Re-read the post, where does it say two different courses?
I dont know the course or which bit was flooded, i dont live there. You cant tell me that there wasnt a 2 mile stretch that wasnt flooded. Worst case, two miles out round the bollard back - rinse and repeat 3 times!
The road is undoubtedly flooded and could not have been run through, although the council refer to it as a few puddles.
If you are the organisers and you have paid for info booklets to be sent out, chips, shirts goody bags etc. these are all costs which are lost and worst still you will have to repeat them next year. If you give a free entry and everyone takes you up on it you effectively have 2 lots of costs and one lot of income. Not good.
So why not give people a choice? We can run 3 x 4 mile loops, its not measured but you get the chance to race, you can cancel and have your money back or even choose to donate it or you can have a free entry for next year.
They have made the worst choice possible. They had no plan B and given that this is not their first cancellation its inexcusable. Hence the idiots comment.
I dont know the route but saw no floods in Wokingham or the areas nearby where i did go. Not denying that there wasnt any flooding because there obviously was.
Where was the plan B or even C? Why not run a 10 mile course? Because its easier to cancel when you get to keep the money anyway. Surely if you run an event at this time of the year you are expecting adverse weather, it's not the first time they have had to cancel neither.