3 ms·

The article is pretty scant on the rules details, I agree with you on that. It's not just that he took a wrong turn (which is common and small deviations are s

by dtparr 10y ago

The article is pretty scant on the rules details, I agree with you on that. It's not just that he took a wrong turn (which is common and small deviations are somewhat expected), he went a couple miles off course. Laz (who runs the race) made that point in the video that was linked from the article. Laz made it even more clear in a post on facebook per [0]: “[…] gary had just come in after having run off course and missing the last 2 miles of the barkley. that is, of course, not a finish. […] i never expected the story to somehow become that he had missed the time limit by 6 seconds. he failed to complete the course by 2 miles. the time, in that situation, is meaningless. […] now, the class with which gary handled this terrible disappoinment at the end of a truly magnificent performance… that was exceptional, and is, in and of itself, a remarkable achievement. but he did not miss the time limit by 6 seconds. he failed to complete the barkley by 2 miles.” As far as a hypothetical counting times of someone who correctly completed the course but came in over 60h as someone who finished, we'll have to agree to disagree. Finishers must touch the yellow gate in under 60 hours. Arriving after that point means you didn't finish the race in the allotted time. If you would prefer that Laz refuse to check his watch after time elapsed hits 60:00:00 so we wouldn't know how late anyone arrived, I don't have a specific problem with that, but that would seem to be up to Laz and the runner involved. [0] - http://trailrunnermag.com/people/news/2017-barkley-marathons.html http://trailrunnermag.com/people/news/2017-barkley-marathons...

kazinator 10y ago
> he failed to complete the barkley by 2 miles. That's very different; in that case, the finish line crossing time has no meaning (and perhaps shouldn't even be quoted around). Going for another two miles to cover the missing distance could take an hour or more in that body condition (even on an ideal, flat surface, never mind the actual one). Especially given that he calculated his remaining physical resources with regard to where he thought the finish lied. I accept responsibility for getting carried away with an article that is lacking in crucial details and helping to perpetrate the wrong story. > Arriving after that point means you didn't finish the race in the allotted time. In the eyes of the world, you finished. If we drop the "in the alloted time" part, the remaining statement's face value interpretation in the world at large is false. (The unqualified statement may still be understood properly in the narrow context shared by a group of people, in which the condition is implicit, but carrying that statement over to the world at large without context is equivocation.)
- dtparr 10y ago
  > In the eyes of the world, you finished. If we drop the "in the alloted time" part, the remaining statement's face value interpretation in the world at large is false. (The unqualified statement may still be understood properly in the narrow context shared by a group of people, in which the condition is implicit, but carrying that statement over to the world at large without context is equivocation.) So perhaps this is the root of our disagreement. People who complete the Barkley marathon (including within time) are not called winners, they're called finishers (e.g. see the wikipedia page). Therefore the term 'Barkley marathons finisher' implies 'within the allotted time' in this context. Admittedly, when a domain-specific publication like this gets posted to a more general audience, that sort of terminology difference from standard English can be lost.

by dtparr 10y ago

kazinator 10y ago

> he failed to complete the barkley by 2 miles. That's very different; in that case, the finish line crossing time has no meaning (and perhaps shouldn't even be quoted around). Going for another two miles to cover the missing distance could take an hour or more in that body condition (even on an ideal, flat surface, never mind the actual one). Especially given that he calculated his remaining physical resources with regard to where he thought the finish lied. I accept responsibility for getting carried away with an article that is lacking in crucial details and helping to perpetrate the wrong story. > Arriving after that point means you didn't finish the race in the allotted time. In the eyes of the world, you finished. If we drop the "in the alloted time" part, the remaining statement's face value interpretation in the world at large is false. (The unqualified statement may still be understood properly in the narrow context shared by a group of people, in which the condition is implicit, but carrying that statement over to the world at large without context is equivocation.)

dtparr 10y ago
> In the eyes of the world, you finished. If we drop the "in the alloted time" part, the remaining statement's face value interpretation in the world at large is false. (The unqualified statement may still be understood properly in the narrow context shared by a group of people, in which the condition is implicit, but carrying that statement over to the world at large without context is equivocation.) So perhaps this is the root of our disagreement. People who complete the Barkley marathon (including within time) are not called winners, they're called finishers (e.g. see the wikipedia page). Therefore the term 'Barkley marathons finisher' implies 'within the allotted time' in this context. Admittedly, when a domain-specific publication like this gets posted to a more general audience, that sort of terminology difference from standard English can be lost.