- April 1, 2010 at 6:20 pm #11988
How the heck could this happen?
- April 1, 2010 at 7:50 pm #29682
You are aware of what today is, right?
- April 1, 2010 at 7:54 pm #29683
The scary thing is that it almost seems believable until I look over at my calendar. With the de-emphasis on running at many mass-participation running events these days, one could almost see the potential of that happening.
- April 2, 2010 at 1:47 am #29684
Did I really fall for this 😮 and did RW really post like like a actuall news item?
- April 2, 2010 at 3:00 am #29685
You are aware of what today is, right?
Yes, the knob holiday and perhaps my least favorite day of the year, a day of endless amounts of poor attempts at humor shoved down everyone's throats, a day where everyone (thinks he) is a comedian. I truly enjoy brilliant humor and all I seem to see on this day is everything but that. How anyone over the age of ten (no offense, Ed) ever falls for this sort of thing anymore is beyond me — most of it is so incredibly obvious, unoriginal, and unfunny. This one seems to me like it would be a good thing, though undoubtably many would feel otherwise. 8)
- April 2, 2010 at 12:38 pm #29686
- April 2, 2010 at 4:23 pm #29687
The link has already been changed due to a lawsuit.
- April 2, 2010 at 5:28 pm #29688
It was basically an exact copy of the BAA John Hancock marathon site except that it took ten minutes, I believe, off the qualifying standards for 2011.
- April 2, 2010 at 5:49 pm #29689
Yes, an exact copy of their standards with 10 minutes taken off. Essentially, a copy of their 2010 page with appropriate date changes and 10 minutes taken off each qualifying standard. I suppose I can see why the BAA wouldn't be happy about that prank and why they would want that page taken down.
- April 3, 2010 at 12:02 am #29690
Well, it was a bit obvious with the “mybaa.org” url and “April Fools” scrawled in red across the BAA logo at the top. However, no doubt more than a few people fell for it and fired off indignant messages to BAA personnel.
- April 3, 2010 at 6:57 pm #29691
I second that opinion that indignant messages were most likely sent to the BAA and that is what in turn caused the lawsuit.
Even if the BAA did change thier stadards it is their race – they can change the standards as they see fit – without any runner's permission or blessing.
- April 3, 2010 at 8:40 pm #29692
Definitely, though as we have seen runners are not immune to feeling entitled.
- April 4, 2010 at 6:43 pm #29693
I agree that it was a well labeled prank. However, how many people even look at the url? I didn't until I saw the “it was a prank” message. Also, how many people look at the banner? Would you notice if I switched the forum banner here?
As for the likely response by runners and the response by the BAA, I agree that we have too much of an entitlement culture. That said, I don't blame the BAA at all for protecting their image. Image is everything. Did they have to get lawyers involved? We don't know what happened behind the scenes so it's hard to say. Did the BAA ask nicely and get rebuffed?
Whatever the case, as I already ststed, image is everything. This wouldn't be the first time a prank by a third party was blamed on the target of the prank by its potential customers and the target suffered as a result. While I'm sure the prankster didn't mean harm, the potential for harm existed and the BAA has the right to protect its image and prevent or minimize the potential harm.
- April 6, 2010 at 2:51 pm #29694
KNOWING that it was April first and knowing I was following a bogus link, when I read the page I still had a slight feeling of unease… and I'm not even chasing a BQ this year!! but I was so serious when I was working that route that I still have deep feelings about the whole process… I thought “how will they reconsile people who have the two year 'window' on their BQ from winter who didn't get in because entries filled up so fast this year”… EVEN when I reminded myself it was fake, that nagging feeling wouldn't go away… my kids keep telling me I obsessive, guess they're right…
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.