Click Here: Please visit our Sponsor

Jun 2, 2024

Denver Marathon (2000-2004) Runner Comments

Back to Denver Marathon (2000-2004) Information & Reviews

Course 2.9

Organization 1.9

Spectators 1.9

Number of comments: 43 [displaying comments 11 to 21]

More Comments: [ < 1 2 3 4 5 > ]

D. H. from Denver (10/9/2004) "Race canceled with no notice day before race!" (about: 2004) 1 previous marathon COURSE: 1 ORGANIZATION: 1 FANS: 1 The most poorly organized race that I have ever encountered. After paying early (5 months) and signing up for e-mail updates I received none. One month before the race the course was changed for the worse and the day before the race at the packet pickup I was told that the race had been canceled and would be rescheduled at an unknown future date. No expo. No local promotion. No answers when you call for information. A website that was never updated as promised. Never again. That simple. Now I have to hope that I get my money back. The only good thing is that I live in Denver where the race is. I feel sorry for people out of town who will show up the day of the race and find out that it has been canceled. I would rank the race as zero stars if that were an option!
C. T. from Denver, CO (10/9/2004) "Irresponsibility bordering on criminal" (about: 2004) First Marathon COURSE: 1 ORGANIZATION: 1 FANS: 1 The 2004 Denver Marathon and Half Marathon was to be my first half marathon. I just returned from the J.W. Marriott in Cherry Creek where packet pick-up is supposed to take place for the 2004 race. I was already aware of the race ?postponement? announced this morning, but I wanted some answers as to why I trained for the last half year for a race that was ?postponed? 21 hours before the scheduled start time. When I got to the room reserved at the hotel for packet pick-up the first thing I saw was a woman crying outside (she was still crying when I left 20 minutes later). Chuck Trujillo was at the Marriott. His explanation for the failure of the event to me and the others gathered there at the time was that in the past he was allowed to pay the bulk of the permit payment due to the city of Denver on the Friday before the race and the rest of the balance due on the Saturday before the race. He contends that the city did not let him do that this year and denied him a permit when he did not have all of the money on Friday. He also claims that the real reason behind the city denying a permit is that they were short on resources (police) due to other events taking place in Denver on the same day and that they dealt with their problem by pulling the plug on the marathon. When pressed on the issue however, he did concede that the city told him that he needed to pay the permit fees by Friday October 8th. Those are the facts I am aware of at this time. Here is my opinion: It does go to Chuck Trujillo?s credit that he was there at the Marriott, facing the public at packet pick-up and writing refund checks by hand to those requesting them. This does not change the fact that I personally think the man is scum. Looking at the comments on this site regarding the organization and planning of this race since the first one in 2000, I can detect no improvement from one year to the next or any sign of learning from the past shortcomings listed by previous posts. What kind of individual is so completely lacking in responsibility (or sense) that year after year people are encouraged to travel from across the nation, invest a significant dollar amount to participate, invest a significant amount of time for travel, training and scheduling and deliver an event that is mediocre at best? And at worst cancelled, which is where we are now. If you read Chuck Trujillo?s statements on the marathon web site do not believe him when he points his finger at the city of Denver or states that the unfortunate ?last minute postponement is out of our control.? When you decide to organize an event like this you take on a responsibility both legal and ethical to the participants that you will deliver what has been promoted. Chuck Trujillo does not have the sense or ethics to follow through on what he promotes. Whether the reasons for the previous shortcomings and now failure of this event is Chuck Trujillo?s incompetence, stupidity or corrupt practices, I will NOT be involved in any event I see his name associated with in the future. The man is scum.
D. B. from Denver (10/4/2004) "Very disappointing and way too expensive" (about: 2004) 4-5 previous marathons COURSE: 3 ORGANIZATION: 1 FANS: 1 Extremely disappointing to see absolutely no public announcements, no media coverage, and basically nothing done for pre-race publicity. How on earth are we to have any spectators when no one knows about the event. A $43.00 t-shirt is total rip-off when little or nothing was done to create any interest, curiosity, or at least some excitement. It's truly a very big letdown and I will certainly not consider participating again unless there are some big changes. You only have to look at how the Cherry Creek Sneak is organized and run to know this event lacks a lot. In fact, it is incredible how badly this event has been presented to the participants and general public. I know for a fact other cities do it right from start to finish and truly make it an event