New York City scraps marathon amid storm recovery efforts
NEW YORK — Under growing pressure with thousands still shivering from Hurricane Sandy, the New York City Marathon was canceled on Friday by Mayor Michael Bloomberg after mounting criticism that this is not the time for a race.
With the death toll in the city at 41 and power not yet fully restored, many New Yorkers had recoiled at the prospect of police officers being assigned to protect a marathon, storm victims being evicted from hotels to make way for runners, and big generators humming along at the finish-line tents in Central Park.
About 47,500 runners — 30,000 of them from outside New York — had been expected to take part in the 26.2-mile event on Sunday, with more than 1 million spectators usually lining the route. The world's largest marathon had been scheduled to start in Staten Island, one of the storm's hardest-hit places.
Bloomberg had pressed ahead with plans to run the marathon on schedule, but opposition intensified quickly Friday afternoon from the city comptroller, the Manhattan borough president and sanitation workers unhappy that they had volunteered to help storm victims but were assigned to the race instead.
Finally, about three hours later, the mayor relented.
“We would not want a cloud to hang over the race or its participants, and so we have decided to cancel it,” Bloomberg said in a statement. “We cannot allow a controversy over an athletic event — even one as meaningful as this — to distract attention away from all the critically important work that is being done to recover from the storm and get our city back on track.”
City and race officials considered several alternatives: a modified course, postponement or an elite runners-only race. But they decided cancellation was the best option.
Organizers will donate various items that had been brought in for the race to relief efforts, from food, blankets and portable toilets to generators set up on Staten Island.
The cancellation means there won't be another NYC Marathon until next year.
“I understand why it cannot be held under the current circumstances,” Meb Keflezighi, the 2009 men's champion and a former Olympic silver medalist, said in a statement. “Any inconveniences the cancellation causes me or the thousands of runners who trained and traveled for this race pales in comparison to the challenges faced by people in NYC and its vicinity.”
Bloomberg still insisted that holding the race would not have required diverting resources from the recovery effort. But he said he understood the level of friction.
“It is clear it that it has become the source of controversy and division,” Bloomberg said. “The marathon has always brought our city together and inspired us with stories of courage and determination.”
Bloomberg's decision was made a day after he appealed to the grit and resiliency of New Yorkers, saying, “This city is a city where we have to go on.”
The nationally televised race winds through the city's five boroughs and has been held annually since 1970, including 2001, about two months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Mary Wittenberg, president of the organizing New York Road Runners, said it was the right move to cancel.
“This is what we need to do and the right thing at this time,” she said.
“It's been a week where we worked very closely with the mayor's office and felt very strongly, both of us together, that on Tuesday it seemed that the best thing for New York on Sunday would be moving forward. As the days went on, just today it got to the point where that was no longer the case.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Grandmother of boy dropped at Uniontown Hospital says he’s in ICU
- Pittsburgh’s tech startup activity rates last of 40 metro areas in report
- Locke pitches 8 scoreless innings as Pirates edge Indians
- Pine-Richland graduate helps spark U.S. to Women’s World Club final
- McCutchen, Pirates hitters increasingly in crosshairs
- Pirates trust eye test when voting for all-stars
- Innovation enhances Philadelphia’s history as Democrats convene, Pope Francis visits
- Starting 9: Pirates missing out on young bat
- No boat races, so regatta-goers find something else to do
- Arizona prison says 700 inmates again ‘refusing to comply’
- Supreme Court ruling on threats may affect Connecticut case