Heat and the Chicago Marathon

The Midwest was suffering through unseasonably warm temperatures on Sunday, and come of the most prominent sufferers were the runners entered in the 30th Chicago Marathon.

Since the race, there has been a flood of media coverage, almost all of it negative. Stories have focused on the heat itself, the race director's decision to shut down the course and not allows runners who had entered to finish, and -- most unhappily -- the death of a runner, Chad Schieber, on the course.

At first, heat was suspected in Schieber's death, but an autopsy revealed that he died as a result of a pre-existing heart condition known as mitral valve prolapse. Nevertheless, the two stories -- extreme heat and a runner's death were linked in many news reports. Another story focused on reports from runners, unconfirmed so far, that the race ran out of water and gatorade at the early aid stations.

While I believe that major marathons should be held to very high standards as far as organization and preparedness, I'm having a hard time finding any fault with the race organizers or race director. I can't help but think that one of the problems is that too many people are running marathons, and that many of them are not prepared for it.

According to press reports, there were 45,000 entrants to the Chicago Marathon, Almost ten thousand stayed home when they heard weather reports that predicted temperatures in the high 80's. In all, 35,867 runners showed up for the start of the race. Many of these were first-time marathon runners.

Over 24,000 runners finished the race. They did this in spite of the heat, and in spite of all the other things that can go wrong when you run so far -- the blisters, the cramps, the wall, the injuries. It's impressive to me that 24,000 people finished a marathon in 88-degree heat. I am going to go out on a limb and say that with a few exceptions, the finishers had prepared for the event, and probably knew enough to know how to adjust their pace, clothing, and fluid intake strategies to deal with the extreme temperatures.

I was amazed to read that there was controversy when the organizers turned back runners who had not reached the halfway mark before 11:35 (three and a half hours after the start). The race organizers made the decision because they could no longer guarantee that medical personnel would be available to those runners. While I understand there are some runners who run a marathon in seven hours, I question whether those who planned to complete the marathon at 12-minute mile pace were prepared for the rigors of the race.

Should marathons limit the number of runners? Should they limit the field to runners who have already proven that they can complete a marathon in a specified time? Boston does this, but most major marathons do not. What responsibility do they have to make sure that people are properly trained for the race?

It never ceases to amaze me that marathons have become so popular. I think the marathon as an event has passed into the realm of metaphor, like climbing Everest, and that many people want to be able to say they've done one. Hundreds of thousands of people run in marathons every year in the U.S. By contrast, only a handful of adults ever compete in a cross-country race. It's just strange to me.

But I should probably not be surprised that newspapers, TV, and even NPR ran stories about the "brutal" heat in Chicago. In a way, extreme weather makes the event more compelling -- we might not like to admit it, but human suffering makes for thrilling drama. Having well-trained runners -- 24,000 of them -- lower their expectations and complete the race in well under seven hours, barely registers.