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
running the race, there should have been better instructions.
The package said, "Wear chip to receive time". The event coordinator agreed
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.
> 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
> 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
> better the chance of registration. Simple physics that wearing on the
> 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!!
> >I was looking closely at the Top 100s in the Chicago Marathon results
> >(e.g.http://126.96.36.199/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
> >not find having the result of the race sorted on chip times rather
> >unsatisfactory as it appears you could "beat" somebody but finish after
> >I thought the idea for the elites at least is that the best runners get
> >or very near the front. I noted for instance that Andy Hass seemed to
> >29 seconds to cross the line. Fortuantely he was still under 2:30 on
> >time so absolutely no doubt about his excellent barrier breaking run.
> >he deliberately started off the front or maybe many runners were nearer
> >the front than perhaps they should have been?
> >Tim Grose