Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BDCwire)   In order to make the Boston Marathon safer this year, they are banning military groups from marching. Aren't they the ones that know how to react to a roadside bomb?   (bdcwire.com) divider line 65
    More: Asinine, Boston Marathon, improvised explosive devices, alternate route, marchers  
•       •       •

2081 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Mar 2014 at 5:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-05 04:31:38 PM  
Stupid, and it won't make the race any safer.  Neither will banning bags.

Why won't banning bags?

Because you can't ban fat people.  And a person trying to hide a device can make themselves look fat in order to hide it.
 
2014-03-05 04:35:40 PM  
We have to fundamentally change everything about the Marathon experience to make people think it's safer, or the terrorists have won!
 
2014-03-05 04:38:03 PM  

BunkoSquad: We have to fundamentally change everything about the Marathon experience to make people think it's safer, or the terrorists have won!


But if you change your behavior, then the terrorists have won!

Catch-22.
 
2014-03-05 04:41:43 PM  

dittybopper: But if you change your behavior, then the terrorists have won!

Catch-22.


Yes, I was trying to be ironic.

I'd have loved to go along with everyone else for a show of support for the first race after the attack, but I feel like it's going to be a total shiat show, and also it's on my birthday, so I'm just getting the hell out of town and going on vacation instead.
 
2014-03-05 04:45:15 PM  

BunkoSquad: I'd have loved to go along with everyone else for a show of support for the first race after the attack, but I feel like it's going to be a total shiat show, and also it's on my birthday, so I'm just getting the hell out of town and going on vacation instead.

 
2014-03-05 04:46:52 PM  
The smartest thing for us to have done is simply *NOTHING* (other than apprehending the perpetrators, of course).

It's a public event.  Those are always, *ALWAYS* going to be vulnerable.  You can't protect that many people in that big of an area reliably.  They can't even do it in places that have much stricter security and fewer limits on government than in the United States.

This is a reaction to an attack.  Reactions always invite further attacks, because the people predisposed to doing that sort of thing see that they can have an effect.

If all that happened was that the police found and apprehended or killed the perpetrators, and the event happened exactly as it did before with no changes, then what would be the point of doing it again?

But now that we've given them a reason to know that we will modify our behavior, they will be emboldened to find another way to attack that event (or a different one) using some other method, perhaps an even more deadly one*.


*The bombs used were incredibly inefficient.  With a bit more effort in planning and design, using the exact same materials,  you could make bombs much smaller but with the same lethality.
 
2014-03-05 04:51:29 PM  
Dupe. And I'll say what I said the last time this story was posted:
I don't understand how so many people can quote the article and see that these restrictions are on runners only, not spectators, and think that it's about security and fear and terrorism zomg, rather than about the fact that there's a 33% increase in the number of runners from last year and squeezing more people onto the course.
 
2014-03-05 05:11:55 PM  
Why in the hell would anybody try bombing the marathon again? There's a baseball game being played down the street that seats 37,000 some-odd people.
 
2014-03-05 05:16:51 PM  

dittybopper: But if you change your behavior, then the terrorists have won!


That only counts when it's shopping.
 
2014-03-05 05:28:14 PM  

Theaetetus: Dupe. And I'll say what I said the last time this story was posted:
I don't understand how so many people can quote the article and see that these restrictions are on runners only, not spectators, and think that it's about security and fear and terrorism zomg, rather than about the fact that there's a 33% increase in the number of runners from last year and squeezing more people onto the course.


Good point.  TFA here doesn't do a good job of presenting it, but the source they linked to does:
Last year, about 20 to 30 people marched with Tough Ruck, but Fiola said there was an increased interest in this year's Boston Marathon. When registration for Tough Ruck closed on January 31, Tough Ruck had 746 registrants from 29 states.

If I understand the situation correctly, the Tough Ruck folks have essentially acted as bandit runners in the past.  They don't make a qualifying time at a designated qualifying race.  They don't enter the lottery.  They don't pay race registration fees.
It's easy for a race director to overlook an extra 30 people on a course that crowded, but 746?  No, that's too much.  You can't bandit in a group that big and expect people not to care.  The Tough Ruck people should get their own course if they're doing a group that big.
 
