In short: The collapse of the inflatable finish said it all In full: They were unable to start the clock on time but did not tell anyone at the finish so people would have gone home thinking they had done a PB when in fact their actual time was 4 minutes slower. I only found out because a friend of my won a prize so we stayed for the prize giving otherwise I would have been blissfully unaware. Date of review: March 28, 2006
In short: Quite hilly. Time keeping issues (finish clock 3mins slow). Poor start organisation. In full: Thanks to all the marshalls and organisers - an enjoyable race, hope you raised some good funds. Date of review: March 27, 2006
In short: Quite challenging - but good fun for a Sunday morning In full: I agree there were a couple of administration problems but I;m sure they will sort them out for next year. Great run, really friendly and the hills weren't too bad! Date of review: March 27, 2006
In short: biggest complaint was that roads were not closed at all. Selfish car drivers cutting across runners to get into places! Difficult to hear announcements and no clear signage for fun runners to r Date of review: March 26, 2006
In short: A nice race raising money for a good cause - crowded start In full: well done all the volunteers - thank you!the only fly in the ointment was the time keeping of the race clock and the distance between the km-markers. it was about 5-6min faster than my HR monitor (started at the sound of that horn. good parking and a small enough race for beginners as well as the more aspirational racer. Date of review: March 26, 2006
In short: Reasonably well organised, but poor marshalling in places and where were the finish timekeepers? In full: Friendly race but and adequate number of marshals (thanks for your efforts) BUT The fun runners were indistinguishable from the other runners so the ONLY marshal at the split failed to direct all the fun runners down the correct turning as he could not see which were which. Further more there was no noticeable signs for the runners warning them of the split. I saw 2 young runners coming back against the field because they had gone wrong, and two more at about the 4k point talking to marshals and race officials. The fun run was supposed to be only 2.5 k and these children were going to do at least 8k if they went straight back.
There were not any finish time keepers, so I don’t expect there will be any results. In addition to that the finish clock had not been started until the race was underway so it was approximately 3 minutes slow.
I would expect a ‘race’ to produce results. In my view a ‘fun run’ may get away without it.
Sorry if I seem negative but as a runner of 18 years, and a race organiser myself I don’t think these are acceptable short comings. e indistinguishable from the Date of review: March 26, 2006