I agree.And what is with all this telling people what they "should and shouldn't do/need to do...." etc.We are individuals and we  run for many different reasons.And as far as Katie Holme's time in NY...AWESOME JOB.There is no shame in running a 6 hour marathon.Or a 10 hour one for that matter.It's the persons' spirit ,and fact that they are in that 1% population of the world that has the courage to do this, that counts.How dare anyone sit on this board and criticize someone else's time.They don't have that right.

Dress like a turkey,wear an ipod,socoalize,talk to everyone or talk to nobody .Run your own race.Just be aware of your surroundigs  and use  common sense and courtesy in a race.Don't we sign something anyway that says we don't hold the race responsible for whatever happens out there?:p

<<<<"In fact, this is such a big violation of USATF rules that race directors should begin investing in on course monitoring equipment to identify runners who violate this rule and disqualify those runners from the race. "

I really have to laugh at the comments (pro and con) related to the "how to" enforce a ban. What absolutely astounds me is the comments from race personnel connected with larger races. I understand why runners who don't volunteer for anything at a race are always asking question (very accusing ones most often) about that which they would know IF they volunteered for other than a water stop. But some of these supposed RDs are really very small thinkers in that they think every action has to be complicated.

Here are some typical comments. "How would they ever enforce it?, "They'll never stop it all". The latter being the stupidest thing that can ever be said as a retort to stopping anything. Hello, you don't need to stop it all. You just need to stop most of it.

While the ban is about "cheating" to some degree, it is more about reducing the odds on safety issues, and whether the opponents of the ban like it or not, ipods are hundreds of times more of a risk than all the other distractionary risks tossed out by opponents to muddy the waters. Deaf people live with having to be more aware of thier surroundings as a way of life, so saying they don't pay attention is not reality. Deaf people observe so much more than you or I because they have to. Most races by a huge factor (this isn't just about large races) don't have wheelchair racers.

Anyway, you don't have to find and ban all those in a race. Human nature will take care of that. All the race has to do is:

1) Have the "waiver" state that if a runner is viewed and photographed "possessing" a ban device in the race, the runner agrees that they will pay (have charged to their credit card or whatever) a special fee of $300 or $400.

2) Have a person with a clipboard on the course (at an unlikely spot) writing down a few numbers with a camcorder running full time. I've also found that the race hired photo people who take pictures of everyone to sell capture phenomenally clear shots of al the violators.

Then you just slam a few on the runners with the heafty fee, publicize it and only the profoundly stupid with continue bring ipod to a race. Remember the goal is not to engage is a silly continuous game with the runners by disqualifying them, as many don't care about that. The goal is to STOP the use. Human nature will do that.

The "possessing" business is so runners don't get the option to jerk around race officials with "Oh, I wasn't wearing it". This isn't a game folks.

Oh, and before someone comments that my suggestion isn't "Fair". This isn't about "fair". When a person agrees to do something and then goes back on their word, they relinquish any right to be treated with either fairness or courtesy. I also don't ever feel a need to pressured into being "fair" with those who knowingly put themselves in harms way by electing to chose to do something they had the option of not doing.

<<<<Don't we sign something anyway that says we don't hold the race responsible for whatever happens out there?:p

I'm using the term YOU as a general reference to the running community and necessarily about the poster to which I'm replying.

This isn't about just YOU. If some of you don't like my implied tone then don't be an "It's all about ME" person.

Regardless of what you sign, if you are hurt seriously you and your lawyers will still come after the race and that will cost the race and the insurance company money and time. You see that sort of thing regularly on the news where some idiot who clearly has no case, hires a high profile lawyer just to get a "settlement". The odds say YOU would not do the honorable thing and leave the insurance company and race alone.

Even more meaningful to me as a race director is my exposure to having my apparent legal protection stripped away because I (the race) am accused of negligence when YOU cause injury to someone else. I can not in good conscious claim I didn't know that allowing ban devices into a race was a bad idea and practice. Even if I lied about that, the other runner's lawyer (the one YOU caused injury to) would claim I (the race) "should have known that a serious hazard existed". And their lawyer, unlike most you runners, will have access to the risk statistics of the insurance companies and push the risk factor that you the ipod user, are choosing to ignore because it suites your position.

BTW, you can always vote with your feet and not attend races that ban IPODs. But then since most of the races that will be doing the banning early on are races that sell out, it is with great glee that I say, "stay home". There will be hundreds or thousand (depending on the size of the race) who will gladly take your place. Why, because of human nature. Most runners run for running first, the music is an ad on and secondary. We can listen to music almost anywhere, but we can't always find the best races if start to limit our options.

This is my train of thought (maybe I'm wrong, someone tell me if I am). To qualify for the Boston marathon you had to run a certain time under the rules of the marathon. Ipods are illegal in marathons. A rule. By wearing an ipod you are breaking a rule. When someone knowingly breaks a rule they are cheating.