2014-03-05 05:34:06 PM  
I hate how people react to these sorts of events with all sorts of restrictions and precautions that will not do anything at all to solve the problem at hand.

Banning military groups from marching would not stop a domestic terror attack like what happened there.  It is a feel-good move that will ruin the event for some who wanted to march and is a pointless gesture taken in the name of safety that is essentially an empty one.
 
2014-03-05 05:34:14 PM  

dittybopper: Stupid, and it won't make the race any safer.  Neither will banning bags.

Why won't banning bags?

Because you can't ban fat people.  And a person trying to hide a device can make themselves look fat in order to hide it.


They should ban fat people too.
 
2014-03-05 05:35:05 PM  
The stupid - it burns!
 
2014-03-05 05:35:35 PM  
Trying to read. that article. was really. hard to do. They should hire. an editor. or. at least. type it in. a world processor. that can spot. all the punctuation. mistakes.
 
2014-03-05 05:35:43 PM  
Right.  Because the last (and ONLY) bomb was planted by a military person, or targeted military personnel.

Stupid, pant-wetting Massholes.
 
2014-03-05 05:37:39 PM  
Maybe they could hire the TSA to run security since they are so good at stopping the terrorists...
 
2014-03-05 05:37:51 PM  
The only safe thing to do is CGI a race through a CGI Boston and the winner should always be Obama. Yes, that's the safe thing to do ..
 
2014-03-05 05:40:08 PM  
ffs, all of these changes are because they have 33% more people running this year in a race that already was overcrowded. notice that all of these things are about people ON THE COURSE! how is this so freaking hard to understand for people?
 
2014-03-05 05:40:49 PM  

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: Dupe. And I'll say what I said the last time this story was posted:
I don't understand how so many people can quote the article and see that these restrictions are on runners only, not spectators, and think that it's about security and fear and terrorism zomg, rather than about the fact that there's a 33% increase in the number of runners from last year and squeezing more people onto the course.

Good point.  TFA here doesn't do a good job of presenting it, but the source they linked to does:
Last year, about 20 to 30 people marched with Tough Ruck, but Fiola said there was an increased interest in this year's Boston Marathon. When registration for Tough Ruck closed on January 31, Tough Ruck had 746 registrants from 29 states.

If I understand the situation correctly, the Tough Ruck folks have essentially acted as bandit runners in the past.  They don't make a qualifying time at a designated qualifying race.  They don't enter the lottery.  They don't pay race registration fees.
It's easy for a race director to overlook an extra 30 people on a course that crowded, but 746?  No, that's too much.  You can't bandit in a group that big and expect people not to care.  The Tough Ruck people should get their own course if they're doing a group that big.


Now now, you STOP it with that logic and critical thinking skills IMMEDIATELY.

This is neither the time nor the place to start acting calmly or rationally.

You will NOT inhibit my panic!
 
2014-03-05 05:42:54 PM  
Considering it was two rogue POS wannabe terrorists, how on earth is that going to help?

Here's the basic situation. There are always going to be fringe elements that want to harm others for one reason or another. You can't deal with that as a society by cancelling events and making people jump through ridiculous security theater hoops. You do it by being tough as a society, by keeping calm and carrying on so to speak. If london can carry on despite daily bombing raids (each of which killed far more people than the boston marathon bombings), we can too.
 
das
2014-03-05 05:44:18 PM  
Idiots.
//You choose who I'm talking about.
///More than enough to go around.
 
2014-03-05 05:45:19 PM  
It makes sense to ban military Ruck Marchers, wearing military fatigues or uniforms and carrying military-style rucksacks on the marathon route, because the Tsarnaev brothers were wearing street clothes and carrying civilian backpacks when they planted their bombs well off the course, among the spectators.

Oh wait, no it doesn't. In fact, it makes exactly zero sense to put restrictions on the runners AT ALL, when the bombers were completely unidentifiable, NOT runners or affiliated with the runners, and NOT wearing any identifiable gear of any kind.

I can totally understand wanting to make the Marathon safer this year, but this isn't the way to do it. If you really want to make it more secure, take a look at what the bombers did, what the marathon coordinators didn't do, and adjust accordingly. For instance:

The bombs went off at the end of the course, where attention was focused on the runners and the end of the race. Takeaway: there needs to be more security facing outward at the ends of the course, looking at the crowd and not at the runners.

