Running London this year and hoping to do sub 3.15.
Now I'm 40 at the moment - but 41 this year.
IF I can run sub 3.15 - is that good enough for a GFA next year - assuming they dont move the goalposts ?
GFA for 18-40 for men is sub 3, but for 41 its sub 3.15.
Do they go from your age at the time of the race, or the age you will be at the end of the year ?
0 ·
Comments
Sorry to disagree - I am in exactly the same position as Cougie, and as I read the rules on the FLM website, you have to be of the stated age when the 2009 FLM race happens (ie 41), and your qualifying time must have been achieved in 2009 or 2008 (well, assuming the same criteria are rolled forward to next year). So a sub 3-15 race performance when you are aged 40 is OK, there is nothing in the rules to say you also had to be in the same age group when that qualifying race was run.
That's certainly what I am hoping for.
Certainly worth a go anyway - they can only tell ya to bugger off !
As an aside, arn't the gfa catagories abit ridiculous?
http://www.london-marathon.co.uk/site/?pageID=2&submenu=13&article=31
How can it be fair that a man of 60-64 has to run a faster time than an 18yr old woman?!
Next year I'm going to enter as a 65-69yr old, i'll be 35....!
And yeah, its a lot easier for girls to get a GFA I reckon. Still - all in all - I think its harder being a girl. Shaving legs ? Madnesss !
Going back to the original question, a mate of mine did just that - ran sub 3:15 when he was 40 and used it for GFA at FLM for the next two years i.e. when he was 41 & 42. It's your age on the date of FLM that counts, not your age when you run the qualifying time.
The same is true for Boston, as it happens.
I read Melanie Angel's article in the May edition. Just wanted to wish her luck in her pursuit of a sub 4 hr FLM run, which would give her a "Good for Age" place next year.
Also note that crop tops and shorts are not only for elites but for those wanting to keep cool on warm days.
Good on yer Melanie.