I can't say whether the persons place that you took would care or not (my guess is that he would rather run in it than not). I'm not even saying that the ipod helped you (although you said it gave you an oopmph going up a hill). I  know that others that wore an ipod in a marathon and qualified for the Boston marathon cheated. As I said before, while it may be  a stupid rule, it's still a rule. Does the USTAF have a list of important rules and unimportant rules?

As I said before, run with your music if you want. Run your own race.

I would  also like to apologize to Katie Holms for mocking her time. I must ask though, does running a marathon take courage? Fire fighters, relief workers in Africa, the Coast guard all seem to have courage to me. Marathon runners work hard and have a certain spirit but I don't know that courage is a good adjective. Also, at what point is someone running a marathon and at what point are they walking one? Does walking a marathon and running in one take the same amount of training?

NHSENIOR; why are you limiting yourself and the other whacko race directors that share your warped sense of reasoning (I use the term reasoning very loosely) to only going after iPod rule breakers?  After all, for the good of the sport shouldn't you be concerned with any and all infractions of the USATF Rules.  Now I must admit, I never read the USATF Rules prior to the rule at hand (144.3b) until a couple of months ago, but here are a couple of others I have witnessed during my 12 plus years of running; (1) runners wearing their bib on their back (Rule 143.7) and runners receiving refreshments outside of refreshment stations (Rule 241).  You could hire some college kids to catch runners on any Rule violation and give them a share of the fines you collect; with the remaining amount going to the race director.  This would certainly encourage the race directors for those larger races as you put it to get on the NHSENIOR soapbox and start enforcing the USATF's Rules.

But really, you must be joking (as I am) right???  Fine runners for a Rule violation???  You want to use the USATF's Rules for conducting a road race, but your use your own self-serving method for dealing with rule breakers.  How about 30 days in jail or 30 lashes?  Runners who do not comply with USATF Rules are subject to disqualification; nothing more.

What do you mean by, "While the ban is about cheating to some degree"???  The prohibition ("ban") by the USATF is under Rule 144, Assistance to Athletes.  Runners who use iPods during USATF sanctioned events are cheating.  That's a fact, sorry Wonderwoman32.  Any runner who knowing (or unknowingly) runs a USATF sanctioned event and uses an iPod is cheating according to USATF Rules. 

I love this statement, "it is more about reducing the odds on safety issues."  So when the iPod camp requests data to support this claim there is none; at least nothing that has happened during a USATF event; because WE all know if you had any creditable event to point to it would have been posted on every one of these forums about this topic.  But maybe you can answer this, if race directors are concerned about the safety of runners why do you allow races to start when the weather has road conditions unsafe, ice and/or snow in New England?  Or races on roads that are under repair?  How about heavy rain where visibility is extremely bad?

IPods are "hundreds of times more of risk."  Please by all means, substantiate this statement?  Present your data here.  We would all love to hear from a big time race director.

No one on this forum has said that deaf people don't pay attention.  This was only raised in the context of hearing (or missing) announcements.

As far as your post regarding lawsuits; I think this has made things worse for race directors.  What the USATF is saying is we don't think the waivers are worth a damn so we are going to prohibit these devices for safety.  So now they've opened themselves up for legal action for non-related iPod accidents.

Please be sure to provide us your data on the "hundreds of times more risk."  Although, I'm betting we won't be seeing anything substantial from you and you'll just go away. 

You really make this tiring. There is not one statistic that you would not disbelieve given the agenda of wanting to use headphones. I wonder what agenda you will "honestly" ascribe to the RD's for wading into this pile of dung. Has that every crossed your one-side mind? Why would we do this?

Anyway, your display of your information processing logic makes giving you anything more complicated a waste of many people's time, mine in particular.

For instance, you ask.

<<" NHSENIOR; why are you limiting yourself and the other whacko race directors that share your warped sense of reasoning (I use the term reasoning very loosely) to only going after iPod rule breakers? After all, for the good of the sport shouldn't you be concerned with any and all infractions of the USATF Rules.

I've never heard of anyone who can be effective trying to solve or even act on ALL things, yet you seriously imply that RDs should do that.

Then you further regale us with your lack of being able to figure out a simple answer to what should be obvious to most people.

You ask.

<<<<<. But maybe you can answer this, if race directors are concerned about the safety of runners why do you allow races to start when the weather has road conditions unsafe, ice and/or snow in New England? Or races on roads that are under repair? How about heavy rain where visibility is extremely bad?

Because I have no access to magic, so short of cancelling the races, there is nothing that can be done about what you ask.

But, cheer up. There will be one less "wacho" RD to give you grief. As of last month, my ten years of managing races was over. (my option completely)

And yes, I'm dodging your request of proof, and you can trot that out as proof that the wacko RDs are FOS. Though one could ask why are are RDs doing this? and I would hope that any reasonable folks who might side with you would question your conclusion for the "why?"