that the entire city can get behind; thus making it extra special for the people walking or running the race. Changing the start time 5 days before the race, not publishing the race route until five days before the event, offering race packet pick-ups the day before the event, and providing absolutely no public notices only reaffirms how badly organized this event is - and thus it should be rated as extremely poor. Next time someone ought to take notice of the truly successful events such as this one and try a lot harder to give people their money's worth. Maybe the race organizers have done a good job of fooling themselves into thinking they have done a good job, but certainly no one else. Quite frankly, we should receive a major portion of the entry fee refunded. It's events like this one that give Denver a bad name.
A. M. from Denver (1/9/2004) "Never, ever again..." (about: 2003) COURSE: 4 ORGANIZATION: 1 FANS: 1 I've lived in Denver all my life and thought that finishing my first marathon in my hometown would feel great, but I wish I would have read this site before making that decision. Traffic control was fabulous and the police were very encouraging, friendly and helpful. That's about the only good thing I can say. I don't know how you can call a race the Mile High City Marathon when you don't involve the city at all. We wound through great Denver neighborhoods and no one was outside to support the runners. I even had someone ask me what we were doing. The map was incorrect so my family and friends trying to cheer me on missed me twice and barely caught me at the finish. My time was decent for a first-timer, but I was still expecting better and had wondered about the course length. The biggest disappointment was missing the Boston qualifying time by three minutes. I too got lost in City Park and was so delirious that the 'mile markings,' if that's what you want to call them, confused me terribly. The food as the finish was such a disappointment and I barely could make it home just eating what the race provided. Last but not least, I ordered a small t-shirt and when I picked up my race packet, the smallest they had was a large. Why did they bother asking? Sent that one to the Goodwill.
D. H. from San Antonio, TX (9/26/2003) "Good choice for 50-staters" (about: 2003) COURSE: 4 ORGANIZATION: 4 FANS: 4 While I understand many of the negative comments, I still recommend this race for 50-staters. This was my 12th state and 31st marathon, and it has many advantages. 1) Easy in, easy out. The start, finish and expo are all within walking distance of the many downtown hotels (we stayed at the Hyatt). There are shuttles to/from the airport ($32 round trip per adult). We rented a car, but you can easily get by without one. 2) Early start time, so you could fly in on Saturday and check out Sunday (although we stayed an extra day to watch the NFL games at a local sportsbar, do some shopping, and go see some mountains). 3. Very uncrowded (less than 400 marathon finishers), and the weather was perfect. 4. Traffic control is great. 5. Course is well laid out. It was easy to follow, at least while on the streets, as the course had many long straight-aways with traffic cones and police. I agree that it could be a bit confusing in the parks. Luckily this website gave me a heads up to that potential problem, so I was really paying attention and asking for help when needed. It is a trade-off between confusion and comfort, as the parks are on nice soft dirt/cinder trails, which give your legs a nice break from the asphalt. Regarding the mile markers and course length: I emailed the race director, and he said the courses were certified. I don't wear a watch, so I didn't really notice any great discrepancies, except for the mile 21 marker, which I thought looked like 22. However I was certain it was 21 (I count in my head for approximation), and figured I must have hallucinated the 22. Pasta parties, expos, and post-race food are all unimportant to me, so I don't consider these things when rating a marathon. The only thing I care about for expos is that they have my packet, and my only post-race requirements are a medal, a bottle of water, and a short walk back to the hotel or transportation. Denver is a nice city to visit, so if you don't mind a no-frills, laidback race, I would definitely recommend this one.
T. M. from Kansas City, MO (9/22/2003) "I think I can... be a good marathon " (about: 2003) COURSE: 1 ORGANIZATION: 1 FANS: 3 Okay, not to belabor what everyone else has said (because I agree with them all), bu I would like to mention a couple of positives about the MHCM. The traffic control was excellent. My thanks goes to the very friendly Denver police force that gave up their Sunday morning to ensure that I didn't get flattened by a bus. The weather couldn't have been more picture perfect for a marathon. And, there were quite a few great spectators along the way. Denver is a beautiful city that deserves a great marathon. I was expecting the type of marathon that a $70 entry fee usually ensures, and I was sadly disappointed. The highly touted expo was non-existent which left you at the mercy of Niketown for any gear that you might need. A runner's discount would have been a nice gesture (or maybe just a sale??). The website looked slick at first glance, but was hard to navigate and find information. (The link to the Brightroom photos took me to the 2001 photos). Better luck next year.
