It must be very frustrating for people who've never run London and who've had several rejections. I do feel sorry for you, and I wish that there was a fairer system. I'll come clean: I got into FLM 2002 through the ballot at my first attempt, and that makes me very lucky.
But for people who have already taken part in it, I don't really see what the obsession is all about. I don't suppose I would turn down the chance to run it again if the chance came, but taking part in FLM just gave me an appetite to explore other events. Running FLM year after year seems to me a bit like people who go on holiday to the same place year after year. No, it's not illegal or immoral, but just a teensy bit unadventurous.
What about all the other great marathons in the world? I was lucky enough to run Chicago in October, and it was a truly amazing experience. I won't run a marathon in 2003, but I'm already wondering about 2004. Berlin? Rome? New York? Prague? The Great Wall? The Connemarathon? (Not to mention the other high-class UK events.) So many great marathons, so little time!
I wouldn't want to criticise anyone for repeatedly wanting to run FLM: it's a personal choice of course. But if you apply and you don't get in, you shouldn't feel crushed by this. Run another great marathon instead. It's a wonderful excuse for a holiday to a place that you might not otherwise have thought of going.
Andy
0 ·
Comments
1) It's the highest profile marathon in this country
2) They enjoyed it - they probably will elsewhere, but they have a pretty definite idea that London wil be good
3) Cost - trips to Chicago are great, but not everyone will be able to afford them
I do personally though hope to find the time (and money) to do some other ones as well :-)
And it's my local marathon....
Regarding Chicago, it was our holiday for this year, and we turned it into a 2 week trip. I'm not sure where we would have gone if it was a non-Marathon holiday, but in our case, I don't think it would have been significantly cheaper.
But I do take your points, and I suppose I'm slightly playing devil's advocate. I'm not saying that people shouldn't want to run London, but it puzzles me when I see people getting so stressed out about not getting in. Statistically there is only a 1 in 5 or 6 chance of getting in through the ballot I believe, so unless you're an inveterate charity runner or a good-for-age, it shouldn't be a big surprise. Once every 5 years seems about right to me!
When you get excited about something, I think you lose perspective - as you say, odds are you will get rejected!
Andy
I can see why runners are attracted to London though and why they go back year after year. For me personally the first time I did it was the best experience. But there are so many others I would like to do. As RC says "so little time!"
For the last couple of years I've also done an autumn marathon - in European cities - and I might try Chicago or New York in future. One at home, plus one abroad seems like a nice balance to me.
Done London 5 times so I'm not that fussed about doing it every year, although you are right that it gives one the chance to run somewhere different.
I think the thing with London is the whole profile,TV coverage and awareness by non-runners.If you're training for something that big that is part of the incentive. Although there are some good regional races none of them even come close as regards profile.
Me, I'm thinking about Dublin this year and the neolithic next year.
this year's Dublin in 3.05 so at least i'll be okay for a GFA place in 2004.
Andy
There is NOTHING like it.
It's personal opinion, but the "London or nothing" attitude seems sad and silly to me.
Andy
London's not the only race to have water and energy drinks all the way. Loch Ness this year had water and Lucozade every 3 miles. The crowds were very thin on the ground though, because it was the first running of it, and most of the course is on a single track road with very few houses on it.
I didn't get into London for next year, but will be training hard for a better time at Loch Ness in September.
Andy
My point, or one of them, was that there's roughly a 1 in 5 or 6 chance of getting in through the ballot (for UK entrants), so there's no point in getting too anxious about it. Essentially, you have a relatively snall chance of getting in unless you run for charity or are good-for-age, or a lucky club member, so entrants might as well plan, or not plan, on that basis. Seems to me the best policy is to enter each year and assume that you won't get in. Once in a while you will, and it will be a nice surprise. Better than the other way round.
Andy
I received my Unsuccessful Applicant's Edition the other day. I didn't see why it had to print "Unsuccessful Applicant" on every page - just to rub it in that little bit more!
www.marathontour.com/london/index.shtml
and book your trip to the London marathon. The drawback is that you have to book your travel through the agency, but at least you have a guaranteed entry. This assumes you are resident in N America. If you're liveing over here, I can't help!
Andy
Indy
If you are looking for a European destination marathon in the autumn, I suggest either Berlin (end of September) or Amsterdam (towards the end of October). I've run in both of them, and they are great events: well organised and scenic, with good crowd support. You can enter on-line, and there is none of this lottery bother - first come, first served. Dublin is also popular (October I think), but I don't think the course is so attractive and, frankly, there is less to see in sightseeing terms in Dublin, as compared to the other two cities.