preferences, not based on anything substantial at all.
Why would a hair cut be any different than the others?

I like you!

Hurrache

It's not that the word is emotive, labelling someone a 'thief' obviously has serious legal and libel connotations, particularly when going against terms and conditions of sale is not a legal issue, nor is is actually theft.

robinph

Hurrache wrote: »

It's not that the word is emotive, labelling someone a 'thief' obviously has serious legal and libel connotations, particularly when going against terms and conditions of sale is not a legal issue, nor is is actually theft.

So what would you call taking something that you don't have permission to make use of then?

Hurrache

robinph wrote: »

So what would you call taking something that you don't have permission to make use of then?

You mean something that's paid for? You're really stretching things if you're still trying to imply it's theft.

I'll throw you 'unauthorised use of'.

robinph

Hurrache wrote: »

You mean something that's paid for? You're really stretching things if you're still trying to imply it's theft.

I'll throw you 'unauthorised use of'.

I really can't see how that still doesn't fit with the Wiki definition for example:

In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

Can go back and forth trying to find the right word all you want though. Simple point is, don't do it.

Hurrache

When someone enters a race, watches a movie, enters a concert, that was paid for by someone else, the rightful owner has not been deprived of anything.

robinph

They have if the person making use of those services was not the person authorised to do so.

Going to a movie isn't an issue as you don't tend to be be booking that under the names of the individuals going. Going to a concert probably also isn't breaching any terms for the same reason, but going to a festival under someone else's ticket almost certainly is and especially those where names and photos are printed on the tuckets. Taking part in a race definitely is breaching the terms, therfore that person is making use of facilities and services that they have not paid for and therfore it is theft.

If you were then to get into the numbers of competitors in the race being bigger than expected then there are costs associated with that.

M.m.m.

robinph wrote: »

They have if the person making use of those services was not the person authorised to do so.

Going to a movie isn't an issue as you don't tend to be be booking that under the names of the individuals going. Going to a concert probably also isn't breaching any terms for the same reason, but going to a festival under someone else's ticket almost certainly is and especially those where names and photos are printed on the tuckets. Taking part in a race definitely is breaching the terms, therfore that person is making use of facilities and services that they have not paid for and therfore it is theft.

If you were then to get into the numbers of competitors in the race being bigger than expected then there are costs associated with that.

They use facial recognition biometrics for certain festivals for security reasons. I dont see any kind of comparison to a race. You wouldn't be getting into the likes of Glastonbury on someone elses photo.


I think you're just a stickler for rules Robin and if that suits you then thats fine but to continue the argument based on what you've been saying is a losing battle and i dont think its convinced anyone any different.

robinph

Go on and convince us that it is right to transfer race entries when it is specifically stated that it is not permitted on the entry rules.