The bombs went off at ground level, after being abandoned in unobtrusive places. Takeaway: There need to be more sweeps of the area, and no unattended bags should be allowed to sit for more than a few moments, if at all. In fact, no backpacks should be allowed near the race course within a certain radius.

The bombers were mingling with the crowds, but were actually, by the surveillance photos, easy to spot, because they were not interacting with the spectators. Takeaway: Undercover operatives need to be actively present in the crowds, observing and profiling the spectators and identifying any potential troublemakers early.

Restricting runners is completely asinine. Restricting soldiers is stupid--they had nothing to do with the bombing. The issue is not whether the Marathon will "look" safer, but whether it will BE safer, and just because there are more runners doesn't mean it will be less safe. The runners didn't set off the bombs--spectators did. Are they restricting spectators or support crews? Are they putting more undercover security in the area? Then it will be safer. Otherwise, they might as well do nothing.
 
2014-03-05 05:45:24 PM  
The terrorists want to screw with the American way of life, yes?  They want Americans to be scared.  That's the point.

So if you ban people from wearing the uniform of your country you are conceding victory to those that want you to be too afraid to act like yourselves.
 
2014-03-05 05:46:29 PM  
Ah, Progressive Terror. An odd combination of flailing uselessly and vilifying their usual enemies.
 
2014-03-05 05:47:08 PM  
The Colonel knows how to run the Long Walk properly. Just give him some half tracks.
 
2014-03-05 05:48:46 PM  

serial_crusher: If I understand the situation correctly, the Tough Ruck folks have essentially acted as bandit runners in the past.  They don't make a qualifying time at a designated qualifying race.  They don't enter the lottery.  They don't pay race registration fees.
It's easy for a race director to overlook an extra 30 people on a course that crowded, but 746?  No, that's too much.  You can't bandit in a group that big and expect people not to care.  The Tough Ruck people should get their own course if they're doing a group that big.


Pretty much this.  In the past the BAA, compared to other large marathons, has been incredibly accommodating of bandit runners, but given the increased field this year, they've been very vocal that they will be aggressively pulling bandits off the course, and they've gone through multiple channels to let people know about this ahead of time to avoid surprises. (More people on the course means more crowd control measures, more aid stations, more medical personnel, more complex finish line accommodations, etc).

You can argue that adding a couple of extra runners doesn't affect anything, but if someone passes out in front of the medical tent, nobody is going to stand there and say, "Oh you don't have an official bib?  We're not going to help you."
 
2014-03-05 05:51:32 PM  
Über asinine. This is Obamologic in action.
 
2014-03-05 05:51:37 PM  
I'm OK with this.  Bring the marathon back to its roots.  Make it an athletic competition.  This year's going to be a f*cking spectacle.
 
2014-03-05 05:53:35 PM  
Hey Boston

regmedia.co.uk
 
2014-03-05 05:54:02 PM  

jaylectricity: Why in the hell would anybody try bombing the marathon again? There's a baseball game being played down the street that seats 37,000 some-odd people.


Trains full of toxic and/or highly reactive chemicals pass right by Safeco Field.  As a bonus, the wind would blow that shiat straight into downtown Seattle.  It doesn't happen because the enemy lacks the ability to do more than strike soft targets.  You can't stop that short of killing every Muslim.
 
2014-03-05 05:58:05 PM  
I'm not sure what this is even supposed to accomplish.  This is like trying to legislate a mandatory wait period and mental health check for gun purchases after the Sandy Hook shooting.
 
2014-03-05 05:59:47 PM  

balki1867: serial_crusher: If I understand the situation correctly, the Tough Ruck folks have essentially acted as bandit runners in the past.  They don't make a qualifying time at a designated qualifying race.  They don't enter the lottery.  They don't pay race registration fees.
It's easy for a race director to overlook an extra 30 people on a course that crowded, but 746?  No, that's too much.  You can't bandit in a group that big and expect people not to care.  The Tough Ruck people should get their own course if they're doing a group that big.

Pretty much this.  In the past the BAA, compared to other large marathons, has been incredibly accommodating of bandit runners, but given the increased field this year, they've been very vocal that they will be aggressively pulling bandits off the course, and they've gone through multiple channels to let people know about this ahead of time to avoid surprises. (More people on the course means more crowd control measures, more aid stations, more medical personnel, more complex finish line accommodations, etc).

