HEADLINE: New York cancels Sunday marathon in wake of deadly storm

[EddieDingo]

NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg canceled tomorrow's marathon (click) after insisting that the race would go on as scheduled.

Was this the right decision or would it have been better to conduct 'business as usual' while giving the storm ravaged citizens a morale booster?

Do you think he waited too long to cancel?  Did he do what he thought was the right thing or do you think he caved to pressure?

http://news.yahoo.com/york-cancels-sunday-marathon-wake-deadly-stor...

[Bob Stepp]

Now is not the time for a marathon. There are people hurting up there who need the resources the marathon would have consumed.

[TeeBubbaDee]

I think he waited too long, and that he caved to the pressure. The marathon should have been canceled within hours of the storm hitting.

[darroll]

Cold,

even thinking about it.

[Jaylee53]

Good call to cancel...just too late.  It was bad form to go ahead with it in the face of the disaster.  There are people suffering.   To by pass the urgency of caring for them to glorify something that these people, ie; runners, have a choice to participate in is shameful.

[Slim]

I think there is something to be said for getting back to normalcy, but I think there needs to be a recovery time first.  I've never been involved with a marathon but I understand that they use generators/power, juice/water and clear streets.  I think the victims need all that sutff more.

I forgot about hotel rooms.

[TeeBubbaDee]

What Slim said.

I did hear that some of the runners were donating time and money instead of running. 

I heard that one runner figured he/she would spend $2500.00 to run the race, (THAT I DON"T UNDERSTAND) but that he/she was donating the money to the Red Cross.

[darroll]

The red cross is a real rip off.

[EddieDingo]

I heard that once they replaced that one CEO, sorry I don't remember the name, that things improved.  Have you heard otherwise?  They seem to always be on the spot.

[darroll]

First they pay all their own expenses then they start to think of the cause.

[TeeBubbaDee]

I totally agree that some charities spend so much on overhead that they actually contribute next to nothing to the cause they are supposed to be crusading for. I for one, will never again contribute to the Salvation Army. During hurricane Katrina, they were asking for donations of $60.00 to feed a family of four for a day. I'm pretty sure that for $60.00 I could feed a family of four at least three days. No, it wouldn't be fine cuisine, but if they were interested in going to sleep with a full belly, I think I could accomplish that. But all charities must pay their own bills so that they can do what they are supposed to do. If they didn't cover their overhead, they are out of business. Since the American Red Cross has been around since 1881, I'm assuming that they are doing more good than harm. 

[EddieDingo]

This turned out to be a really good call.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/05/uk-storm-sandy-marathon-i...

[darroll]

Good for the runners.