Why? How is that relevant?
I coach juniors for my club, I give up my time twice a week, every week to run training sessions for them, it doesn't make my opinions any more important than anyone elses.
I can understand the frustration felt, she probably isn't alone.
What I object to is the inference that the runners were implicitly at fault and were entirely responsible for what happened, based on little evidence whatsoever. These people turned up to attempt a challenge, they wore the mandatory kit as advised by the organisers and some of them were found wanting, as happens in all events. I imagine some walkers, carrying significantly more kit also retired because of the conditions. It's grossly unfair to label them as 'scantily clad' or imply that they were foolhardy. If you think the kit list is inadequate then lobby the organiser to change things.
As I've said before, my two thin base layers and ultralight waterproof were perfectly adequate for a brisk walk/slow jog even exposed on Gt Whernside at around 11.00pm. Carrying more weight would have hampered me for the entire event, slowed my pace and increased the likelihood of exhaustion and retirement.
There will be retirees every year, for a host of different reasons. Looking back over the last five years, a similar proportion of the field have voluntarily retired each time (check out the Fellsman results page) This year, because of the weather conditions, the number of retirees was predicted to increase and tipped things over the edge, prompting the organisers to play it safe; all credit to them for a sensible decision.
I particularly objected to this patronising little gem;
Worthy of the Grump!