You can argue that adding a couple of extra runners doesn't affect anything, but if someone passes out in front of the medical tent, nobody is going to stand there and say, "Oh you don't have an official bib?  We're not going to help you."


Yeah. I think I saw something about 9,000 extra official runners this year compared to last year, up to 36k from 27k. They haven't made any additional restrictions on spectators, who can come with their backpacks, fatigues, hoodies, whatever. Probably not pressure cookers, though. That'd just be bad taste.
 
2014-03-05 06:01:50 PM  

Gyrfalcon: In fact, it makes exactly zero sense to put restrictions on the runners AT ALL, when the bombers were completely unidentifiable, NOT runners or affiliated with the runners, and NOT wearing any identifiable gear of any kind...
Restricting runners is completely asinine. Restricting soldiers is stupid--they had nothing to do with the bombing. The issue is not whether the Marathon will "look" safer, but whether it will BE safer, and just because there are more runners doesn't mean it will be less safe.


Or maybe the issue has nothing to do with safety, and is just about trying to fit more people on a narrow course that has to be open for road traffic six hours later?
 
2014-03-05 06:05:26 PM  

jaylectricity: Why in the hell would anybody try bombing the marathon again? There's a baseball game being played down the street that seats 37,000 some-odd people.


Even Tsarnaev feels sympathy for the victims of the Bobby Valentine era.
 
2014-03-05 06:06:08 PM  
www.cnikky.com

So these guys can't run, huh?
 
2014-03-05 06:09:41 PM  
Why not just cancel the whole thing? I understand the whole thing of 'oh if we do that the terrorists won', but the more banning of this and that at the marathon just makes the event it's self quite moot. Those two wastes of sperm and egg wanted to instill fear, kill as many people as they alone could do, and cause maximum carnage. So, yeah, they won in that degree, especially if that sense of paranoia in the name of safety remains.
 
2014-03-05 06:10:32 PM  
Can we see what happens when a bomb goes off at a security checkpoint? I almost want to see the reaction to that, though it may be so stupid I'd rather not experience it.

Something I realised, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, is that Americans don't care about genuine security. We often undermine real security measures, or reject them. No, Americans like the measures that give a feeling of security, but do absolutely nothing. If we fear armed robbery, we limit the legal weapons. If we fear theft, we get fancy locks but forget about the windows. If we fear terrorists, we dig through everyones luggage and arrest brown people. In the end, it doesn't stop anyone, it just looks like it does. Now if you'll excuse me, I have this fancy rock of Tiger Protection to sell.
 
2014-03-05 06:12:39 PM  

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: Dupe. And I'll say what I said the last time this story was posted:
I don't understand how so many people can quote the article and see that these restrictions are on runners only, not spectators, and think that it's about security and fear and terrorism zomg, rather than about the fact that there's a 33% increase in the number of runners from last year and squeezing more people onto the course.

Good point.  TFA here doesn't do a good job of presenting it, but the source they linked to does:
Last year, about 20 to 30 people marched with Tough Ruck, but Fiola said there was an increased interest in this year's Boston Marathon. When registration for Tough Ruck closed on January 31, Tough Ruck had 746 registrants from 29 states.

If I understand the situation correctly, the Tough Ruck folks have essentially acted as bandit runners in the past.  They don't make a qualifying time at a designated qualifying race.  They don't enter the lottery.  They don't pay race registration fees.
It's easy for a race director to overlook an extra 30 people on a course that crowded, but 746?  No, that's too much.  You can't bandit in a group that big and expect people not to care.  The Tough Ruck people should get their own course if they're doing a group that big.


How dare you ruin a perfectly good Fark torches and pitchfork party.  I wanted to scream and shout, I wanted to yell about how our rights are being eroded!  But, then you had to go and inject a perfectly logical explanation.  Gee, thanks
 
2014-03-05 06:12:40 PM  
Sooooo, they finally let gays march, and the military is banned.

There's a balance there, just look closer.

/gays
//would never
///allow those
////tacky backpacks.
 
