The Lakefront Marathon Controversy--and a Very Happy Ending

A controversy developed last week at the Lakefront Marathon in Milwaukee after the top two competitors were disqualified for mid-race rule infractions. The first woman to cross the line, Cassie Peller, was dq'ed after it was discovered that she took water from someone at an area that was not an authorized water station.  Peller claims that she only took water from a boy in his yard early in the race (way to throw a kid under the bus, one commenter said) and from a friend who offered her a "sip" later on, though the race director says that the "sip" was actually from a friend who got out of a vehicle, gave her a water bottle, and ran with her for a short time. 

This gave the victory to Jennifer Goebel, who was the promptly dq'ed after it was discovered that she wore an iPod for a couple of miles during the race. I say "discovered" because no race officials noticed this during the race; they were alerted only after online pictures of Goebel were posted with her wearing the headphones between miles 19 and 21.  This, in turn, gave the victory to Corina Canitz, a 42 year old mother of four (!) who won the 2007 and 2008 marathons. 

All runners had to sign a form stating that they had read the race rules, which contains the following:

With the exception of “citizen aid stations” where neighbors provide additional aid available to ALL participants, you may not accept aid outside of the designated aid stations.  This means that your friends and family cannot meet you on the course to provide aid to you.  Such behavior violates the USATF Rules of Competition and provides you with an unfair advantage over participants who do not have people out there to help them.

AND

The USATF Rules of Competition also prohibit the wearing of headphones used with MP3 players and other similar devices for persons competing for USATF Championship awards or prize money.  Other participants are allowed to use Mp3 players . . . Participants who fail to comply with the directions of ANY race official will be subject to disqualification.

It seems pretty clear that both runners, since they signed a statement agreeing to adhere to the course rules, should be disqualified.  I don't know how you can argue against that. Neither runner had a particularly persuasive reason why they should not be disqualified.  Both Goebel and Peller offer the weak defense that they should not be dq'ed since so many other people were doing the same thing. USATF rules state that non-elite runners can wear headphones, and Goebel seems to also want us to believe that she is, in fact, a non-elite runner, so she should not be disqualified.  "If they're going to disqualify me for having an iPod they should disqualify everyone who had one," she said. "It's just a little ridiculous. I went there to have a fun race with my friends." 

For her part, Peller said, "There were several other people that took aid," she said. "I had some friends running the marathon who said people around them were doing the same thing."  "Everyone else was doing it too" is hardly a justification, and it actually underscores why this rule is in place: if people are allowed to take water anywhere on the course, there could be collisions as runners cut each other off trying to get to the spot where their accomplice is standing with the water. 

(From a rhetorical point of view, Goebel's argument is more incriminating.  It's an example of how the less you say, the more credible you appear.  I read her statement and had a hard time believing that she really thought she was just going to have a good time with her friends and not try to win the race.  And that thought never would have crossed my mind had she not put it there in the first place.  In other words, she unintentionally arms her detractors.)

Both runners, however, are receiving support from fellow runners who think they should be reinstated. 

You might think that headphones are harmless, but running etiquette--race or no race--dictates that you know what and who is around you.  Otherwise, you might cut someone off when you change your trajectory to take a tight turn or pass someone.  Even when I run on some of the neighborhood paths, I sometimes have to make a split second adjustment to my stride when the headphone-wearing walker or runner decides to step in my way at the last minute, oblivious to my presence. 

Some issues here.  One, since Goebel "won," we can assume she has a pretty good knowledge of race rules and protocols.  How, then, could she wear an iPod and not know it was against the rules?  Two, she was only dq'ed a few days after the race, when someone noticed a picture of her online wearing the headphones.  Should race officials be able to dq someone so long after the fact?  Some people are saying that they should not.

And three, is the USATF being a bit snooty in letting mid-pack runners wear headphones?  Are mid-pack runners nothing but recreational joggers with little interest in setting a personal best? I'm assuming that many of them want to run as fast as possible, so the potential of mid-pack collisions or accidents is still there. 

But this story has a happy ending.  Canitz, the newly-declared winner, donated her $500 prize earnings to the Jenny Crain Make it Happen Fund.  Crain was an elite marathon runner who was struck by a car in 2007 and left with severe brain damage (more here).  Runners World has an online item here, but their latest print issue has a full feature on Crain and her recovery.  The distance she can walk is measured in feet, but she is improving. Pick up the latest issue and stop feeling sorry for yourself if you have a bad run.

Oh, and one more runner, a man whose wife and two kids joined him in running the last 100 meters of the race, might be dq'ed as well.  It made for a great photo in the Milwaukee paper, but anyone who knows anything about racing (and this guy finished 29th overall, so he's hardly a novice) knows that you can't do this.  One observer said that one of his sons was almost run over by a competitor, not to mention the fact that they could have impeded others' progress. 

Want more dq craziness?  There's this. 

I've hyperlinked to several stories in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel throughout this post; you can follow the controversy by clicking on any of the links and reading additional stories in the right-hand column of the linked story. 

Comments

[Steven Roll]

While I love to run with my iPod, I adhere to the rule against wearing one during races.

During the last marathon I ran in 2008, listening to AC/DC's "Back in Black" or the Rocky theme song would have been just the ticket at mile 22.

That's where someone I had been running evenly with over the past several miles put on his headphones and surged ahead. When I chatted with him in the post-race area he actually suggested that I try wearing an iPod.

"I'd love to, but it's against the rules," I told him. But until it's consistently enforced the rule against headphones puts those of us willing to abide by it at a disadvantage.

[Benjamin Opipari]

Disclosure: Steve, the previous commenter, and I live two blocks apart.

I never run with an iPod anywhere near where we live (about one mile outside the DC Beltway) because so much of my running involves streets and sidewalks. It's just too dangerous. But I'll wear one when I do track workouts, and it does give me a boost.

The problem with headphones in races is that you need to be aware of your surroundings when you go to pass someone or even when you alter your running line. You can easily cut someone off if you aren't careful.

But the more I think about what happened in that race, the more I think that rogue water suppliers are more dangerous. Without a rule prohibiting them, people would be crossing the course throughout the race trying to reach their supply.