Running: Windy City Meltdown: Has the Marathon Gotten Out of Control?

Friday, October 12, 2007 - 06:04 PM

By Don Allison
For Active.com

I’ve never really understood the attraction of the so-called “mega” marathons, those 26-mile moving masses of humanity that snake through city streets. Sure, there’ a lot of energy and excitement, but when you get to the running part, where is the fun? Waiting for hours before the start? Standing in a long line for a porta-john? Battling your way to the start and then wiggling around dozens of runners every time you try to pick up the pace? Negotiating a forest of arms and legs just to get a drink at an aid station?

I’ve always said the two toughest marathons in which to excel (at least for a mid-pack runner) are Boston and New York. Not necessarily for the difficulty of the courses—although neither can be characterized as easy—but for the seemingly endless waiting before the start and then the aforementioned logistical challenges once the race is underway.

Well, now you can add Chicago to that list. In recent years the Chicago Marathon has been a destination for those seeking a flat, fast course and predictably cool, crisp conditions. 2007 however, turned up a searing hot day, with temperatures reaching the uppers 80s, accompanied by high humidity. Call it an aberration or call it Global Warming, the bottom line for the tens of thousands of marathoners was difficulty, disappointment and danger. By now you probably know the ugly results: one dead, dozens hospitalized with heat-related illnesses, and thousands of others stopped from continuing by race officials at the 13-mile mark—not to mention the dashed dreams of countless others seeking a first marathon finish or a personal best.

Why did this particular marathon suffer such disastrous consequences? After all, it’s not as if this was the first long-distance race run in hot weather. The mercury at the Boston Marathon reached into the uppers 90s in 1976, the famous “run for the hoses.” Ultrarunners endure temperatures of up to 120 degrees in the famed Badwater Ultramarathon, at 135 miles longer than five marathons. Why then, did such a colossal meltdown ensue in Chicago?

A big part of the answer can be found in the numbers themselves. With fields of 40,000 or more, problems can and often do increase exponentially. For instance, many runners in Chicago, realizing the difficulty they were facing, turned aid stations into their own personal bathing stations, pouring several cups of water on their heads and body.

Race director Carey Pinkowski said, "Our participants were not consuming the water, they were cooling themselves with it. So we had individuals that were going to these stations, stopping, grabbing five, six, seven cups of water, cooling themselves with it and blocking the traditional flow of our procession through the water stations. That was something that, I will be honest with you, we didn't anticipate. We thought with our advisory, with our e-mail blast, that our participants would go to the cooling stations, to the hydrants, to cool themselves. But what they were doing was using the water for consumption as a cooling activity."

Not surprisingly then, some aid stations ran out of water, thus creating an extremely dangerous setting for later runners. "There (were) tables without any water at all; they were just telling us to move on because there wasn't any water," runner Tracie Bain told CBS Chicago. "People were very aggravated and almost fighting over the water at times." As so often happens in dire circumstances, many city residents and good Samaritans pitched in to help runners in need. Even so, emergency personnel were stretched to their limits trying to care for those runners with serious medical concerns, thus leaving race officials with no other choice than to call an early halt to the marathon.

In retrospect, it’s difficult to place blame on anyone, including race officials. Directing and managing such a huge event with so many participants is somewhat analogous to piloting an ocean liner. Plowing ahead is fairly routine, but changing course at the last minute is difficult at best and often impossible. Even getting ten times as much water to each station, nearly logistical impossible, might still have left some runners dry.

Another reason for the debacle lies in the large volume of inexperienced runners in the field. Mega marathons such as Chicago are a natural draw for first-timers. “Safety in numbers” is undoubtedly one explanation for the large percentage of marathon rookies, which is bitterly ironic, given how events unfolded in Chicago, when rather than offering comfort, those very numbers turned against the first-timers.

While some of the first-timers were surely well-schooled and well-prepared for covering 26 miles on foot, a significant percentage were likely unprepared for dealing with the unusual and extreme heat. Let’s face it: much of the “mystique” of the marathon has been lost in the past few decades, trampled underfoot by the hundreds of thousands that have successfully completed the distance. People of all ages, shapes and sizes populate the hundreds of marathons on the race calendar in North America nowadays. Almost everyone knows someone—a family member, a friend, a work colleague—who can call themselves a marathoner.

The allure of achieving this seemingly difficult goal has brought the event to the masses, but in doing so has removed much of the “respect for the distance” that every serious runner will tell you is of paramount importance. Those that have run many marathons know that no matter how well any one race may have gone, the next one could very well present a monumental challenge. Bill Rodgers, one of the most decorated marathoners in history, has often stated, “the marathon will humble you.” Among those thousands of runners humbled at Chicago, many probably went into the race without a proper understanding of how difficult a marathon can be, especially when the conditions take a turn for the worse.

In addition, many of the first-timers likely did not know what measures to take in order to combat the hot weather. Some surely over-hydrated with water (if they could find it), diluting their systems and becoming hypotranemic (dangerously low sodium levels) as a result. Others may not have known that the only way to get to the finish was to significantly reduce their pace right from the start. Still others may have waited out in the hot sun before the start, causing their body temperatures to skyrocket before the race even began.

After all, there is no test to pass in order to enter the Chicago Marathon. No one had to prove they knew how to run a marathon in order to participate. Should that be a requirement? Should all marathons at least have some sort of basic qualifying requirement, such as having finished a road race of 10 miles or a half marathon? The libertarians among us will surely say no; those that want to run should be allowed to freely do so. Caveat emptor. And even if such a requirement were put in place, it would only add to the already heavy burden of race organizers.

Should races such as Chicago limit their fields? To what? 25,000? 10,000? What number will ensure that problems such as those that occurred in Chicago this year can be prevented? Does anyone know the answer to that question?

These are all difficult issues that massive marathons such as Chicago will have to deal with going forward. And given the increasingly unpredictable weather patterns--conditions such as those that visited Chicago--are likely to become more frequent. I do know that there are many smaller, high-quality marathons that are much easier to negotiate for both the first-timer and veteran. That’s where you’ll find me, far from the marathon crowds.