2014-03-05 06:19:57 PM  

Theaetetus: Gyrfalcon: In fact, it makes exactly zero sense to put restrictions on the runners AT ALL, when the bombers were completely unidentifiable, NOT runners or affiliated with the runners, and NOT wearing any identifiable gear of any kind...
Restricting runners is completely asinine. Restricting soldiers is stupid--they had nothing to do with the bombing. The issue is not whether the Marathon will "look" safer, but whether it will BE safer, and just because there are more runners doesn't mean it will be less safe.

Or maybe the issue has nothing to do with safety, and is just about trying to fit more people on a narrow course that has to be open for road traffic six hours later?


Then perhaps they should say that. However, they did not say that. They said it was about safety and security. If they need to try to fit more people on the course, they could, I don't know, make the Marathon longer, and open the road in seven hours; or limit total number of runners to 100,000 entrants like the NY Marathon or something.

This does not seem to me to be relevant to the security issue, and if it is merely a numbers issue, they should sever it from discussions of the ssecurity issue.
 
2014-03-05 06:21:31 PM  

Atomic Spunk: dittybopper: Stupid, and it won't make the race any safer.  Neither will banning bags.

Why won't banning bags?

Because you can't ban fat people.  And a person trying to hide a device can make themselves look fat in order to hide it.

They should ban fat people too.


If nothing else, it would keep people like Richard "Talibubba" Jewell away.
 
2014-03-05 06:26:59 PM  
dittybopper:

Because you can't ban fat people.  And a person trying to hide a device can make themselves look fat in order to hide it.

I could be wrong, but don't you have to have a fast enough time in other marathon's to qualify to run in the Boston Marathon? Wouldn't that exclude a lot of fat people?
 
2014-03-05 06:38:53 PM  
Every link I can find mentions that these are security rules, and the post on the BAA website is peppered with references to "safety" and "public safety officials".

I am totally willing to accept the possibility that security is simply an excuse to do something that organizers feel needs to be done:  Ban unofficial runners, and make cleanup easier by banning all sorts of stuff that typically gets left behind, ban bulky crap that annoys other runners.

I can't really blame them. If you straight up ban troops or mommies with strollers people will freak right the fark out.  But you can ban all sorts of things in the name of security.
 
2014-03-05 06:46:12 PM  
It would be safer if they'd ban pressure cookers.
 
2014-03-05 06:51:54 PM  
Boston Strong, my farking ass. They're advertising the fact that the terrorists have won.  What's next? Give all the runners a participation trophy of Muhammad?
stop the race for prayers? Ban alcohol because it might he offensive to their Muslim overlords?

fark you Boston biatches
 
2014-03-05 06:59:47 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Theaetetus: Gyrfalcon: In fact, it makes exactly zero sense to put restrictions on the runners AT ALL, when the bombers were completely unidentifiable, NOT runners or affiliated with the runners, and NOT wearing any identifiable gear of any kind...
Restricting runners is completely asinine. Restricting soldiers is stupid--they had nothing to do with the bombing. The issue is not whether the Marathon will "look" safer, but whether it will BE safer, and just because there are more runners doesn't mean it will be less safe.

Or maybe the issue has nothing to do with safety, and is just about trying to fit more people on a narrow course that has to be open for road traffic six hours later?

Then perhaps they should say that. However, they did not say that. They said it was about safety and security. If they need to try to fit more people on the course, they could, I don't know, make the Marathon longer, and open the road in seven hours; or limit total number of runners to 100,000 entrants like the NY Marathon or something.

This does not seem to me to be relevant to the security issue, and if it is merely a numbers issue, they should sever it from discussions of the ssecurity issue.


Bandit runners (especially large numbers of them) do present a legitimate safety concern if they get themselves hurt and use up medics who should be helping the official runners who get themselves hurt.  Or if the they start using the official aid stations (as bandit runners often do) which then run out of water, salt, etc and dehydrate some runners.

/ they did have some weird restrictions there, like they banned hydration packs among registered runners.  I can't figure out any reason you'd do that except for irrational fear that somebody might put a pressure cooker bomb in one.
 
