In short: Cold but cool In full: Marshalling was brilliant. Improved on previous best by 3 minutes, barely missing out on breaking 40m. Nice flat course, well organised - enjoyed it Date of review: February 14, 2005
In short: I really enjoyed it. Very friendly. Attractive, pretty course. In full: It would be good to find out exactly how much longer than 10K the race was. Like most people I may have exceeded my PB more than expected. Date of review: February 14, 2005
In short: Enjoyable first 10k, made better by good company. Organisation a bit vague. Facilities basic. In full: Lovely scenery, took my mind off aching legs! Very friendly co-runners. Pleased with my time for my very first 10k. Would definitely run this one again next year. Organisers will have more time to get it right by then! Not bad for a first attempt though! Date of review: February 14, 2005
In short: A potentially good race somewhat soured by a couple of problems In full: This race could have been fine, but the comments show that on the day there were a couple of niggles.
First, the delayed start was a pain, especially for a shorter race, where the delay was potentially as long as people's times on the course. Also, a last-minute announcement of a delay screws up people's warm-up and hydration - if there's going to be a delay, get the announcement out early please.
Second, the controversy about the distance. This was only my second 10k race, so perhaps I haven't got fantastic feel for pacing yet, but like others I was caught out by the last kilometer. I was bang on pace for my target time at 9k and was therefore disappointed to come in significantly over, apparently having lost a load of time in the last kilometer, despite pushing hard for the finish.
Would anyone from the organisers care to respond to the comments about the distance measurement? The chap with the Garmin reckons it was about 1,500m. My analysis of my split times suggests that's spot on. Date of review: February 14, 2005
In short: Ignoring the organisation, not a thrilling course, but good exhibition In full: Glad to read the last Km was long, that makes my time a lot more respectable, But there was a pinch point just after the start that could have been avoided if there was 1/2KM to play with. Value for the race itself is good, except you are forced to enter the exhibition too - I would rather have gone to that on Saturday when I wasn't all sweaty. Race number should have been sent out in advance, not collected. One Marshall did cheer me on so they weren't all bad. But the Goody bag!!! A low car bar and MENS toiletries - are women runners that rare? Date of review: February 14, 2005
In short: Appalling organisation, maybe it is ok for horses great for a PW In full: The 45 minute delay was riduculous, we had been on the start line 10mins in freezing conditions. I guess it was for the carpets over the racetrack, poor horses they might have to run in a bit of mud! However no explanation was given. The new time was announced as 11.45 not 10.45 afterwards! No drinks stations, and yes it was well over distance. I was on course for a 43 mins at 9 km and did 45. The last km took me 6.30 mins when the rest were taking 4.30 or so (I am usually metronomic in pace but it was v.windy and half were uphill so km times were not consistent.) The only good point was that the sports drink and the energy bar at the end did not contain a load of additives that athletes shouldn't put in their bodies but nearly all 'sports' drinks and bars have in them like aspartame, caffeine, synthetic colourings and flavourings...etc... PW? Personal worst since I started running at age 11!! (I'm 41 now) Date of review: February 14, 2005
In short: Where are the results In full: Monday morning 10.30 a.m. and the website still says "places are available". They said the results would be posted Sunday night! Date of review: February 14, 2005