Chip Times or Clock Times in Chicago?

Chip Times or Clock Times in Chicago?

Post by Tim Gros » Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:12:29


I was looking closely at the Top 100s in the Chicago Marathon results (e.g.http://209.249.105.64/lasalle2002/) and noticed these results which appear to be official as linked from http://www.chicagomarathon.com/ are actually sorted on chip time (time it physically took you to get from the start line to the finish) rather than the time since the "gun" went.

Is this now happening generally in US races?

Whilst these chip times are clearly interesting for the slower runners I do not find having the result of the race sorted on chip times rather unsatisfactory as it appears you could "beat" somebody but finish after them.

I thought the idea for the elites at least is that the best runners get at or very near the front. I noted for instance that Andy Hass seemed to take 29 seconds to cross the line. Fortuantely he was still under 2:30 on clock time so absolutely no doubt about his excellent barrier breaking run. Maybe he deliberately started off the front or maybe many runners were nearer to the front than perhaps they should have been?

Cheers
Tim Grose

 
 
 

Chip Times or Clock Times in Chicago?

Post by Chris Smit » Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:33:47

Tim, I recall from Andy's race report that he was cutting it close
getting from the airport to the race location, completing pre-race
preparations, etc., and that he struggled to get to the area for seeded
runners but didn't quite make it before the gun. Probably explains the
29 seconds for him to cross the starting line.
Quote:

> I was looking closely at the Top 100s in the Chicago Marathon results
> (e.g.http://209.249.105.64/lasalle2002/) and noticed these results
> which appear to be official as linked from
> http://www.chicagomarathon.com/ are actually sorted on chip time (time
> it physically took you to get from the start line to the finish)
> rather than the time since the "gun" went. Is this now happening
> generally in US races? Whilst these chip times are clearly interesting
> for the slower runners I do not find having the result of the race
> sorted on chip times rather unsatisfactory as it appears you could
> "beat" somebody but finish after them. I thought the idea for the
> elites at least is that the best runners get at or very near the
> front. I noted for instance that Andy Hass seemed to take 29 seconds
> to cross the line. Fortuantely he was still under 2:30 on clock time
> so absolutely no doubt about his excellent barrier breaking run. Maybe
> he deliberately started off the front or maybe many runners were
> nearer to the front than perhaps they should have been? CheersTim
> Grose


 
 
 

Chip Times or Clock Times in Chicago?

Post by Ron Natali » Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:35:06

Quote:

> I was looking closely at the Top 100s in the Chicago Marathon results (e.g.http://209.249.105.64/lasalle2002/)

I wouldn't get too balled up over it.  Most likely it was a feature of whoever wrote the silly results browser than
any official policy on position ranking.   The results for last year for the top 10 are sorted in some bizarre
order (I think the guys who are intersersed throughout with times under 2 hours are all wheelchairs, I know
the first one is.

The fact that ChampionChip submitted the results to DOIT to put on their web page may have some
bearing on thie issue :-)

 
 
 

Chip Times or Clock Times in Chicago?

Post by Andrew T Has » Thu, 17 Oct 2002 01:52:42

  Yup.  They placed the bulk of the porta-jons too far from the start and
many of us didn't know they were there.  We lined up at the few that were
there, and I cut it too close to get to my "seeded" position.  People who
started where I SHOULD have been lagged only 5-10 sec behind gun time.  I
know people got into sub-elite seedind (1-3 sec behind gun time) with
2:32, maybe 2:40 even.  That will be me next year :)
Andy Hass
Quote:

> Tim, I recall from Andy's race report that he was cutting it close
> getting from the airport to the race location, completing pre-race
> preparations, etc., and that he struggled to get to the area for seeded
> runners but didn't quite make it before the gun. Probably explains the
> 29 seconds for him to cross the starting line.