2014-03-05 07:02:44 PM  
This is just a way for people in charge to cover their ass. Something went wrong last year, they made changes this year. That way, if anything goes wrong this year they can come out and say they did as best they could to prepare for a threat. Better to say that than be asked the question "So did you make any changes from last year to watch out for any additional threats" and have to answer "Uhh, nope, nothing changed"

The easiest and most effective way would be to just announce "We have heightened security measures" and just have that entail more police officers and, more importantly, plain clothes police officers going through the crowd and looking for suspicious activity. Sure, the no bag rule will make it easy to spot people breaking the rule and make anyone else hiding anything more conspicuous. But all it means is it will freak everyone out. If anyone sees any bag they will immediately think bomb and have some made up crisis.
 
2014-03-05 07:05:24 PM  

Atomic Spunk: dittybopper: Stupid, and it won't make the race any safer.  Neither will banning bags.

Why won't banning bags?

Because you can't ban fat people.  And a person trying to hide a device can make themselves look fat in order to hide it.

They should ban fat people too.


It would be far more effective to simply ban terrorists.

Anyways, this is all very stupid but in today's world I guess doing nothing is not an option. They have to do something to cover their asses, regardless of how stupid that something might actually be. The New York City Marathon is also apparently disallowing any running hydration pack over a certain size. Such is the world we live in.
 
2014-03-05 07:06:57 PM  

obamadidcoke: Sweet, fark them.

The marathon is about the runners. Not an advertisement for our international douche bag force.



Aaaaand unfavorited.
 
2014-03-05 07:08:05 PM  

dittybopper: The smartest thing for us to have done is simply *NOTHING*


that
 
2014-03-05 07:09:25 PM  

vudukungfu: dittybopper: The smartest thing for us to have done is simply *NOTHING*

that


RIght.  They validated the terrorists.
 
2014-03-05 07:29:30 PM  

Satanus Maximus: It would be safer if they'd ban pressure cookers.


How about just ban bombs?
 
2014-03-05 07:44:02 PM  

Caffienatedjedi: Can we see what happens when a bomb goes off at a security checkpoint? I almost want to see the reaction to that, though it may be so stupid I'd rather not experience it.

Something I realised, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, is that Americans don't care about genuine security. We often undermine real security measures, or reject them. No, Americans like the measures that give a feeling of security, but do absolutely nothing. If we fear armed robbery, we limit the legal weapons. If we fear theft, we get fancy locks but forget about the windows. If we fear terrorists, we dig through everyones luggage and arrest brown people. In the end, it doesn't stop anyone, it just looks like it does. Now if you'll excuse me, I have this fancy rock of Tiger Protection to sell.


Do you have a poorly xeroxed newsletter that I can subscribe to?
 
2014-03-05 07:54:01 PM  

Fano: Caffienatedjedi: Can we see what happens when a bomb goes off at a security checkpoint? I almost want to see the reaction to that, though it may be so stupid I'd rather not experience it.

Something I realised, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, is that Americans don't care about genuine security. We often undermine real security measures, or reject them. No, Americans like the measures that give a feeling of security, but do absolutely nothing. If we fear armed robbery, we limit the legal weapons. If we fear theft, we get fancy locks but forget about the windows. If we fear terrorists, we dig through everyones luggage and arrest brown people. In the end, it doesn't stop anyone, it just looks like it does. Now if you'll excuse me, I have this fancy rock of Tiger Protection to sell.

Do you have a poorly xeroxed newsletter that I can subscribe to?


The reason why terrorists haven't blown up a security theater line at an airport yet, is because they know that if they did, mob mentality would take over and say "ermagerd, TSA lines are dangerous! Ban the TSA!"  They don't want to risk us replacing the TSA with something that actually works.
 
2014-03-05 07:57:11 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Theaetetus: Gyrfalcon: In fact, it makes exactly zero sense to put restrictions on the runners AT ALL, when the bombers were completely unidentifiable, NOT runners or affiliated with the runners, and NOT wearing any identifiable gear of any kind...
Restricting runners is completely asinine. Restricting soldiers is stupid--they had nothing to do with the bombing. The issue is not whether the Marathon will "look" safer, but whether it will BE safer, and just because there are more runners doesn't mean it will be less safe.

Or maybe the issue has nothing to do with safety, and is just about trying to fit more people on a narrow course that has to be open for road traffic six hours later?

