for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

Edinburgh Marathon Festival 2014

1 lurker | 49 watchers

Dan A May 2014 12:22pm, 29 May 2014 2 posts	Quote Pin Dan A I see my blog was referenced a few pages back, so hope you don't mind if I jump in and expand a little. I'm afraid there is very little chance of Edinburgh marathon reversing this decision unless forced to do so, either by the appropriate sanctioning bodies or the overwhelming weight of their customers (runners). ie, if it causes a material decline in future entrants. The single most important factor for professional mass participation event companies such as GSI is entry numbers. More entrants = more profits. This number is fiercely protected, but equally strongly exaggerated. Big numbers grant certain permissions and rights of access, and make dealing with authorities much easier. I don't know if it's the case in Edinburgh, but I have worked with events companies where certain participant numbers (not just in running) mean access to financial grants. I similarly know of occasions where events companies organising mass participation events for a corporate sponsor, deliberately exaggerate (lie) about participant number to their clients in order to protect their income and future business. Don't want to get friends into trouble here so I won't be specific, but believe me it does go on (think mass participation cycling!). Not saying this example is the case with Edinburgh, but just using as an example as to how it's sometimes in the company's interest not to disclose actual participant numbers. The main reason behind the decision not to publish results was a COMMERCIAL one, designed to obscure participant numbers and to protect their financial interests in the long term. Much of what they sell themselves on, via their website and marketing literature, to runners, corporate sponsors and local authorities, are claims made on participant numbers (30,000 runners) and race statistics (fastest marathon in the UK / Britain’s no. 2 marathon). Many people will enter unknowingly because they want to be part of a 30,000 runner event and all the atmosphere that generates. In fact there were less than 18000 runners in the marathon & half this year. The 5k & 10k will add some more, but the total number will be way short of 30,000. In addition, claiming to be the fastest marathon in the UK will convince others to sign up, but there is no way to prove this claim unless access to all the finishing times is made available. It certainly isn't the fastest marathon in terms of winning times (cf. London 2.04). Also in terms of finishers, Brighton had more finishers than Edinburgh, so the no.2 claim is similarly flawed. Entry numbers for Edinburgh marathon this year were 11% down on 2011 when the results are most recently available. GSI won't want that trend to be made public. You can be sure that they are sitting in their office and weighing up whether a few hundred disgruntled customers venting their anger on social media and running forums is worth the risk of continuing their obfuscation and jeopardising future entrants who might not care either way. The development of social media in the last few years, turning these forums into a kind of Trip Advisor for races, will certainly be causing concern at GSI HQ. Hiding all the stats means that their published claims are at best inaccurate, and at worst a deliberate misinterpretation. Data privacy is an unacceptable reason for obscuring the truth behind their decision.
Nookie Bear May 2014 12:39pm, 29 May 2014 56 posts	Quote Pin Nookie Bear Cheers Dan A. A few folk have alluded to the financial reasoning behind this but you put it into words a lot better than I could have. Of course, if it was just the results then the matter would probably have dropped from view to be argued amongst the GFA crowd. However, add in the shambolic finish, the congestion, the cost, the paltry goody bags, the dull (to many) course that is almost entirely outwith the city, the transport.......and factor in years of irritating organsiational problems and obvious profiteering then you have a marathon that, quite frankly, deserves to fail. And in a city the size of Edinburgh, with our strong running numbers, that is a disgrace.
santababy May 2014 12:40pm, 29 May 2014 70,438 posts	Quote Pin santababy over the Marathon festival weekend which is what EMF stands for Edinburgh marathon festival - they will quote everyone who has run al lthe races 5k 10 k half and full marathon i'm sure as well as relay. So nunmber probably not far off. Giving that it hasnt had an actual sponsor since is was the Albert Bartlett Edinburgh Marathon then witholding results its not for commercial reasons. It is a business however and people do still need paid. I have an idea of how much it takes to put on a race without paying folk, just having the general things like chip timing is very expensive. Add to add every other minute details and it all sure adds up. BUT I think its a disgrace and an embarassment to my hometown. Doubt i shall run it again.
santababy May 2014 12:42pm, 29 May 2014 70,439 posts	Quote Pin santababy you all knew the course before entering, im guessing all the other quibbles have magnified due to the results thing if the results were there in full , im guessing there wouldnt be so many people queing up to pick holes in every litle thing. bandwagon etc I'm in no way supporting them, have said already i probably wont run again.
Yorkshire Pie May 2014 12:54pm, 29 May 2014 11,988 posts	Quote Pin Yorkshire Pie Absolutely agree it's a commercial decision. They may point to the wording in their terms (and thanks for the information about when that it was added), but it was their choice to put that wording there. They weren't forced to do so "because of data protection". [I have no axe to grind about the race itself as I didn't run it, and haven't since the potato years, but I do get wound up when people use data protection as an excuse for their own decisions!]
SODIron © 2002 May 2014 12:57pm, 29 May 2014 10,657 posts	Quote Pin SODIron © 2002 The IAAF thing is interesting....they are supposed to inform the IAAF of the top TWENTY finishers as soon as is possible. To the best of my knowledge they have not yet done this and, their stance of choosing a 'opt in' policy would make it difficult to post these unless all the top twenty male and female finishers opted in. I am starting to wonder if the 2014 race did actually have IAAF Bronze Label Race status...? Outside of the logo on the EMF/GSi website I can't see any evidence that the 2014 race 'retained' it's Bronze Label status. Is this something that once awarded is retained for the lifetime of the event or, do they have to renew/re-apply every year? Can someone show me the evidence that the 2014 race is actually a IAAF Bronze Label Race?
K5 Gus May 2014 1:03pm, 29 May 2014 756 posts	Quote Pin K5 Gus iaaf.org It's listed above
SODIron © 2002 May 2014 1:05pm, 29 May 2014 10,658 posts	Quote Pin SODIron © 2002 So it is listed and yet they look very unlikely to actually complete their obligations....interesting.
Son of a Pronator Man May 2014 1:11pm, 29 May 2014 7,811 posts	Quote Pin Son of a Pronator Man That list contains a Marathon in Pyonyang, North Korea. Tha's clearly where EMF have been to learn about openness and data protretion
Judithvr6 May 2014 1:13pm, 29 May 2014 14 posts	Quote Pin Judithvr6 Their news report of EMF marathon says it was Bronze (and is found in the IAAF Road Lable page link iaaf.org