The Marathon course was measured by an accredited measurer in 2013 and was used for the race that year. The measurement was also used as the basis for the races in 2014 & 2015, with some adjustments. Following the 2015 race, there were suggestions that the course was short and AUKCM used GPS traces and video evidence from runners, together with satellite mapping services, to check the distance run on the day...After extended discussion with the organisers, it was agreed that AUKCM carry out a verification measurement of the course as run in 2015 in conjunction with the measurement of the course proposed for 2016. This measurement was done in October 2015 and showed that the course run in 2015 was 380m short.
AUKCM were unable to identify any error from the original measurement report, but increasing differences in the positions given for mile markers compared with the verification measurement indicated a possible error in calibration of the wheel for the original measurement. A check of the calibration course used showed that it was short, the error accounting for about half of the deficiency.
AUKCM regret the error in measurement and the effect it has on runners times.
The revised course used for the 2016 Manchester Marathon is not affected by this error. It has been measured by two measurers and both National and IAAF/AIMS certificates have been issued."
Xtra Mile Events, who put on the Greater Manchester marathon and organise the event, released their own statement in reply to AUKCM on their website, saying this:
"Xtra Mile Events, organisers of the Greater Manchester Marathon would like to respond to the statement issued by AUKCM.
Responsibility for measuring of the length of the course in 2013, 2014 and 2015 laid with AUKCM, and we relied on AUKCM certification in holding the race over the specified distance. It has been confirmed that the course was measured incorrectly most likely due to a calibration issue. AUKCM have agreed that the course was the same as had been certified.
AUKCM have taken responsibility for this by issuing this statement.
Xtra Mile Events understand the anguish and huge disappointment this creates, and want to assure our runners that we share the upset and emotion from the AUKCM news regarding the race distance.
The 2016 Greater Manchester Marathon was not affected as it took place using a new course which is fully IAAF/AIMS certified."
Now, although Xtra Mile Events may believe that they themselves have done no wrong with regards to the measurement of the course, it is hard to believe that after years of doubts over the actual distance of the course being run, that they were ever really unaware of the situation.
The reality of it seems to be that hands have only now been held up because the race organisers wanted to reach IAAF standard, and were aware that questions would be asked as to why the finish had been moved in comparison to previous running a of the event.
This may not be the case, but I suspect it probably had something to do with it. Either way, the handling of the matter has been exceptionally shoddy and has done nothing for the reputation of the race, which at this moment lies in tatters somewhat.
It is a real shame, as Manchester offers marathon runners a genuine alternative to London, and as the 2016 results have proven it is still a fast course anyway. It is also disappointing to think that this might unfairly overshadow this year's event - however that is nobodies fault but the organisers and their handling of the issue. If they had been proactive and honest about the mistake prior to this year's event taking place, some of the anger and sting would have been taken out of the situation.
According to these statements, the organisers knew about the short course (at the very latest) back in October 2015 - so why was it kept hush? In fact, there has still been no direct apology from the organisers to their paying customers, each of whom paid around £50 a time to take part in good faith. That is beyond poor, that is bordering on incompetency.
Whether they themselves had measured the course or not is irrelevant, they had accepted people's money to put on an event that they simply failed to deliver. People would not pay to watch a football match, have the full time whistle blown after 85 minutes, when anything could still happen, and just accept it. Running is also not a game of cricket, we can't just apply some formula like the Duckworth Lewis method and round up the results from that.
I myself am fortunate that my only experience of the race, back in 2013, came before I took up the training side of the sport seriously. My time of 2:52:18 wasn't even my best at the time, however that isn't the case for many others. Many of my friends have recorded what they believed to be PB's, although now they have been stripped of those times. So if they haven't got times to show for their months of hard work, what exactly have the organisers been paid for?
Whether they can rescue the reputation of the race from here is questionable, as although they state that the course is now 100% accurate, it is somewhat tarnished. It leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. I had planned on a return to Manchester for my next marathon, but now am having serious second thoughts if I would ever do it again - is it worth the risk when you have put so much into the training?
It is possibly the best advert for other potential Spring marathons though, Edinburgh, Brighton and co mustn't be able to believe their luck!
Anyway enough of the ranting...
This week's training has seen me reduce my mileage, and increase the intensity of my sessions. I have to admit to feeling rather flat since my chest infection. I have probably become too obsessed with making sure I run 80 miles a week, and not focused enough on the quality of the sessions that I've been doing.
Now that we are through the winter and I am happy that I have got plenty of miles in the bank though, I am now hoping to focus on doing lots more shorter, sharper training to get my top end speed up for the summer season.
I have been given advice from a few different people who are far more experienced than me, and he concensus seems to be that fewer, but more quality miles is the way to go over the coming months, so it might be that I try and cap my mileage at around 60-70 a week, rather than the 80 I have been doing. Hopefully this will leave me feeling a bit fresher on a race day once again as a result.
This week I did 16x400 in an average of 67/68 seconds per rep off a minute recovery, a 4.5 mile tempo in 5:20 pace and a run out at the local Preston park run in 16:17 for the 5k course.