Then perhaps they should say that. However, they did not say that. They said it was about safety and security. If they need to try to fit more people on the course, they could, I don't know, make the Marathon longer, and open the road in seven hours; or limit total number of runners to 100,000 entrants like the NY Marathon or something.

This does not seem to me to be relevant to the security issue, and if it is merely a numbers issue, they should sever it from discussions of the ssecurity issue.


DNRTFA eh? Basically they are not allowing the Tough Ruck which was basically a bunch of bandits. If they want to continue doing it as a charity they can. I think in general they went overboard but the cut down on bandits makes sense.
 
2014-03-05 08:49:30 PM  

uber humper: Give all the runners a participation trophy of Muhammad?


That would not placate the Muslims at all.

rikkards: I think in general they went overboard but the cut down on bandits makes sense.


I had no idea that people were still robbing people for their gold on the side of the road.
 
2014-03-05 09:32:02 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: I'm OK with this.  Bring the marathon back to its roots.  Make it an athletic competition.  This year's going to be a f*cking spectacle.


I agree, marathons should be taken back to their roots.
Give every runner an important message to hand deliver to someone at the end, strip them of all technological goodies and assistance (Gatorade packets? Nope, but here's a canteen. Super space age running shoes and Under Armor shirts? Nope, but here's a pair of leather sandals. Guys giving water away? No, anybody who tries to catch you along the way is an enemy scout who wants to kill you, don't get within arm's reach) and let em loose.

That's how Pheidippides did it. Of course, he died of exhaustion in the process...sure you think you're hard enough?
 
2014-03-05 09:41:32 PM  

uber humper: Boston Strong, my farking ass. They're advertising the fact that the terrorists have won.  What's next? Give all the runners a participation trophy of Muhammad?
stop the race for prayers? Ban alcohol because it might he offensive to their Muslim overlords?

fark you Boston biatches


That's not a slippery slope, that's a f*cking cliff!
 
2014-03-05 09:48:26 PM  
I see subby didn't RTFA.

"the Boston Athletic Association has clarified that only those who are not officially registered will be prohibited from marching. BAA representative Nick Puleo says that, "130 members of the National Guard will be marching, along with other members of the military who qualified as runners. But anyone who didn't qualify and does not have a number, will not be authorized to be on the course."

As someone who grew up watching the marathon I have to say that back in the day unregistered runners were usually just rogue loons running with a viking hat and was nothing but a source of amusement. But since they made the Boston Marathon a cash winning event, unregistered runners have become ridiculous in number and make for a costly cleanup. The security is ridiculous to even consider and these military ruck runners usually show up hauling huge back packs in order to prove something. You know what's not a real good idea at this event? Unregistered runners hauling huge backpacks.
 
2014-03-05 10:21:57 PM  

Frederf: Satanus Maximus: It would be safer if they'd ban pressure cookers.

How about just ban bombs?


If owning bombs became a crime, then only criminals blah blah blah
 
2014-03-06 12:09:03 AM  
For the Los Angeles Marathon next Sunday, they'll be implementing security screenings and closing off a couple blocks to spectators around the finish line. That's about it. No need to go overboard by banning certain groups of runners.
 
2014-03-06 01:05:46 AM  
There are so many parts wrong with this article that I just need to start at the most basic, "reporter" you have to explain what a "ruck march" is...no, linking to another website that explains it isn't good enough, YOU need to spell it out if you write articles about this subject, pretend you're a real journalist and not a blogger.
 
2014-03-06 03:05:57 AM  
Guess they missed the part where the bomber wasn't even a runner, huh? Dumbasses.
 
2014-03-06 10:02:07 AM  

jaylectricity: Why in the hell would anybody try bombing the marathon again? There's a baseball game being played down the street that seats 37,000 some-odd people.


Marathons are much softer targets (yes, even post-Boston), especially when you're talking about big races with tens of thousands of people. Even ones that you would expect to be more secure--such as the Marine Corps Marathon or the Army 10-miler--could be easily attacked, as the vast majority of their security focuses on VIPs.
 
2014-03-06 04:46:41 PM  
A) Why would anyone march in a marathon?
B) The headline is misleading - only groups that are not registered for the marathon are prohibited from the marathon.
C) Apparently most Farkers don't even glance at TFA before going all stabby.
D) There is no D
 
Displayed 65 of 65 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report