Irish Runner 5 mile 17 July 2010

Dipity

I know I'm just repeating what many people are saying and others may say it's just a run... but...

Yesterday, I was careful about what I ate, I stayed hydrated. I went to bed planning how I would run. I woke up this morning feeling anxious.

I've done this race for the last 5 years so it's a good one to see how I had improved. This year I wanted to get sub 40. And I did. And still would have if it had been the full 5 miles. But if anyone asks what's my best 5 mile time, I can't say.

Pacing Mule

3 stars (average)

W.B. Yeats wrote: »

Can't find my result online
When I put my race number or surname in nothing comes up
Went through each of the pages manually and can't see any record
Now I will be seriously peeved if the chip doesn't have a record
Crossed the line in 47 15 or so by the clock but should be around 45 when chip time is counted. Any advice?

Was in wave 2 and thought there were way too many people in the race, never got running until well after mile 1, actually on the hill up military road was the first place where you got any space, I was still passing people walking etc around mile 4. Overall I didn't really like the race as there were too many people, there weren't enough loos and the bag drop wasn't well marhsalled as in I was queueing in one line for a while until somebody mentioned that you needed to be in the line that corresponded with your number.

I'll be really really bothered if there is no record of my result though that would cap it


Actually just found my result on the marathon website and it says I came in at 41.01- Jesus 4.8,4.9 or 5 miles and I'm bloody delighted with that! I could go under 40 easily enough were I to train again for a 5 mile! Absolutely chuffed now- comments about numbers in the race though still stand

There must have been a lot of chips faulty / or people dropping out. Results show 4875 records but as far as I recall there was a post here saying it was capped at 6000 entries. I saw numbers as high as 9000+ though in the race so who knows how many entrants there actually were. Just seems that 4875 is very small in comparison. Would it be normal for thousand(s)+ to not turn up ???

W.B. Yeats

1 star (terrible)

robinph wrote: »

The loos issue was an improvement on other times, well for the blokes at least, as they had some plastic trees for us to use. Picking up my bag at the end did take far longer than it should though and there only seemed to be a queue for the tent where my bag was, no queues at any other tent. Then it started to rain a bit.

Plastic trees?
Am I missing something, my tree was bog standard made from wood:p

copacetic

W.B. Yeats wrote: »

Plastic trees?
Am I missing something, my tree was bog standard made from wood:p

He's colour blind and was relieving himself in the top of a traffic cone!:D

robinph

Pageant Messiah wrote: »

There must have been a lot of chips faulty / or people dropping out. Results show 4875 records but as far as I recall there was a post here saying it was capped at 6000 entries. I saw numbers as high as 9000+ though in the race so who knows how many entrants there actually were. Just seems that 4875 is very small in comparison. Would it be normal for thousand(s)+ to not turn up ???

The race numbers from today are the same for the 9.6miler in August and the 12.5mile nearly a half marathon in September, so the number of people who may have already entered only one of the other one will account for that discrepancy in the numbers people were wearing today..

robinph

copacetic wrote: »

He's colour blind and was relieving himself in the top of a traffic cone!:D

Pretty much, they had some urinals set up opposite the bag drop tents.

W.B. Yeats

1 star (terrible)

robinph wrote: »

Pretty much, they had some urinals set up opposite the bag drop tents.

Never saw those, although I was in a slight panic by the time I got to the bag tent and dealt with the queue

rainbow kirby

2 stars (poor)

robinph wrote: »

Pretty much, they had some urinals set up opposite the bag drop tents.

I've got to learn to pee standing up, the queues for the portaloos were crazy. :pac:

runrabbit

2 stars (poor)

I really enjoyed this morning - I had a great race and felt I ran really well, I'm gutted to hear it was short It would have been a PB for me if it had that extra 0.1 mile. I came in at 41 minutes (my previous PB on a totally flat course was 43 mins).

It was my first big race and I did enjoy it, I started around 1/4 of the way back in the 2nd pen. I ran on the grass verge on Chesterfield ave so passed a good few people that way, after that there was just a bit of zig-zagging but it was fine. I came across a lot of people walking on the first hill (thankfully they stuck to the paths), they must've been in the 1st pen so that tallies up with what you guys are saying. I'm chuffed with how the hills went for me given that I do all my training on the flat!

I wish I wasn't on boards and my post-race high had lasted a bit longer - I was on such a buzz afterwards and I'm so disappointed now.

happy28

got 37.25 Ill just pretend was full 5 miles
cat results go by finish time not chip time
I woulda come 55th instead in my cat
Ah well a million miles away from prize money....:P

robinph

Actually, I think they had me down as 20 something in the cat results. That has to be wrong or there were even more fast M40s than usual who all beat me to give a 100 place difference between my cat and overall placings.

daymobrew

3 stars (average)

robinph wrote: »

Picking up my bag at the end did take far longer than it should though and there only seemed to be a queue for the tent where my bag was, no queues at any other tent.

I was surprised to see the baggage tent changed to a supervised one. This made for slow moving queues. As a result I left my gear in my pannier bag attached to my bag, locked to a tree railing close to the start.

Anyone know why the baggage tent setup was changed? Were there a lot of thefts last year?

figs

1 star (terrible)

As I haven't been doing a lot of training recently, I only decided to run this as a race after a good 5k race performance mid-week.

