In short: Just needed a better end otherwise was great In full: Very cold not that the race organisers could do much about that. The start was fine and it was great to have cheers of encouragement along the way. Thanks for the drinks too they were very welcome. If I run it again next year will try for a PB Date of review: March 13, 2006
In short: Good race for virgin half-marathoners, but room for improvement on the organisation. In full: Lining the competitors at the start, according to estimated finish times, would have been helpful as would improvement at the finish (myself and a number of others were getting very cold standing in the queue). The below-par organisation was a surprise, considering the race's two not-insignificant cohorts (those of you who were there know who they were,they don't deserve any further advertising). Nevertheless, this was my first half marathon, I did better than my anticipated time and I'm sure all the issues will be ironed out for next year (!) so I'm sure I'll be back! Date of review: March 13, 2006
In short: This had a major sponsor, realy? In full: The grumbles out wieghted the success for me. It was a real fast race, but it failed in a few areas.
One: Sponsored by Nike. So the poor demarkation of start, and lack of shoe chip is pretty inexcusable.
Two: When I enter a race, I don't expect to have cars driving at me.
Three: Running near a highway with exhaust, sort of rough.
Four: The way they had the finish, is just soul destroying. Especially for a run that comes for so many as a stop on the training schedule. Some of the most important stuff for training is to get a proper warm down and recovery right after an intense work out. Standing in a queue in 4 degrees is not a proper warm down.
Personal best are nice, but really are small if it is along the way to something bigger, like a marathon. And this was definately sold as a warm up to the London. Date of review: March 13, 2006
In short: Better in 05 - nice race but very bad organisation at the end In full: 2nd time I have run this and have to say I didn't notice the problems at the end in 05. Nice course but the finish was amateurish and made a mockery of the official finish times. Date of review: March 13, 2006