In short: Chaos at the start, middle, and finish In full: Very poor organisation, started by having to push your way through a crash barrier, what with the confusing KM markers and the number of bottle necks meant you were never quite sure how far you had travelled.
Can someone tell the man with the hose pipe that spraying water in your face is really not required at the one and only drinks station as we were already wet enough thank you.
As for the finish, tip for next year bring your own watch because thats the only way you'll know your correct finishing time. Didnt bother to queue for the donought as it felt like I'm mght have ended up in the line for the portaloo.
All that said really enjoyed it...must be a sadist at heart. Date of review: May 23, 2006
In short: Spoilt by bottlenecks and amateur organisation In full: My first event and one that I hope is not indicative of 10k events. Would have appreciated at least another water station - if the weather had been sunny it would have been desperate. The finish was particularly shambolic with runners getting mixed up making a nonsense of their final positions. Then a queue before marshalls entering runner numbers into a computer that was unprotected from the rain - inevitably things went wrong! Finally a complimentary fruit or isotonic drink might have been better than a doughnut. Boy did that sit heavily. If these kind of events are supposed to inspire young athletes for 2012 then we're doomed. Or do I just expect too much? Date of review: May 22, 2006
In short: Narrow and twisty. In full: Narrow course with quite a few bottlenecks. Need to be right up front if you want any chance of a PB. Poor organisation at the start/finish meant a slow start and for some people a VERY slow finish (having to que BEFORE crossing the finish!). Good value for money and good atmosphere. Shame about the weather! Date of review: May 22, 2006
In short: very slow and disorganised start. queuing for the finish line in the rain wasn't fun. The route was actually single-file at points, so very slow. Would not do it again. Date of review: May 22, 2006