e. z. from boulder, co (9/22/2003) "Half-marathon was pitiful" (about: 2003) COURSE: 3 ORGANIZATION: 1 FANS: 1 I ran the half marathon. The organization was the worst of any of the 5 half's I did this year and, in fact, the worst of any race I have ever done. The other reviewers have it right: don't support such a pathetically organized race until a MAJOR overhaul occurs. Best example: everyone I spoke with got lost on the 1/2 marathon course. That is so incredible as to be almost unbelievable. Sounds like the marathon experience was similar.
B. g. from Denver (9/19/2003) "Denver deserves a better marathon" (about: 2003) COURSE: 2 ORGANIZATION: 1 FANS: 1 I won't repeat what others have said about the course measurement disaster that the organizers just can't seem to get right, year after year. This is, in general, an embarassingly bad marathon for a city and state that has a disproportionate share of top-drawer athletes. There is no reason why, with proper organization and promotion, Denver cannot be as attractive a marathon as Chicago or Houston. It has to start with promotion, of which there was practically none. No newspaper ads, flyers distributed to running clubs, no media promotion, nothing. The Boulder Backroads Marathon, two weeks later, gets 10 times the attention of this race. As a result of the lack of promotion, spectator support is completely nil. San Francisco has better spectator support, and if you've run S.F., you know that this is particularly damning. Mile High is a lousy bang for the buck as well. The expo was pathetic - a handful of tents (predominantly massage and 'spinal exam' tents - no big running gear vendors or anything of particular interest to runners) inconspicuously hidden in an alley off the main street. With all the parkland and space in Denver, this is the best we could get? Continuing the theme of overpriced, note that although this is a chipped race, there was no timing mat at the start or anywhere along the course, so net times and splits are unavailable. (Not that it matters - see others' comments about the mis-measured course. In any event, with only a few hundred runners, crossing the starting line within seconds of the gun is no real challenge). I found the number of water stations to be adequate, but just barely. They are located to do double or triple duty at places where the course loops back on itself, so intervals between water stations are somewhat erratic. The volunteers at the stations were very cheerful and really appreciated, but on at least two occasions, I was handed a cup of water with little more than about an ounce of liquid in it. As at least one other person has mentioned, the finish line food - banana halves, watermelon slices, and pineapple, but no bagels, yogurt, etc. - was pretty feeble as well. While I'm on the subject of the finish line, can anyone tell me why, although the race was chipped, the organizers did not hand out little zip-ties to attach the chip to your shoe? This is the first chipped race I've run where, after crossing the finish line, you're escorted to a line of chairs to SIT DOWN AND UNLACE YOUR OWN SHOE TO REMOVE YOUR CHIP! (I attached mine with safety pins, but the last thing I need to do after a marathon is bend over the fiddle with my shoes). Ok, good things about the race: the course is pretty nice - running through three different parks and some attractive residential and commercial areas. The last couple miles are a gentle descent to get you sprinting for the finish. Traffic control was outstanding - there were probably more Denver Police manning intersections on the course than there were runners. The start down Broadway was appreciated, as the road is very wide and allows the pack to fan out, rather than making you weave around slower runners. And, as mentioned, the volunteers were enthusiastic. In summary, this marathon is an insult to the Denver and Colorado running communities. Over the last couple of years, the current organization has shown that it can't put on a competent race in this city. We'd really be better off with no Mile High City Marathon than with the present efforts. If you're considering this race, spend your money on a better Colorado marathon - Boulder Backroads or Fort Collins or something. These organizers don't deserve another penny.
J. R. from Denver (9/17/2003) "Need more volunteers" (about: 2003) COURSE: 3 ORGANIZATION: 1 FANS: 1 I was in eighth place at the 23-mile mark at City Park when I was told to go straight, instead of turn left and do the loop around the fountains. Several people, including a walking, half-marathoner I passed, gave me wrong directions. And when I came to the Esplanade, I asked again if I was going the right direction for the marathon. I was told I was and to take a right turn on 17th. I didn't seen the one arrow spray painted on the ground on the west side of City Park. Because of that error, I cut off a third of a mile from the course (I measured it afterwards) and finished third. I told a race official I should be disqualified, but he said because it was an accident, he would rank me No. 8 instead of No. 3. It turned out I