London Marathon Ballot system is a joke.

1246789

Comments

  • IronCat5 in the Hat wrote (see)
    Ah...but the number of places a club has is related to the number of UKA members at that club. So at a club where UKA membership is optional, how would you feel about a non-UK member getting the club place?

    Are you sure?  Last week I received an e-mail from London Marathon (to club secretaries) explaining the new online club entry system, and the only information they're after regarding numbers is the "number of registered first claim club runners over the age of 18".

  • PhilPub wrote (see)
    IronCat5 in the Hat wrote (see)
    Ah...but the number of places a club has is related to the number of UKA members at that club. So at a club where UKA membership is optional, how would you feel about a non-UK member getting the club place?

    Are you sure?  Last week I received an e-mail from London Marathon (to club secretaries) explaining the new online club entry system, and the only information they're after regarding numbers is the "number of registered first claim club runners over the age of 18".

    Registered as a first claim to whom? image

  • I think GFA should be FGFA ( Fuc#ing good for age) as these GFA times are trully unobtainable for some of us!!!
  • RUN-D-M-BRIE wrote (see)
    I think GFA should be FGFA ( Fuc#ing good for age) as these GFA times are trully unobtainable for some of us!!!

    if they weren't everyone would have guaranteed entry and they'd have problem with the numbers.

  • PP: Can't remember who I was running for but the Gorilla suit made it tough.

  • Fraid I have to agree with those who say, don't like the system, don't do the race! But if you really want to run it you can, won't tell you how but I think I'm up to 18 Londons now and at least 5 were legit incl a couple of GFA, the rest........ But that's it, by now I hate the bloody race, there are so many fantastic runs out there, for RUNNERS, why bother with all the crap that goes with the London? And if people look blankly at when you say you did the Halstead, so what!

  • You cant have a qualifying time for everyone because that discounts first time runners.

    Would it work to stop the big charities having a monopoly on the entrants by doing away with the golden bond and raising the entrance fee for everyone. That way they still make money that can go to the LMCT, New York is over $250 for US citizens and is still over subscribed. It would also give a wider range of charities that are missing out a fairer chance.

     

     

  • Don't you mean first timers at London ? Ther are other marathons you know
  • so put it out of the price of the poor amongst us .......and remove the money that the charities need....all so that average runners can say i ran london.............yeh...great ideaimage

  • Are you serious?

    I'm sure nobody would moan if they increased the entry fee to ten times the current fee.  That wouldn't make it very elitist, would it?  Who would decide which charities would get the funds?  

    Stroll on.

     
  • Yeah Chester Manchester Paris Nottingham Sheffield potteries see loads of others
  • I ran the race in 2011 and raised over £3k for charity which was a great experience but just wanted to run it through the ballot without having to make the commitment to raise money.

    I didn't get a spot in 2012 but am one of the very lucky ones to have receive my acceptance for 2013. I know a lot of people who didn't get a spot, I think they have 20,000 ballot places and 125,000 people apply for it.

    Good luck for next year don't give up!

  • Seren and Tenjiso thanks for your constructive ideas.

    The poor amonst us are already paying the price. We are the one's that go out running everyday spending our hard earned cash on running gear and local races, regardless of the weather, the name of the race or if the TV camera's are there.

    We are the one's that keep all the other races going and put money in the hands of well deserved charities all year round. Asking and receiving donations and support from the low earners that we work and live with.

    There are loads of charities complaining that they miss out on London because of the closed shop that exists with the current system.

    The charities are always going to get money, it would just be a fairer spread amounst them.

     

  • You should make a documentary.

  • Aye and I'd call it "Jog On Tenjiso"

  • IronCat5 in the Hat wrote (see)
    Shaun Reid wrote (see)
    If you are with a running club which is UKA affiliated but the individual isn't can you still get a place in the VLM through the club or does the runner have to be affiliated? Thanks, Shaun

     

    Wilkie wrote (see)
    Shaun Reid wrote (see)
    If you are with a running club which is UKA affiliated but the individual isn't can you still get a place in the VLM through the club...

    Yes, you don't have to be affiliated personally.

    Ah...but the number of places a club has is related to the number of UKA members at that club. So at a club where UKA membership is optional, how would you feel about a non-UK member getting the club place?

    I wouldn't care, they would still be club members.  But I think PhilPub is right - the number of places is related to the number of first claim members registered with the club.

    We're a very small club and have few UKA registered members, but still get our London place. 

  • Just before The Spartans folded, we were down to 5 members with 1 club place..



    The other 4 all got in under GFA, so I got in twice on the club place !
  • To be fair if you wanted to run it that much you would be happy to get yourself lean enough and you would happily do the the training to get GFA standard. Its a little bit sad that people actually think GFA is "truly untouchable". Statements like that say to me that certain people are creating there own limits. GFA is there if you "want" it
  • If my training went to plan then I would have managed a GFA, but alas injury struck. Even if I had managed on Sunday at Loch Ness then that would have only qualified me for 2014.  By which time the GFA will probably have changed. I had heard it was going down to 3:10, but wouldn't be surprised if it was lower. And to be fair less than 10% of finishers this year would have got the current GFA time.

  • Rod Wallace wrote (see)

    Aye and I'd call it "Jog On Tenjiso"

    I'd watch that.

    Go for it.

  • Rod.that is finishers of the Lomdon marathon whicgh is full of nion runners........

    The GFA aren't that unattainable..although I think they are not fair as a bloke in their 50's only is given 5 mins more than a bloke in his 20's..............much easier for the young blokes.but then are probbaly out getting pissed and having fun rather than running around the streets every day

  • I seem to remember them making the raising the GFA from 3hrs to 3:10 a couple of years ago for under 40s

  • Yes it was 3.10 for under 40's for 2013 which in not unattainable. Some of the GFA times look quite tough though.

    What time are you aiming for Rod?
  • i think the GFA is only tough for men in their 50's......My Oh isn't far off it  mind and he's not a particulary good runner...never broken 20 for a 5k.never in the top half of a field in the club league races...........but only 3 minutes of the 3:15 last attempt....

  • My GFA is 3:15. It is well attainable, and I would/should have got it this year but for injuries. Like most regular runners I am always looking to improve on times and will continue to aim for the GFA.

    Maybe over the winter a GFA in the half would be a realistic target. I have one pencilled in for November.

    That would get a place in London in 2014, provided they dont change the goal posts again.

  • the only goal posts they changed i thought was making it easier for men 20-40 getting in they moved it from 3:00 to 3:10

Sign In or Register to comment.