I was amused by the Mark Steel column in the Independent today :
"Maybe Alex salmond's best response, the next time it's claimed that the RBS are threatening to leave, would be to say they're not going to be allowed to stay even if they want to, as they're nothing but a nuisance"
Wow, didn't realise that there was politics involved. Similar to previous posters I think that it is important to have an accurately measured course. There have been times where I completed a race only to find out that the distance was wrong. Usually caused by errors in setting out the course on the day, annoying but these things happen.The main benefit for me of sites like runbritain is that they show results in age group categories and I can compare myself to a similar peer group. race results that are shown as 40+ don't cut the mustard for me, especially when you are at the top end, in age, of a 10 year age span.
A lot of the races that I do locally don't have a UKA licence. It is a bit of a pain because most of my pb's never count towards my runbritain ranking. I don't know how much it costs for a licence, but is this a short sighted approach by race organisers? I imagine that a lot of runners now avoid such races. Is it a false economy and does having a licence attract more entries? How many on here avoid non-licensed races?