>> I was looking closely at the Top 100s in the Chicago Marathon results
>> (e.g.http://209.249.105.64/lasalle2002/) and noticed these results
>> which appear to be official as linked from
>> http://www.chicagomarathon.com/ are actually sorted on chip time (time
>> it physically took you to get from the start line to the finish)
>> rather than the time since the "gun" went. Is this now happening
>> generally in US races? Whilst these chip times are clearly interesting
>> for the slower runners I do not find having the result of the race
>> sorted on chip times rather unsatisfactory as it appears you could
>> "beat" somebody but finish after them. I thought the idea for the
>> elites at least is that the best runners get at or very near the
>> front. I noted for instance that Andy Hass seemed to take 29 seconds
>> to cross the line. Fortuantely he was still under 2:30 on clock time
>> so absolutely no doubt about his excellent barrier breaking run. Maybe
>> he deliberately started off the front or maybe many runners were
>> nearer to the front than perhaps they should have been? CheersTim
>> Grose

 
 
 

Chip Times or Clock Times in Chicago?

Post by Bob » Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:20:45

We ran the Gorge Games 10K trail run this summer and wore chips on our
wrists instead of ankles. They said it didn't matter but we
were DNF because apparently it did matter in the end.
My kid was 2nd and I was 1st in my division 15th overall and the race
officials didn't even bother to listen to our protest.

I still haven't gotten over that mess.

DON'T RUN THE GORGE GAMES!!

Bob

I was looking closely at the Top 100s in the Chicago Marathon results
(e.g.http://209.249.105.64/lasalle2002/) and noticed these results which
appear to be official as linked from http://www.chicagomarathon.com/ are
actually sorted on chip time (time it physically took you to get from the
start line to the finish) rather than the time since the "gun" went.

Is this now happening generally in US races?

Whilst these chip times are clearly interesting for the slower runners I do
not find having the result of the race sorted on chip times rather
unsatisfactory as it appears you could "beat" somebody but finish after
them.

I thought the idea for the elites at least is that the best runners get at
or very near the front. I noted for instance that Andy Hass seemed to take
29 seconds to cross the line. Fortuantely he was still under 2:30 on clock
time so absolutely no doubt about his excellent barrier breaking run. Maybe
he deliberately started off the front or maybe many runners were nearer to
the front than perhaps they should have been?

Cheers
Tim Grose

 
 
 

Chip Times or Clock Times in Chicago?

Post by Billy » Fri, 18 Oct 2002 08:28:14

It's unfortunate if you lost out because your chip didn't register however
if you're fast enough to finish near the front then you must have done
enough races to realize that many of the race staff are volunteers that have
never raced and hence have no clue on how chip timing or anything else
works.  The timing mat is on the ground so the closer the chip is to it the
better the chance of registration.  Simple physics that wearing on the ankle
is better.  Live and learn.
Quote:

>We ran the Gorge Games 10K trail run this summer and wore chips on our
>wrists instead of ankles. They said it didn't matter but we
>were DNF because apparently it did matter in the end.
>My kid was 2nd and I was 1st in my division 15th overall and the race
>officials didn't even bother to listen to our protest.

>I still haven't gotten over that mess.

>DON'T RUN THE GORGE GAMES!!

>Bob


>I was looking closely at the Top 100s in the Chicago Marathon results
>(e.g.http://209.249.105.64/lasalle2002/) and noticed these results which
>appear to be official as linked from http://www.chicagomarathon.com/ are
>actually sorted on chip time (time it physically took you to get from the
>start line to the finish) rather than the time since the "gun" went.

>Is this now happening generally in US races?

>Whilst these chip times are clearly interesting for the slower runners I do
>not find having the result of the race sorted on chip times rather
>unsatisfactory as it appears you could "beat" somebody but finish after
>them.

>I thought the idea for the elites at least is that the best runners get at
>or very near the front. I noted for instance that Andy Hass seemed to take
>29 seconds to cross the line. Fortuantely he was still under 2:30 on clock
>time so absolutely no doubt about his excellent barrier breaking run. Maybe
>he deliberately started off the front or maybe many runners were nearer to
>the front than perhaps they should have been?

>Cheers
>Tim Grose

 
 
 

Chip Times or Clock Times in Chicago?

Post by Bob » Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:40:08

Definitely live and learn.

