Old Deer Park Richmond 10KHere's how RW members rated this race in the past (131 votes). | The big picture 2009 (126 votes) | | Overall score | | 39% | | How many would do it again? | | 31% | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 70% | | PB potential | | 69% | | Atmosphere | | 43% | | Organisation | | 25% | | Value | | 47% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 62% |
|
|
2009 race reviewed by: 4d
 | | Overall score | | 20% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 100% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 20% | | Organisation | | 20% | | Value | | 20% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: Interested observer
In full: I didn't run. This is though 'my manor'. I live just off the course and its a morning lossener for me. The course chosen is pretty suicidal for any numbers over 500 and I am surprised that the council let it go ahead ! I also drove along the A316 three times that day dodgeing undirected runners crossing the road at various points looking hugely depressed to be there. I am flabergasted that it was a commercial event. I actually thought it was organised by the 1st St Margarets Scouts and was going to have a word with one of their leaders about how poor it looked.
Date of review: November 12, 2009
|
2009 race reviewed by: Lee Jones 15
| | Overall score | | 20% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 20% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 20% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In full: Poor organisation, bad route. A lot of people running inches from cars speeding along and plenty of bottlenecks meant a PB was impossible and broken ankles likely on terrible sufaces. Not enough toilets and race started late with no announcements to inform when. Goody bag with cheap products and to top it all off the chip timing system failed. bad bad bad.
Date of review: November 12, 2009
|
2009 race reviewed by: Tom Harper
| | Overall score | | 20% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 20% | | Organisation | | 20% | | Value | | 20% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: money making explotation excercise
In full: I felt ripped off. This run was set up on the cheap to max. revenue of the organiser.
Avoid the company Energized Sports for other events.
Date of review: November 12, 2009
|
2009 race reviewed by: Martin White 17
| | Overall score | | 20% | | Would you do it again? | | Maybe | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 20% | | Value | | 20% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 20% |
In short: Badly organised
In full: Terrible Organisation. Not enough toilets, not enough marshalls, bad start, bad finish, bad water stops.
I fortunately started near the front I and got a PB for the 10k, I dont care if the timing chip didnt work, it still counts to me :-) Shocking race though.
Date of review: November 11, 2009
|
2009 race reviewed by: Isobel Clarke
| | Overall score | | 60% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 80% | | PB potential | | 80% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 20% | | Value | | 40% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: SO badly organised it was a joke.
Date of review: November 11, 2009
|
2009 race reviewed by: Final Mile
| | Overall score | | 20% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 20% | | Value | | 60% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: shockingly bad organisation - avoid at all costs
In full: Truly awful lack of organisation. Almost a text-book case of how not to organise a race: too few mashals, inadequate signage, runners forced to run down a busy high street pavement or road, no PA, late start/no start gun, no chip results, choked finish... etc, AND to add further insult I have been debited TWICE for my £11.50 entry fee!! Please do yourself a favour and avoid this event next year.
Date of review: November 10, 2009
|
2009 race reviewed by: Dave Miller 2
| | Overall score | | 20% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 100% | | Organisation | | 20% | | Value | | 20% |
In full: I trained for this!!! The race start was delayed by about 45 minutes and despite getting there in plenty of time at this point I was still standing in the queue for the baggage drop-off. So starting eight minutes after everyone else was not nice, spent the whole race weaving in between backmarkers. And sorry to you, I hope you had fun and I am sorry if I bumped you as I went charging past, but dealing with traffic is not what I want to do when I've enter a race. On the finish line I, and everybody else, had to come to a dead stop because of the bottleneck of runners waiting to pick up the goodie bag. And then to top it all there were no chip times because of an electrical fault. Energized Sports - who are these clowns!! Never, never, never again.
Date of review: November 10, 2009
|
2009 race reviewed by: Cathy Burke
| | Overall score | | 40% | | Would you do it again? | | Maybe | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 80% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 20% | | Value | | 20% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 60% |
In short: Somewhat disappointing
In full: I can't believe that this race had a UKA licence. If it did it broke all the rules. Where was the licence displayed and the list of runners taking part. The marshals were lacking, water and first aid were inadequate. No signage. I know organising a race can be difficult but you need to get the basics right and that's why the UKA provide guidelines.
Date of review: November 10, 2009
|
2009 race reviewed by: Map Girl
| | Overall score | | 20% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: |
In short: dismal organisation
In full: I opted to do this race instead of the the Leatherhead Firestation 10k and it was a big bag of sh*te, I should have gone to Leatherhead! So, if 1000 people entered that's £14,000 pounds to Energized Sports to organise. Just what did they spend the money on?
Date of review: November 10, 2009
|
2009 race reviewed by: Bjorn Simpole 2
| | Overall score | | 20% | | Would you do it again? | | No | | | | Details: | | Scenery | | 60% | | PB potential | | 60% | | Atmosphere | | 40% | | Organisation | | 20% | | Value | | 20% | | Beginner-friendliness | | 20% |
In short: Energised sports - avoid
In full: My email to these clowns
First of all I have no problem at all with the chip timing not working. This is something beyond your control and unfortunate.
However everything else was in your control. I believe you should be offering to refund at least 50% of the entry fee to all runners as a gesture of goodwill - not only for the chip timing but the generally woeful organisation. I'd like to make the following points: -
1. First of all the organisation and course itself was totally unsuitable for 1500 runners. The infrastructure in place was that I would suggest suitable for 800 runners. Maybe this is where the suggestions of 'profiterring' come from.
2. Placing a water station at 3K and not 5K as advised is stupid and potentially dangerous on a warmer day
3. 10 toilets. Are you having a laugh? Do the maths
4. Whilst the royal mail strike was beyond your control - having enough people to process 1500 runners collecting numbers and/or chips was. Did you not react to this acordingly and draft more people in
5. No information provided at start about delay. I was fortunate in that I managed to deposit my bag before the 9.15am due start. But was left shivvering in cold with no idea when it would start. Why was there no proper PA system. If you wish to be taken seriously this is a basic requirement
6. No signage on Kew Road to advise of a race taking place. Caution runners signs are manadtory. I don;t expect road closures but I expect precautions
7. Provide at least 50m funnel beyond the finish line to collect chips and provide water/bags etc. This is basic stuff for anyone who has been anywhere near a race before!
All in all it seemed to be a race organised with no focus on the basics. I have never seen such chaos before. I will stick with races organised by running clubs in the future as they are what they should be. Not for profit venutures run by runners for runners.
By the way it insults eveyones intelligence to suggest that you could have accomodated more runners by accepting entries on the day!! You couldn't provide for the needs of the people who paid in advance. Also £14 is not a cheap entry fee. I would call this about average!!
Date of review: November 10, 2009
|
| |
denotes Subscriber-only content | 
