Unfortunately, having measured short on quite a few of the runners garmins on the night, yesterday it was confirmed that after a remeasurement of the course, it was indeed less than the full distance. How much by, I am not yet sure. But short is short, and as a result the times recorded are now null and void.
This is particularly frustrating for me on the back of my previous thwarted attempts to compete in races over the distance already in 2015, but even more so when I know that I genuinely ran extremely well on the night.
The first that I became aware of concerns over the accuracy of the course was on Sunday, when I saw that fellow competitor Jason Cherriman had queried the distance recorded on his garmin. Like many runners - Jason himself included - I am always a bit sceptical of the measurements given out by my watch so wasn't overly concerned, though I must admit my watch had it short too.
I contacted the race organiser on Monday and asked whether I had reason to be concerned and was reassured that the times were correct, and so was the course length. That evening at the latest interclub fixture, I caught up with Brian Porter. Brian is the man who measures and certifies courses to ensure their accuracy and to make them official distances. He was already aware of the discrepancies of runners garmins at the race, but confirmed that he had been and personally measured the course out and that the course (as long as it was marked out the same as he had requested) was 100% accurate.
That night I went to bed still believing that although the race had been under scrutiny, I had still officially ran a new pb time. The following morning I woke up to a text telling me some very different news...
The course had been laid out differently from the official guideline requirement for the certificate to be valid and was therefore now officially short. It was news that was very disappointing and hard to take considering all the hard work I had put into my training for the race - including running whilst away on my holiday to ensure I was in peak shape when I returned.
I have been told that the course could have been as much as 338 metres shorter than the officially measured one, however I find this extremely hard to believe. My own garmin measured it at 9.9k and I believe the shortest recorded was 9.87, although some actually measured accurate and even long - as I say I am very loave to trust readings on watches, especially when they vary so much over the same course!!
I reckon the course was probably short by between 100-150 metres, and if you was to take the bigger distance into consideration, then you could probably add a good 25 seconds onto my time. That would have delivered a time of 31:40 in theory. That would still have knocked a minute off my current pb and is a time I would have been delighted with still, but I admit to feeling more than a little bit frustrated and angry that I have been denied the opportunity of recording an official and accurate time.
Podium race organiser, Chris Barnes, has in fairness reacted quickly and is putting on a fresh (accurate) race within the next few weeks to make amends for the mistake. I cannot fault his reaction and commend him for doing so. I also feel some sympathy for him. Chris wanted to deliver quick times and to help make fast runners go faster against each other, that was the reason for putting Podium on in the first place. The 5k is already a highly successful project, and will only continue to get better and grow. I just hope that this blow isn't too damaging for its reputation. Everybody makes mistakes and these things happen.
Digressing slightly, this whole episode has made me wonder just what would have happened if nobody had been wearing a garmin on the night? The results would probably have stood and people would have trusted the times recorded on a fast, flat track. I wonder just how many races in years gone by - in the pre-garmin era - were in fact short, and therefore how many runners pb's if placed under the same levels of intense scrutiny would have still held up?
As races compete to deliver the quickest times and strongest fields possible, it makes you wonder...
No comments:
Post a Comment