Some sad news from Detroit marathon apparently 3 fatalities during the
event.  Condolences to the families and friends of any of the runners
involved.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/18/michigan.marathon.deaths/index.html

Some sad news from Detroit marathon apparently 3 fatalities during the
event. Condolences to the families and friends of any of the runners
involved.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/18/michigan.marathon.deaths/index.html

To answer your question; no I don't believe so and they were doing a
half marathon which makes it even rarer

- the doctor: is making money (from 30 to 50 bucks each certificate)

If I had to pay $30 in addition to the race fee to run a race, I'd be
running fewer races; I suspect that many others would be the same way.  

- the runner: is obliged to have his own health checked (standard
exams: urinalysis, electrocardiogram under effort, spirometry and
overall examination) at least once a year

It all depends on what the doctor wants done in order to write the letter..  

- race organizers, in case of fatalities, can claim that they have
taken all precautions by asking a certification.

Not needed; every race entry has the runner sign a disclaimer of
responsibility.

"Melinda Shore" <shore at (no spam) panix.com> wrote in message
news:hbi5n5$m2h$1 at (no spam) panix2.panix.com...
In article <hbi4vd$bvu$1 at (no spam) news.america.net>,
rvfulltime <rvfulltime.nospaam at (no spam) isp.nospaam.com> wrote:
Stop and think about the numbers. Say you have a city of 20,000
people,
equivalent to a big foot race.

That strikes me as an inapt comparison. The people running
races are not chosen randomly from the larger population,
although I suppose the original question implies that that
might be too close to the truth. But seriously, you don't
have people dying of old age during races, you don't have
people in the very final stages of a terminal disease
running races, you don't have premature babies running
races, etc. On average people who are entering races should
be healthier (for whatever definition of "health") than
people at random.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - shore at (no spam) panix.com

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

What if we look at it by age and risk of heart disease only as a risk
factor. Let's assume that marathon runners are divided equally between
the ages of 25 and 65 (of course they are not). Between those ages,
according to the CDC, 1615 of every 100,000 people will die every year
(2006 #s) from heart disease or 1.6%. But in any 5 hour window of
time, the risk should only be then 1.6%*5/(365*24) = 0.0009%. (And of
course probably not every window of time is of equal risk).
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf
(table 9)

Using Michelle's numbers, if 1 in 50,000 (or 88,000) people will die
in a marathon and they are dying from heart disease (for argument's
sake), that's 0.002% and 0.0011% respectively, or 217 and 123 times
you'll more likely die in a marathon than the raw chance you'll die
during any 5 hour time window, from heart disease. Of course marathon
runners are not your typical population, but you would think they
would be healthier than the typical population of all 25-65 year olds.

To me it makes sense that there would be an increased risk, given that
you're stressing your cardiovascular system highly over a relatively
long period of time. I believe Noakes makes the argument that one
important reason to have a relatively high volume of base training for
a marathon is to make the heart strong enough to endure the event
without damage.

-Tony

I screwed up trying to look too fast. Only 331 people of 100,000 between
the ages of 25 and 65 die from heart disease every year.

From reading the Detroit paper the three died within minutes of each
other and a wide variety of ages. I'm not usually suspicious
but ...................
All three were running HM and were *healthy*, makes you wonder:

Because of my poor english I didn't explain it correctly: the
certificate is valid for 365 days, so you pay 30$ once a year.

- the runner: is obliged to have his own health checked (standard
exams: urinalysis, electrocardiogram under effort, spirometry and
overall examination) at least once a year

It all depends on what the doctor wants done in order to write the
letter.  

The tests are standard because it is a complex medical protocol. It is
not up to the doctor to decide.

Not needed; every race entry has the runner sign a disclaimer of
responsibility.

It's the same here in Italy, but this disclaimer is additional to the
medical certificate. Actually, without the certificate you are not
allowed to join any athletics club or group.

On Oct 18, 7:30 pm, John Hurley <johnbhur... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Some sad news from Detroit marathon apparently 3 fatalities during the
event. Condolences to the families and friends of any of the runners
involved.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/18/michigan.marathon.deaths/index.html


From reading the Detroit paper the three died within minutes of each
other and a wide variety of ages. I'm not usually suspicious
but ...................

Suppose some sick person(s) decided to add some elixir to a few
cups. I guess we will have to wait for the autopsies.

-D

In article

If I had to pay $30 in addition to the race fee to run a race, I'd be
running fewer races; I suspect that many others would be the same way.  
That means less money for the sponsoring organizations, nearby hotels,
taxis, busses, etc.

I screwed up trying to look too fast. Only 331 people of 100,000 between
the ages of 25 and 65 die from heart disease every year. That makes the
marathon risk look even worse. 5 hour window risk = 0.00019%. or
1056/600 times more likely to die during a marathon, as argued above.