Runners showed up, organisers didn’t: A real “No-Run” event!

SUNDAY, MAY 25, 2025

Hundreds arrived for “Run for Destination 2025” — but found no race, no staff, just confusion and a banner dated 2028. Welcome to Thailand’s ghost run.

What was supposed to be a community health-focused event turned into a viral scandal on May 25, 2025, after hundreds of runners gathered at Suan Luang Rama IX Park in Bangkok for the "Run for Destination 2025" — only to find no organisers, no start line, and no race.

According to the event schedule:

10 km run was to begin at 6am

5 km run at 6.10am

Registration fee: 450 baht

Participants arrived early in the morning, ready to race, only to find no sign of staff or equipment. A confusing event banner reading “Run for Destination 2025, Sunday, May 28, 2028” added to the chaos. 

The crowd, visibly frustrated, eventually filed complaints at Prawet Police Station.

Runners showed up, organisers didn’t: A real “No-Run” event!

Police Begin Investigation, Organisers Questioned

Pol Col Thossapol Ampaiphipatkul, Superintendent of Prawet Police Station, confirmed that two individuals—linked to a well-known private company—are currently being questioned. The organisers claimed the event was legitimate and that race kits, including bibs, shirts, hats, and digital watches, were distributed to roughly 600 out of the 1,800 registered runners.

Authorities are verifying those claims and investigating the logistics of race kit delivery: whether they were sent by mail, collected in advance, or supposed to be picked up on race day.

If fraud is confirmed, organizers could face criminal charges under consumer protection laws, computer crime laws, and civil lawsuits. Police are also working with relevant agencies, including the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration’s Environment Department, which oversees park usage.

Victims were advised to formally file police reports or submit details via an official Google Form, which will be used to build the legal case. Whether participants will receive refunds remains uncertain, as that depends on civil proceedings.

Staff Reveal Internal Disarray

Panisara (surname withheld), a contracted staff member hired to manage water stations and course directions, shared that she and her 63-person team were paid 500 baht each. They were stationed along the route and at bag drop areas, but were confused when no race operations began.

She noted signs of disorganisation — lack of lighting, no sound system, a non-standard start gate, and an insufficient number of medals. “It didn’t look like any professional event I’ve worked on before,” she said, adding that she had to pressure the organisers for several days to finally receive her payment, totalling over 30,000 baht.

Staff Member Hit with Lawsuit Over T-Shirt Sales

Panisara also disclosed that she was sued by the event organisers on May 21 for alleged fraud over the sale of 100 event t-shirts. She claimed the organisers asked her to help sell the shirts at 600–650 baht each and had agreed to a 50 baht commission per shirt.

She sold all the shirts, transferred 60,000 baht to the organisers, and kept the agreed-upon 5,000 baht as commission — now the subject of legal action. “I have all the receipts. This was part of our deal,” she said.

MK Group Issues Statement, Distances Itself from the Event

Amid the controversy, photos from the event location showed banners displaying the MK Restaurant Group logo, prompting public backlash.

MK Group swiftly issued a formal statement clarifying that while they had provided limited financial sponsorship, they had no role in organising or managing the event. The company also announced its intention to pursue legal action against the organisers for damages to the company’s reputation and stakeholders.

“MK has long supported healthy living campaigns, including fun runs. But we were not involved in the execution or cancellation of this event,” the company said.

As the investigation unfolds, the scandal has raised questions about accountability in event management and highlighted the need for better oversight to protect consumers from similar incidents in the future.