Comments for Craig Thornley

Comment on 1687 by Nick Clark

Nick Clark — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:57:52 +0000

Based on the stats cited in the update, the odds of being pulled from the lottery will be approx 1 in 5.5 (18 percent): terrible, but not hopeless.

Still no word on waiting lists post-lottery, so presumably there will be no such thing. 465 names drawn total, which means 100 extra - or 65 more than usual to account for post-lottery flakes. Should be about right.

Comment on 1687 by Craig

Craig — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:21:18 +0000

@MonkeyBoy, Yes, by far. The previous high comment posts were the 1980's WS Video Trivia Contest and the Where's Waldo Updates with 59 each. It should be noted that Greg Soderlund, RD, has updated the Latest News page on the WS site with info on how the lottery will proceed. No more third-hand information. Thanks, Greg.

Comment on 1687 by MonkeyBoy

MonkeyBoy — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:16:27 +0000

Is 76 a record on the juices?

Comment on 1687 by Craig

Craig — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:46:30 +0000

@AJW, You are in a small club of M10ers, my friend. Tom Lyons, M10 from 2002, told me when I was wearing M10 in 2005 that there is an M10 curse. He said both he and Sweeney had horrible races wearing the M10 bib (and maybe others but I can’t remember). I refused to believe there was such a curse. As the 2005 race proceeded I worked my way into M10 just before ALT. Things were going very well as I even got into M9 until right before Browns Bar Twiet comes by and doesn’t even say anything to me. We’re racing. I’m in M10, I’m still OK. Then the great Tommy Nielsen comes by with his pacer wearing a deceptive green headlamp on the quarry road. Sh$t, I’m in 11th at Highway 49. I run hard downhill to No Hands where right before the bridge I see lights. I think it is DK but when we catch them it is Twiet. I at least talk to him and apologize for passing him. I finished M10 with the M10 bib.

I used to think you didn’t have what it took to finish M10. Of course, you had finished M2, M4, M6, and M8 so it was easy to say that. Then you held off the crazy 4-hour finish from the river by Victor to finish M10 last year. Awesome. Before Tom or Mike or anybody else tries to tell you there is an M10 curse, I want to tell you that there is no such thing. Run hard, my friend.

Comment on 1687 by AJW

AJW — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:21:59 +0000

@Derek S, Totally understand your point of view, but there is a 4th category, the guys running for M10. And, I gotta say, having been M2, M4, M6, and M8, the toughest thing to defend at this race is M10. But, I haven’t asked Hal about that:)

Comment on 1687 by Robert Blair

Robert Blair — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:13:26 +0000

Loved Mr. Trail Safety’s post, particularly his views on blisters, caps versus visors, baldderpacks, and rhabdo.

That post is a genuine service.

Mr. Trail Safety…a character, but a character with wisdom.

This is probably old hat for the veterans, but I’m thinking maybe it’s time for me to get that fanny pack and third water bottle instead of thinking about wearing a 2L for those longer sections between aid stations in a 100.

Thank you, Mr. Trail Safety.

Comment on 1687 by Craig

Craig — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:03:38 +0000

@Derek S, It was unsustainable. More two-time losers than spots in the lottery.

Comment on 1687 by Derek S

Derek S — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:43:17 +0000

@Craig, Is that why they dropped the rule? Currious whether that was it or if there were other forces that lead to its demise. If it were brought back, they could punish those that abuse it. If you enter, get selected, and then fail to accept, you don’t get to apply the subsequent year.

Comment on 1687 by Craig

Craig — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:29:36 +0000

@Derek S, And what do you suggest for a two-time lottery rule replacement? A weighted lottery where you get an extra ticket for each year you were in the lottery but didn’t get picked? One problem I see with any of those types of lose and increase your chances schemes is they encourage people to put their names in the bucket even in years they don’t want to run.

Comment on 1687 by Derek S

Derek S — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:59:40 +0000

WS already has an A and B standard. You guys are suggesting an A, B, and C standard. The A standard is last years top ten and the MUC winners, plus one or two guys the race deems very special. As a slower runner, i.e. spectator and fan of the other posters here, my take is that the current system puts a premium on intense competition of the top elites (those who might finish in the top 5). Elites really don’t have much to complain about. Guys and gals can come run Waldo or the AR50 if they want to bust into the race and then secure a spot for the next year by finishing top 10. Beyond the elites, the current system is speed neutral for everyone fast or slow, competitive or indifferent. It selects at random among those who can at least meet the uniform race qualification standard which attempts to insure an ability just to finish the race. Hmm, how do I put this . . . I don’t like the A and B standard idea for the lotto unless I can meet the A standard. That’s just me. Regardless, I don’t think it’s the best way to go if a more competitive race is your sole objective.

If a concern about enhancing the competitive aspects of the race were to be addressed, they might consider making changes with the current system: e.g. add to the list of MUC qualifiers (can’t they add some 100s to this?) and/or increase the automatics to last years top 15 or top 20. If a concern about enhancing the ability of providing a fair opportunity for all interested runners were to be addressed (and it should be), they might consider reinstating something similar to the two time loser rule. Without this or a drop in popularity, many of us may never get in again.