On October 19, 1980, a runner who had crossed the finish line first in a major city marathon was subsequently disqualified after race organizers determined he had ridden the subway for part of the course. The episode highlighted both the logistical challenges of policing mass-participation races and the evolving expectations for verification and sportsmanship in long-distance events. According to contemporary newspaper accounts and race records, the athlete entered the marathon field and maintained a leading position during the early miles. Observers noticed inconsistencies in his pacing and location reports from volunteer checkpoints along the route. After complaints and questions were raised by volunteers and other competitors, race officials reviewed checkpoint logs and eyewitness reports. They concluded that the runner had disappeared from the course for a segment and reappeared later, and that the most plausible explanation was that he had used the city’s subway system to bypass part of the route. Race officials disqualified him and adjusted the official results, elevating the second-place finisher to first. Organizers issued a statement citing the race’s rules, which require competitors to complete the entire marked course on foot; use of public transportation or other means of skipping course sections is explicitly prohibited. The disqualification was reported in local and national press at the time and prompted debate in the running community about enforcement and fairness. Contemporaneous accounts note several complicating factors. Mass marathons in that era relied heavily on volunteer checkpoints, time-of-passage lists, and manual record-keeping rather than the electronic timing chips common today. That made it possible for gaps in observation to occur and meant officials had to rely on eyewitness testimony and deduction. Some members of the public and parts of the running community questioned whether the evidence was definitive, while others argued that race officials acted appropriately to preserve the event’s integrity. The incident contributed to a broader push within the sport toward more reliable timing and verification systems. In the years that followed, many major races adopted more rigorous bib-checking procedures, split-time stations, and, eventually, electronic timing chips and comprehensive checkpoint networks that reduce the likelihood of similar disputes. The case from October 19, 1980, is therefore often referenced in historical discussions about why such technological and procedural changes became standard. While the basic facts of disqualification are well documented in press reports from the time, some details remain subject to differing recollections or incomplete records—such as exactly which segment of the course was bypassed and the runner’s personal account, which was not widely preserved in the public record. What is clear from archived reporting and race communications is that organizers enforced the rule prohibiting the use of public transportation during the course and that the official winners’ list was altered accordingly. The episode serves as an instructive example of how sporting events evolve administratively in response to disputes and the limits of available verification methods. It also underscores enduring questions about fairness, evidence, and the responsibilities of competitors and organizers in endurance events.