Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Virgin marathon ballot scam
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
You should be very careful to think about what you post.
"what does seem unreasonable is the weighted outcome in favour of the non payer."
Yet you still haven't come up with any evidence, apart from counting a very small sample from the thousands who applied. Statistically your sample is insignificant, and in all probability biased as well (only those who didn't get places have an axe to grind, after all). If you'd written the same stuff in a newspaper instead of on here accusing VLM of a 'ballot scam' you'd be in court by now.
If you are so convinced it's a scam why do you still want to enter?
Wouldn't you be better off running to the newspapers with your "scoop"?
Perhaps if you put as much effort into running as you do getting wound up with your conspiracy theory you'd get a GFA time and wouldn't have to worry about the ballot at all. Just a thought.
Calling something a scam without any clear evidence or the protection of public interest or fair comment is clear defamation - I'm not sure the people who run this site would be best pleased because you're laying them open to defamation proceedings. Not very clever.
Where does the figure of "anything between 100,000 and 250,000 entries per year" come from?
I thought the ballot closes when they reach in the region of 120,000 entries?
So who do you think the lawyers would come looking for ?
You can't throw around allegations with big companies involved. I'm pretty sure Virgin Money don't take too kindly to people making dodgy claims about them.
A conpiracy theory is one thing but claiming there is a conspiracy without good proof is another.
Yeah, let's pie him!
"A conpiracy theory is one thing but claiming there is a conspiracy without good proof is..."
pretty much the same thing really.
Who wants to hear my take on the VLM? No-one ...... well too bad, Ive never been one to bow to public pressure.
I think situations like on this thread arise because of the lack of the transparency from the VLM. They would do better to be more transparent about how they go about selecting people. Not necessarily revealing the exact formula, but at least a general description of how many people are applying, and a rough idea of how they are allocated/distributed (ie do they use times as a weighting measurement at all?). Not enough for people to deliberately skew the system but enough information to allay this 'I didnt get in, so its all a scam business'
Having said that, its absolutely churlish of people to say 'Its their race, they can do what they like, don't like it organise your own.'
Because guess what ....... Boris aint gonna let you run your own London Marathon Mk II. So as the current organisers have a monopoly on it (or should the fact I was 6 years old when it was first organised mean that I should forever miss out on the opportunity because it was my fault that when I was 5 years old I didnt put in my own application to run the marathon), it behooves them to have to have MORE transparency than other race organisers. In fact what should actually happen is the organisation should be up for tender every so often. Why should by the freak of nature that they happened to be first in, in 1981 give them a lifetime of organising the event to the detriment of everyone who may even *gasp* be able to run the event better. And no before you start reading between the lines, I couldnt run it better ....... but do you really think that co-incidentally the first people who happened to apply for it 30 years ago just happen to continue to be the most efficient organisers. That no-one else could possible run it better?
They do have 30 years of experience...
So does Amstrad ........ lets ditch Apple and Microsoft, and we'll just let Alan Sugar run all computers since he was one of the first in ........ after all, I doubt anyone could have come after him that could possibly be innovative or better right?
I haven't heard from one person in my running club that got in apart from those on teh GFA...............
No one bequeathed thgeir money..........mayvbe there is a conspiracy against those who are in a club so that they get those paying the extra £2 fees in.........
Its not fair i tell you.
grow a pair.train and get yourself a place...
The VLM is one of the best organised races there is for its size so no, I don't think anyone else could.
Also it's a pretty well-organised race.
Maybe we should give it to the clown that runs the British 10k?
London seems pretty good value too, compared to the cost of other races.
A non.......find a different city to do it.maybe the city of your birth.......there is no way to ruun London that is going to please everyone.the answer is easy.get a GFA time if you are that desperate to run it...otherwise you aren't that bothered.....
It's a bloody bargain Pudge.
The current organisers of the VLM may be the best organisers in the world ....... thats fine. But let them prove it then. Have a tendering process and allow other people if they wish to come in and run it have the chance to. But the way it currently is, is a bit like the public service. As long as you get your foot through the door, it doesnt really matter how well you perform as youre the incumbent and cant be replaced. Not much incentive to keep striving for improvement does it?
And if they are so well run, why do we keep having these issues year after year about people complaining about not getting in etc etc ...... I realise some people will always complain,but a bit more transparency from the organisers should definitely occur, so theres one chink in their armour right there.
Seren Nos ........ how does getting a GFA time solve the issue about whether the current organisers are the best people to run the thing?
There's just the possibility that when they say they'll take 120,000 entries to the ballot, and then hold the ballot, that they are being transparent, i.e. it is what it says on the tin.
As for putting it out for tender, history suggests that the bidder best placed to win the tender (by promising whatever it takes to win) isn't necessarily the one who'll be best at organising it. It's not broken, why the rush to fix it?
To be fair, Dave, only two people on this thread seem to think it is broken.
Mr. A - we get the same complaints year after year because it's massively over subscribed. The reason it's massively over subscribed is because it's a hugely popular race.
Really not rocket science.
Look at the Liverpool Marathon - that went to tender and they gave it to a London based company. Then the company realised they were already running a marathon on that day so had to admit that they couldn't do two.
(also just think of the extra costs if people outside the area organise an event. All of their hotel costs and travelling expenses would all come from the pocket of runners. It makes little sense to me)
the race is significantly over subscribed every yr for 30 yrs+ and the only grumbles are from those who dont get it not those who take part. id say they do a decent job and until if they fall beneath those standards then they get to keep it.
transparency of the selection would be a short term fix for the moaning few who dont get in. they would still moan but regarding how unlucky they are.
for me the main thing they need to change is why wait until october to tell people if they are in, ballot in april tell people in may.
you rarely ever hear people complaining about the expo queues or the baggage or the marshalling etc of this race.......they clean up after the last runner.......it seems to work like clockwork each year......
they have published information on all the London charities it helps support each year through the organisation
so apart from those moaning that they are not in.....there are no other complaints........agree with the adage if it ain't broke then don't fix it
All the people (including myself, about 6 of us) that I know that applied from Leeds didnt get in, but there were two people from Bristol I know that did, its a pretty clear cut line between those that applied from Leeds, and those that applied from Bristol, which raises the question, Why does the london marathon hate people from Leeds?
Its a scam i say!
If there was some problem with lack of transparency - and I don't think there is - and the organisers were asked/forced to give more details about how the ballot numbers are organised, surely all this would do is give people ideas about how to beat the system, e.g. by putting down completely unrealistic target times, or saying that they're a brick layer and not in fact a snake breeder (or something.)
Anyways up - not broken, doesn't need fixing. Tender schmender. It's a well organised race that's heavily over-subscribed. Loads of people will be disappointed every year. A few of those will have a good whinge about it. Some will betray their lack of grasp of statistics and cry conspiracy.
So... anyone want a Champs place for next year? I'm thinking 300 big ones. I'll lend you my shorts to run in.