In short: Even allowing for the heat wave, this was terrible! In full: Everyone is having a go here, so I hope the organisers take heed. Obviously, the weather is totally out of their control, but here is a list of the things they got wrong:- 1. Toilets - ridiculous at the start. Didn't see any portaloos on the course at all. 2. The 40 minute delay at the start was awful. 3. The programme map was totally misleading. I spent 20 miles wondering where the last 6 miles were coming from. 4. I was in the middle of the pack at the start and couldn't believe the first water station had run out. I will never forget the humiliation of grovelling around on the floor for a used water bottle! 5. The last 6 miles put the icing on the cake - were there mile markers for 21 and 23 miles? Where were the marshals?
Never again. The best thing was the medal! Date of review: June 21, 2005
In short: A nice flat fast course was let down by bad organisation In full: I hope the organisers are sufficiently ashamed of themselves after reading the reviews on here. They should be. A delayed start of 45 mins meant for even hotter temperatures at the end of the race. And to run out of water is absolutely inexcusable for a race of this distance/volume of runners. Plus lack of marshalling along the coastal wall was frankly, quite dangerous and I wouldn't be surprised to hear if there had been some serious casualties. It was my first marathon and although it won't put me off another one, I won't be doing Blackpool again. Plus the results aren't accurate. I apparently finished 9 minutes faster than I did (better than slower I suppose). More of these events should look to using ChampionChip timing. Date of review: June 21, 2005
In short: Crowd support lifted this event above its class. In full: Crowd support was fantastic, given poor weather at the start. Lack of toilets was a huge problem. Results service was poor; had to wait 4 days for chip time. I've paid a lot less for a race and got a much slicker event. Date of review: June 21, 2005
In short: Good one for us plodders In full: First time doing this race and thought it was fab, even as a plodder I didn't think it was too hilly. One big complaint would be that there were still some people finishing, but the marshalls didn't keep people off the path upto the castle. The finishers were held up by people rudely wandering on the course. As a slowy, I hate that as it makes you feel very unimportant in a race if even the marshalls can't be arsed to wait for you! Date of review: June 21, 2005
In short: Almost getting a big race feel now, quite well supported, nicely organised In full: Almost getting a big race feel now, quite well supported, nicely organised, worth the trip from Southampton.
In short: A rather dull twice round the block. In full: The course is one of my training runs, so it was not the most interesting race for me. Very little support, apart from at the end, although managed to see my Dad three times round the course, not quite sure how he did that, must have been good use of the short cuts. Date of review: June 21, 2005
In short: Overall a reasonably good race. The weather conditions were perfect on the day. A bit of rain in the morning probably kept some spectators indoors. Organisation was good, but severe lack of toilet facilities at the start. May do again, but not sure! Date of review: June 21, 2005
In short: The delayed start and lack of water despite the highly publicised heat-wave was extremely frustrating. A fast course, but given the weather it was very tough indeed. Such poor organisation means I would strongly recommend against trying this one. Date of review: June 21, 2005
In short: Too hot In full: There is no point adding to the list of complaints, and I didn't have a problem with lack of water, just bottles, but the weather changed this race for me from a crack at a personal best to an attempt not to finish the race on a stretcher. Date of review: June 21, 2005
In short: All been said In full: To add to everything already said about the water, a more detailed map would have helped a lot. The one in the race programme was wrong (the half-marathon split was after the Pleasure Beach, not before it) and didn't show toilets - of which I didn't see any at all - or which water stations were serving energy drinks. Needs sorting.
In fairness to the organiser I've had a very good response to my complaining email, and they can't do anything about the hideousness of the town, or the weather. But for a first-time marathoner, the first water station having no water at all is soul-destroying.
But it was my first one and I finished, so at the end of the day, I'm very happy. Date of review: June 21, 2005
In short: Did this race 2003 - it was hot and lacked water, my slowest. Did it again 2005, again very hot, again lack of water especialy between 15 to 23. As other comments helped by friends and very kind people, but still beat my last time. In full: NOT recommended for beginners, until they improve the marshalls and water stations. Date of review: June 21, 2005
In short: A great advert to get people biking or swimming In full: Terrible organisation to run out of water so early in the race. To see runners scrounging in the gutter for discarded bottles with water in was absolutely disgusting and the lack of marshalls / medical support on the sea front stretch could have been fatal. Thanks must go to members of the public who had the foresight to turn on their garden hoses to supply water and to look after the runners suffering with dehydration. One to watch for in the race calendar and definitely miss. You've got to ask how the Freckleton 1/2 marathon run later the same day some 20 miles away gets predominantley rave reviews, but you don't need to ask where local runners will be next year. Date of review: June 21, 2005
In short: inexcusable! In full: Race started off badly with delays, then got to first water station to find no water left. Runners were so desperate for fluid in parts of the race they were actually picking up discarded water bottles. Inexcusable to run out of water. Surprised they were not alot more casualties. Date of review: June 21, 2005