In short: Tougher than last year, still worth it though. In full: Disappointed with my own performance, 1.52, when at the 8 mile mark I was cruising having completed that part in 1.06. The hills, weather and especially myself were all to blame as the wheels surprisingly fell off from about the 9 mile mark. Not to worry, still had a great time. Thanks to all of the other runners, marshalls and organisers and a big thankyou to the spectators that braved the dreadful conditions to cheer the finishers home. Not too sure about the t-shirt this year though...I look like I've been tangoed!! Date of review: November 1, 2005
In short: Excellent race In full: Excellent organisation, nice course, nice medal, well woth the hours drive to and from, thank you very much to the marshalls too for their encouragement. Date of review: November 1, 2005
In short: Done it 4 years running but 05 was my last time. Far to many people taking part and many who think they can run it in 2 hours but walk within 10 minutes getting in the way of other runners Date of review: November 1, 2005
In short: Worth doing once In full: Having now run in a more local race (Worksop), I would not do the GNR again. It's just too big. The fact that I finished in the top 2000 having only started running in February shows that proper runners steer clear of this fun run/walk. Dodging/accelerating past walkers in the first couple of miles (and more) is a pain in the *rse if you're there to run. Good points - big event so good atmosphere; good medal, t shirt & goody bag. Date of review: November 1, 2005
In short: No time In full: Unfortunately, I have to agree with the negative comments posted and join in! Especially since, after a neck and neck finish with my friend, both of our names/times don't appear in the race results - not even in the form of an ominous question mark. Apparently their was a 'admin problem'(otherwise known as a tea break) with all times over 50 mins -so if your time is also over 50 mins you're likely to have an incorrect time or no time at all too. Date of review: November 1, 2005
In short: I'm surprised Specksavers would put its name to such a badly organised event. In full: I am very angry about a number of aspects of this race. Firstly the organisation was the worst I have ever seen. I am confident that a group of primary school children could have planned a better race.
It was a complete shambles! The only positive thing was the presence of an ambulance crew who, much to my suprise were not needed. The route was very hazardous - running downhill in such slippery conditions as well as having to avoid people running at speed in the opposite direction.
After questioning the fact that myself and my friend had no recorded times, despite crossing the finish line together, I was informed that the finish times might be slightly inaccurate. It seems to me that the organisers, in trying to correct their inability to accurately measure 10k decided to add a few minutes to some of the finishing times in order to fool people into thinking they had indeed run that distance. The result being that now noone has an accurate time and some people were missed out altogether.
In terms of the entry fee, it has become apparent that those who registered online paid £11 whilst those who registered on the day paid £10. Why is this? I am confused as to which charities will be gaining from this event as it has never been made clear. I would also like to know what percentage of the entry fee will be going to charity as again that was not made clear.
I would suggest that Specksavers and the organisers donate every penny of the entry fees to charity as it is clear that nothing was spent on the organisation, there were no medals as promised and the goodie bags contained absolutely nothing that could be of any use to anybody.
I don't know who monitors this feedback but I think we all deserve some kind of explanation. It was an absolute shambles and to be quite honest, whether this was the fault of Specksavers or the organisers, the people that will suffer the most damage to their reputation is Specksavers. I suggest the company takes some steps into holding their organisers accountable. Date of review: November 1, 2005
In short: Fantastic event with a great reputation that it always manages to maintain In full: For the last 1 hour of the event and the following 48 hours I (ie. my legs) hate the Beachy Head marathon - otherwise it's my favourite event of the year - by far! Date of review: November 1, 2005
In short: good for beginners and elite alike In full: again, NOT FLAT!! I was lied to!! but enjoyable enough scenery and friendly marshalls. great goody bag, a mug and t-shirt! end mile=downhill was a bonus Date of review: November 1, 2005
In short: Directions to venue were very poor but once there everything else fine! In full: Directions to the venue were very poor for people not familiar with the area. Too many people start in the wrong place, do they think they'll get round quicker if they start nearer the front?? Still, it happens at every race!! Date of review: November 1, 2005
In short: Great race. Very friendly atmosphere. In full: I loved this from start to finish. Turned out a bit less flat than I was expecting, but the same for everyone. LOVED the band, great marshalls, nice welcome in the club both before and after. Hard run but I'll be back. Date of review: November 1, 2005
In short: An interesting course and generally well organised. In full: The course was quite undulating and very interesting over a nice scenic area. The marshalls did a good job and the race was well organised. Despite the wet weather it was still an enjoyable race. The only areas for improvement would be for more toilets, supervised bag storage and maybe a medal or other momento. Overall however this was a good race and one I will do again next year. Date of review: November 1, 2005
In short: Great course - bad weather though In full: Was having great fun going out but coming back was against so pretty strong wind and therefore slightly unpleasant. Will definately do it again just hope the weather will be better next time Date of review: November 1, 2005