was disqualified and that is OK. But it illustrates one of the major flaws with this race. It's poorly marked, there are not enough volunteers, and the volunteers on the course haven't been instructed on what to do. I've run more than 35 marathons including the last four in Denver. It is the most poorly organized and poorly marked of any marathon I've ever run. Because the race was so small, I was around no other runners for a good portion of the race. I admit I didn't look at the map very closely, but even the map was wrong. It showed only one loop around Washington Park. I knew we ran a second loop around City Park last year, but I thought that perhaps they cut the inner lap at City Park to make up for the extra loop around Washington Park. Plus, I wasn't thinking all that clearly at the 23-mile mark. The race needs to have volunteers at each turn and they should be instructed to guide runners as they approach. Another runner and I made two wrong turns and had to backtrack earlier in the race because it appeared the spectators were signaling us the opposite way. On another front, the volunteers should be told to hand cups to runners. Many of the volunteers didn't know that. I certainly appreciate the volunteers; God bless them. But several of them had us grab the cups off the table. Also, they need to fill the glasses with Gatorade more fully. There was only a mouthful in most cups that I took, at least. And finally, I think race officials should re-measure the course. I find it difficult to believe that only one person broke three hours. I think the course was long. Also, a problem in all four races has been the placement of the mile markers. You might be running a 6:45 pace, and suddenly your next mile clocks in at 7:20. And then a couple of miles later you run a 5:35 mile. No way.
R. T. from East Coast (9/15/2003) "3 words for you ? Worst Marathon Ever " (about: 2003) COURSE: 2 ORGANIZATION: 1 FANS: 2 A mile is 5,280 feet. A marathon is exactly 26.21875 of those miles. Or at least that?s the textbook definition of two relatively well-known lengths. Well, tie your laces tight, because the Denver Marathon doesn?t adhere to simple distance rules. In fact, Denver seemingly doesn?t adhere to any marathon standards, leaving more than one multi-occasion marathoner to term it, ?The Worst Marathon Ever.? Sadly, ?worst? doesn?t even begin to scratch the surface of this farce. What does one call a 25-plus mile race with no more than nine water stations, each staffed by no more than three people, making the experience self-pour and self-serve? How can you apply a label to a long-distance endeavor which rewards finishers of its sadism with nothing more than banana quarters and mealy watermelon? What?s the standard phrase for a timed event whose sole clock is at the finish line and is running several minutes fast? For $75, all this could be yours at the unforgettable, unmatchable and ungodly awful Denver Marathon. Don?t worry. This horror story isn?t over. We haven?t even touched the distances yet. Mile 14 was not one mile long, but 1-1/4 miles. Mile 15 reverted to normal before mile 16 was lengthened to at least 1-1/10 miles. Mile 17 was slightly short of a mile, but mile 18 more than made up for it with a distance of nearly 1-1/3 miles. But don?t take my word for it. Let the numbers speak for themselves. How else do you explain one who had just completed 13 consecutive miles between 8:00 and 8:15, suddenly recording five straight miles with times of 10:00, 8:00, 9:30, 7:00 and 10:30 without changing elevation or pace? And yet the worst was yet to come. The mile marker that followed mile 20 was mile 22, making participants figure that the extra distance they?d covered had just been accounted for. Only mile marker ?22? was followed roughly one mile later by another mile marker ?22,? perhaps the most destructive, demoralizing moment I?ve ever experienced in 35 marathons and 13,000 miles of running. Thankfully, there were no more 22?s. But the misery wasn?t over. Shortly after mile 23, the poorly marked marathon course dead ended into a construction site set off by a fence, leaving runners to throw up their hands and make wild guesses as to where to turn next. Once back on the course, the next mile marker was 25, which wasn?t accurately placed either, leaving these same mystified runners to wonder whether this was really the end. Completely thrown off stride, there was nothing to do but keep a reserve in the tank in case this pack of lies continued. When it mercifully ended, roughly 1-3/4 miles after the mile 25 marker, only one thing was for certain ? every finisher had completed much closer to 27 than 26 miles. Do yourself a favor. Save your money, your energy and your time and choose another race to run in the fall. You'll be glad you did.

More Comments: [ < 1 2 3 4 5 > ]

Quick Links

Marathon Search
Upcoming US Marathons
Upcoming International Marathons
Search Marathon Results
Latest Running News
Recent Newsletters
Race Director Tools

Become an Advertiser

Click Here: Please visit our Sponsor

Click Here: Please visit our Sponsor

Click Here: Please visit our Sponsor

Click Here: Please visit our Sponsor

Become an Advertiser

© 2000-2024, All Rights Reserved by MarathonGuide.com LLC

Privacy Policy Refund Policy Terms of Use