I have run all through college on the track and XC teams and after.
But I never had used a chip before, since we avoid the big road race stuff.
My fault, but when you have a registered, national timing system and
employees
running the race, there should have been better instructions.

The package said, "Wear chip to receive time".  The event coordinator agreed
that they
had erroneously forgotten to put the phrase "around your ankle".

Sorry for the tirade, but we worked hard for that race and it was very
disappointing especially since they
had videotape of the finish and proved the places of the top finishers.


Quote:
> It's unfortunate if you lost out because your chip didn't register however
> if you're fast enough to finish near the front then you must have done
> enough races to realize that many of the race staff are volunteers that
have
> never raced and hence have no clue on how chip timing or anything else
> works.  The timing mat is on the ground so the closer the chip is to it
the
> better the chance of registration.  Simple physics that wearing on the
ankle
> is better.  Live and learn.


> >We ran the Gorge Games 10K trail run this summer and wore chips on our
> >wrists instead of ankles. They said it didn't matter but we
> >were DNF because apparently it did matter in the end.
> >My kid was 2nd and I was 1st in my division 15th overall and the race
> >officials didn't even bother to listen to our protest.

> >I still haven't gotten over that mess.

> >DON'T RUN THE GORGE GAMES!!

> >Bob


> >I was looking closely at the Top 100s in the Chicago Marathon results
> >(e.g.http://209.249.105.64/lasalle2002/) and noticed these results which
> >appear to be official as linked from http://www.chicagomarathon.com/ are
> >actually sorted on chip time (time it physically took you to get from the
> >start line to the finish) rather than the time since the "gun" went.

> >Is this now happening generally in US races?

> >Whilst these chip times are clearly interesting for the slower runners I
do
> >not find having the result of the race sorted on chip times rather
> >unsatisfactory as it appears you could "beat" somebody but finish after
> >them.

> >I thought the idea for the elites at least is that the best runners get
at
> >or very near the front. I noted for instance that Andy Hass seemed to
take
> >29 seconds to cross the line. Fortuantely he was still under 2:30 on
clock
> >time so absolutely no doubt about his excellent barrier breaking run.
Maybe
> >he deliberately started off the front or maybe many runners were nearer
to
> >the front than perhaps they should have been?

> >Cheers
> >Tim Grose

 
 
 

Chip Times or Clock Times in Chicago?

Post by mwrigh » Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:20:13

Yup, have to agree with you BillyG - caveat emptor, or maybe runner emptor
(sorry - the joke would be better if I knew any Latin).  Have run 3 races
locally with my own chip and two were screwed up because of unknowledgeable
volunteers.  At the first, because I didn't know any better, when the
volunteer said with confidence that the computer would be able to pick up my
number, I believed her.  (The data for that race was later found after I
begged for help from the company responsible for the chip timing.).  The
second race I specifically instructed the volunteer to take down my name and
chip number.  She clearly lost the paper with the number on it, as I never
appeared in the race results (despite the photo of my beaming face crossing
the finish line).
Margaret


Quote:
> It's unfortunate if you lost out because your chip didn't register however
> if you're fast enough to finish near the front then you must have done
> enough races to realize that many of the race staff are volunteers that
have
> never raced and hence have no clue on how chip timing or anything else
> works.  at least is that the best runners get at

 
 
 

Chip Times or Clock Times in Chicago?

Post by Barr » Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:51:29

Quote:

> Yup, have to agree with you BillyG - caveat emptor, or maybe runner emptor
> (sorry - the joke would be better if I knew any Latin).  

Caveat cursor, I believe.

Barry

 
 
 

Chip Times or Clock Times in Chicago?

Post by Jonathan Sydenha » Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:17:48

With so many people running there are sometimes problems with the chip
timing and race directors (and Champion Chip) seem to be very good about
responding to them. In Denmark at least there is often a note somewhere in
the race instructions or on the relevant website telling peope,to get in
touch if they can't find their names in the results list. If there is other
evidence of a finish, I am sure the runner will usually get things put
right.
Luckily I've never encountered the problem myself, tho.
Jonathan

Quote:
> We ran the Gorge Games 10K trail run this summer and wore chips on our
> wrists instead of ankles. They said it didn't matter but we
> were DNF because apparently it did matter in the end.
> My kid was 2nd and I was 1st in my division 15th overall and the race
> officials didn't even bother to listen to our protest.

