In short: Excellent organisation, flat course and a good challenge doing 3 and a bit laps but good for pacing. A new PB for me so no complaints, even with the wind and slight rain! Date of review: February 28, 2010
In short: Another excellent running of this fine 10k - and a prize to boot! In full: This review refers to the November 2009 event. I seem to have used my solitary 2009 review allowance when reporting on the August 2009 race, so this one may appear to be written in the year 2000!! I did email the RW support crew, but received no acknowledgement or help whatsoever. So I'm sorry, but it's not me breaking the system, it's a system that can't cope with an event that happens more than once a year.
Rant over. Race over too. I had been hoping since the summer for a windless day and a good PB opportunity, but the week leading up to this race was probably the windiest of the year. I think this put me into a negative frame of mind about the likelihood of a headwind on the back straight and I ran well below my best. Quite a few people got PBs, though, so I am prepared to put this down to experience rather than blame the conditions!
One glitch this year was the number of locked loos around the site. Props to Will Whitmore for coming out with an explanation and an apology so fast. I am confident that this was a one-off and it should not deter anyone from signing up for this one in the future.
I think I have said everything else in previous reviews. This is a well-run and friendly event. No messing about, just a good down-to-earth fun outing. If there was a pull-down box for "Best use of a loudhailer for giving a briefing as you walk 200 people to the start line", Will would get 100% without hesitation!
There was a switch to medals instead of resin statuettes for finishers, which I think is a good move. The goody bag was a bit lightweight and personally I would rather do without it. It's generous for a 10k, but understandably not worth writing home about. I don't think many runners would miss it.
I must add that I was delighted to be a member of the prize-winning Westbury Harriers team - woohoo! Well done to fellow runners Karl, Geraint and Sandra! My first ever "prize" and a nice touch - thanks Will!
I have bookmarked the 2010 dates already and look forward to being back ... Date of review: November 26, 2009
In short: Fast course, 3 laps not as boring as it sounds In full: Well organised, car park right next to the race HQ mean i could be on the road a matter of minutes after finishing. The wind made the race interesting, but it is definitely a PB-potential course. Date of review: November 23, 2009
In short: Weather was interesting and certainly blew away the cobwebs! Excellent organisation, very friendly. Managed a massive PB, so well worth the trip! See you in February! Date of review: November 23, 2009
In short: Sorry about the toilets. In full: Getting a lot of comments about the toilets and just wanted to apologise. As organsiers, it was totally out of our hands - we were informed at 5pm the night before that the main toilets were closed for refurbishment. We had one set up open behind the cafe and another set were opened at 10am plus the ones in the cafe. Unfortunately the cafe toilets then got blocked too. The main toilet block will be refurbished ready for the February Chilly, but that was of no comfort yesterday I know. Date of review: November 23, 2009
In short: PB course when not windy. No more, no less In full: I have given the PB 100% as this is what it would be on a calm day. Strange but strangely enjoyable running round a race track (OK - who had car noises in their head) Yes it could be boring but it's only 3 laps, Would be far worse on a shorter circuit. Minor gripe - Chip collection could have had a few more helping hands although they did vary registration times to keep queues down. 1 toilet block open was a joke. Iwas led to believe that another one did open later. In all fairness I will hold back on my judgement of the organisers for this as this may have been the responsibility of the race track owners. Were they aware of numbers involved? Date of review: November 23, 2009