No Boston Marathon for Katie Holmes

Honey · January 10th, 2008, 08:11 PM

Is Katie Holmes back on the treadmill for another big city marathon? Not so, according to her rep. Rumors were flying this week that Holmes, who ran the New York City Marathon in November, had signed up for the Boston Marathon. But her publicist tells PEOPLE: "Not true!" For now, it appears Holmes, 29, will stick to jogging up and down the red carpet.

Rep: No Boston Marathon for Katie Holmes - Katie Holmes : People.com

Some might say she didn't even run the last one

latinaforever · January 10th, 2008, 08:18 PM

Tom:Get back in the kitchen woman!
katie:y-yes,sir.

Penny Lane · January 10th, 2008, 11:00 PM

She's probably ovulating that week.. Tommy Boy can't miss another opportunity to break out the frozen sperm, yall.

moser · January 10th, 2008, 11:03 PM

She didn't make the time requirements for Boston, no?

Penny Lane · January 10th, 2008, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moser

She didn't make the time requirements for Boston, no?

Good point.. she didn't.. the time she had to have was under 3h40min and she made it in 5h and some odd minutes.

nycgirl · January 10th, 2008, 11:27 PM

she didn't run the first one anyway, it was quite obvious because of the lack of bra and the way she looked when it was "done"

CherryDarling · January 11th, 2008, 12:37 AM

^^
Ita.

lurkur · January 11th, 2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nycgirly101

she didn't run the first one anyway, it was quite obvious because of the lack of bra and the way she looked when it was "done"

omg, you're right. If I ran for 5 hours without a bra, I would feel like my boobs would stretch out to my knees with all that bouncing.

I think that would go for any woman regardless of cup size.

Bellatheball · January 11th, 2008, 11:55 AM

She didn't make the time for Boston but they do take runners who are running for charity.

I don't believe for a second she ran that entire marathon. I've done them and there's no way in hell you could do it braless. There's just no way. Plus, no one looks like that at the end of the race. Most people are a bit pale, their teeth can even get bright white marks from dehydration and they tend to be a bit shakey (this is probably even more true for those who finish with slower times). No way she ran it.

nwgirl · January 11th, 2008, 01:45 PM

I don't mean to be a downer on the whole "she didn't run" conspiracy, but unless they paid someone, or she took a shortcut that no one noticed, it would have come out that she didn't run the marathon.

They give you a clip that tracks your time at intervals throughout the race, so it's not like you just start and then no one pays attention to you and you can go wherever you like and then just show up at the finish line. That's not how these work. (My husband runs a couple marathons a year.)

Also, with her notoriety, plenty of people would have come forward saying they didn't see her on the route or that they saw her leaving or re-entering the route.

And at five plus hours, I can only imagine that she did some sort of alternating run/walk routine (run for five minutes, walk for five), which a lot of new marathon runners do, which is pretty easy on your body and you wouldn't look like you just sprinted 26 miles when you reach the finish line.

Bellatheball · January 11th, 2008, 01:47 PM

^^ Actually, there was a lot of speculation about this after the race. It's interesting that there are no other photos of her along the race...just at the end.

Like I said, I've run them too. The chip could easily be placed on someone else's shoe while they run the race and then be switched back. It's not hard to do.

crackho · January 11th, 2008, 01:52 PM

So, are they cancelling the Marathon?

nwgirl · January 12th, 2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bellatheball

^^ Actually, there was a lot of speculation about this after the race. It's interesting that there are no other photos of her along the race...just at the end.

Like I said, I've run them too. The chip could easily be placed on someone else's shoe while they run the race and then be switched back. It's not hard to do.

I would agree if this was an average person we were talking about. But it's Katie Holmes and she's pretty well known, which I would think would make it even harder for her to cheat. And I'm sure she wasn't just standing there all by herself - there were probably cameras around, etc.

Speculation is one thing (it's what we're doing). Proof is a totally different thing. And with how many people are working the route on these things, someone somewhere would be able to put together a pretty decent timeline showing she wasn't actually there, if she really didn't run it. (And to be honest, if you're going to cheat, wouldn't it make sense that you cheat to make yourself look better? She's gotten so much grief for her five+ hour finish time, I just can't even see someone cheating to get what would be considered a totally crappy time.)

IMO there are too many variables that would have had to have been manipulated and given all those variables, someone would have come out with some proof by this time. (I don't think that because she wasn't wearing a bra and looks semi-decent at the finish line are even close to any kind of proof or really any reason to question her participation.) At the very least, I would seriously assume the marathon organizers themselves would have been all over this, as they don't take cheating lightly. That's all I'm saying.

Bellatheball · January 12th, 2008, 11:44 AM

Right, because Katie Holmes is the stand up example of not lying and/or cheating. We speculate on her marriage, her child and her "religion." All of a sudden it's a stretch to speculate on a marathon? The other things get to slide by with mere speculation but this demands proof?

Like I said, no woman alive would run 26.2 miles without a bra. And to have no other photos along the race (no cell phones, no paps, no official marathon pics) seems suspect.

nwgirl · January 12th, 2008, 02:43 PM

I'm not quite sure where you got the impression that I was implying I thought Katie was above cheating or lying. I was just saying that since she is so well-known, I would think that in something as public a setting as a marathon, she would have a harder time cheating than the average Joe. Because she's so well known, I would assume that people would be giving her a lot of attention which would make it harder for her to have gotten away with simply showing up at the finish line and pretending to have run.

And call me crazy, but I need more than the absence of cell phone photos or the fact that someone wasn't wearing a bra or looked half way decent at the finish line to jump to the conclusion that they didn't run a marathon. To me, none of those factors individually or even combined is logical enough to make the jump to support even simple speculation, much less move to the conclusion that she's a liar and flat out didn't run.

Which, when you say "no way" she ran it based on not wearing a bra and how she looked at the end of the race, I think you've gone past the point of speculation. Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems pretty difinitive that you've moved into the territory of calling her a flat out liar.

Also, I hate to put a damper on your big Perry Mason moment that "no woman alive" could run a marathon without a bra, but I've seen them at marathons. Quite a few of them actually. And I've seen women who were way better endowed than minnie-tittie Katie running with nothing on more supportive than a tank top. Just like her. Just because you don't/can't/choose not to doesn't mean it's not possible no one else can do it.