> I still haven't gotten over that mess.

> DON'T RUN THE GORGE GAMES!!

> Bob


> I was looking closely at the Top 100s in the Chicago Marathon results
> (e.g.http://209.249.105.64/lasalle2002/) and noticed these results which
> appear to be official as linked from http://www.chicagomarathon.com/ are
> actually sorted on chip time (time it physically took you to get from the
> start line to the finish) rather than the time since the "gun" went.

> Is this now happening generally in US races?

> Whilst these chip times are clearly interesting for the slower runners I
do
> not find having the result of the race sorted on chip times rather
> unsatisfactory as it appears you could "beat" somebody but finish after
> them.

> I thought the idea for the elites at least is that the best runners get at
> or very near the front. I noted for instance that Andy Hass seemed to take
> 29 seconds to cross the line. Fortuantely he was still under 2:30 on clock
> time so absolutely no doubt about his excellent barrier breaking run.
Maybe
> he deliberately started off the front or maybe many runners were nearer to
> the front than perhaps they should have been?

> Cheers
> Tim Grose

 
 
 

Chip Times or Clock Times in Chicago?

Post by Ron Natali » Sat, 19 Oct 2002 02:22:06

Quote:

> Yup, have to agree with you BillyG - caveat emptor, or maybe runner emptor
> (sorry - the joke would be better if I knew any Latin).  Have run 3 races
> locally with my own chip and two were screwed up because of unknowledgeable
> volunteers.

Tell me about it.   I pointed out to the local running events company (after they
failed to match my chip up with my name, and they stopped listing "orphan"
chips at the bottom of their rundowns), that they should tell the volunteers
that fat-finger the information in (or fix the software) that there are some checks
on the chip number.   For instance, my time got lost because they entered my
chip number with the letter "I".   I and O NEVER appear in the chip number
(there are a few other checks that can be done).

Larger events (like the DC Marathon and the RNR half) use scanners to read the
chips at registration that obviate this problem (as a matter of fact, the RNR half
just had a big bowl of chips and they just either picked one up or used the one you
brought when you checked out).

Ron (DX1X11D).

 
 
 

Chip Times or Clock Times in Chicago?

Post by lust » Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:14:57

Quote:

> Caveat cursor, I believe.

Quite, as in: "Paavo Nurmi, cursor Finnus celeberrimus, athleta
omnium temporum maximus habetur. Hic erat eventus suffragii
internationalis, quod periodicum Americanum Time nuper faciendum
curavit. Nurmi, qui et rex cursorum et Finnus volans appellari
solet, tribus Olympiis decennio huius saeculi secundo celebratis
novem nomismata aurea et tria argentea consecutus est.":-)

Anders

 
 
 

Chip Times or Clock Times in Chicago?

Post by Barr » Sun, 20 Oct 2002 12:34:40

Quote:

> Quite, as in: "Paavo Nurmi, cursor Finnus celeberrimus, athleta
> omnium temporum maximus habetur. Hic erat eventus suffragii
> internationalis, quod periodicum Americanum Time nuper faciendum
> curavit. Nurmi, qui et rex cursorum et Finnus volans appellari
> solet, tribus Olympiis decennio huius saeculi secundo celebratis
> novem nomismata aurea et tria argentea consecutus est.":-)

But despite his talents, he never won in Chicago.

Barry

 
 
 

Chip Times or Clock Times in Chicago?

Post by lust » Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:27:13

Quote:

> But despite his talents, he never won in Chicago.

Actually, he won - in addition to those nine Olympic gold
and three silver medals - both of the two races he ever
ran in Chicago: an indoor 1 3/4 miles in January 1925 and
an outdoor 3000 meters in April 1925:-)

(He never won an Olympic Marathon. He did win his one and
only marathon, the Olympic qualification in Viipuri in June
1932, but he lost his amateur rights before the Games in
Los Angeles commenced.)

Anders