My race was going well until a recurring injury struck just before 4th mile marker... I got a twinge in my calf. Tried running it out, but got a second one within 30m so decided best to whimper home.

Was glad didn't have to run an extra 200m! Eventually finished in 34:31.

In hindsight, it was foolish to race this one, as my legs were still sore from Wednesdays race, but just never know when to take it easy.

I thought the race was significantly better organised than last years, but the distance error is inexcusable. I would expect that an apology email or letter published in IR is appropriate.

On a happier note, it was good to meet a few old and new boards faces today. Intend to do the 10.12 mile race in August, so might catch you again soon!

daymobrew

3 stars (average)

The results are sorted by finish clock time rather than chip time - this means that your finishing position may not be accurate.
This is not a new thing - TDS did this last year too. Obviously it is easier to sort finishers by finish clock time but surely the code can be changed to sort by chip time.

Here are the 121st to 130th finishers. Note that finisher 128 should actually be 121st (chip time 29:34 is the fastest on that page). This is a bit annoying.

Edit: TDS have told me that sorting by finish clock time is correct per IAAF rules.

Pacing Mule

3 stars (average)

daymobrew wrote: »

The results are sorted by finish clock time rather than chip time - this means that your finishing position may not be accurate.
This is not a new thing - TDS did this last year too. Obviously it is easier to sort finishers by finish clock time but surely the code can be changed to sort by chip time.

Here are the 121st to 130th finishers. Note that finisher 128 should actually be 121st (chip time 29:34 is the fastest on that page). This is a bit annoying.

I don't understand that at all myself - its as easy to do it one way as the other.

ofthelord

3 stars (average)

36:03,round up to 37 to a/c for missing few metres and still pb by just over a minute. now to get my legs ready for trying the dublin plod race in the morning.

estariol

1 star (terrible)

Pageant Messiah wrote: »

I don't understand that at all myself - its as easy to do it one way as the other.

especially when you consider that the announcer laboured the point that position in the wave wouldn't matter as the race was chip timed! they really ought to get their act together.

daymobrew

3 stars (average)

estariol wrote: »

especially when you consider that the announcer laboured the point that position in the wave wouldn't matter as the race was chip timed! they really ought to get there act together.

The data recording is fine, it's just that they present it incorrectly by sorting by the wrong time.

aero2k

RAL3 wrote: »

Now I know it was yourself that I passed Aero, wasn't sure at the time(terrible memory for names & faces). Apologies not not saying hello!

Ah no problem RAL3, I was 50m down the road before the aul' brain matched the boards ID to the face - there tends to be lots of stuff like split times going through the head just before a race!:)

RayCun

2 stars (poor)

I think this has come up before, and the clock time really is the official time for race position.
If one guys starts right up at the front and crosses the line first in 25.00 minutes, he's the winner.
Even if there's some other guy who started 20 metres back and ran the race in 24.59.

scargill

2 stars (poor)

40.15 - was hoping for something under 43. maybe 41 if I add on the missing .1 mile? feck it anyway !

I was a bit confused by my very fast first mile by my watch as I thought I had my pace sussed !!

fletch

Anywhere we can get a full extract of the times so we can mess around in Excel to find our true position?

tunguska

1 star (terrible)

Bit of a howler today. 26:57. Legs felt like lead, just couldnt get going. The race was ending and I only felt like I was getting into it. Disapointed, shouldve been a lot further up the field than I was. Better nail the 10miler so.

I had 4.90miles on the Garmin which calculates at about 160metres short. Id say thats between 25-30seconds worth. So Id say 27:25ish. But Its all irrelevant anyway, all bets are off, you cant count a race thats short. Best just to look upon it as a tempo run.

shels4ever

daymobrew wrote: »

The results are sorted by finish clock time rather than chip time - this means that your finishing position may not be accurate.
This is not a new thing - TDS did this last year too. Obviously it is easier to sort finishers by finish clock time but surely the code can be changed to sort by chip time.

Here are the 121st to 130th finishers. Note that finisher 128 should actually be 121st (chip time 29:34 is the fastest on that page). This is a bit annoying.

Chip time is just a personl thing the race is gun to tape so clock time is what decides your place.

tunguska

1 star (terrible)

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Edit 2: I find it very unfair that Tunguska got jellies in his goody bag and all I got was bloody chocolate raisins.

Although I was delighted with the jelly babies I would definitely think that you got the better end of the deal..........Its all about the chocolate raisins.

Pacing Mule

3 stars (average)

RayCun wrote: »

I think this has come up before, and the clock time really is the official time for race position.
If one guys starts right up at the front and crosses the line first in 25.00 minutes, he's the winner.
Even if there's some other guy who started 20 metres back and ran the race in 24.59.

Yeah makes sense from the point of view of the top finishers / medals etc who are starting up the top of wave 1. It's just when you're well down the field and in the main pack it would be nice to be able to see true time position.

I think that if results were published in the proper time by chip you might find it going a long way to solving the problem of people going in the wrong wave. As things stand you feel like you are giving the people ahead of you a head start. (Just the view of a first time racer today)

Pacing Mule

3 stars (average)

shels4ever wrote: »

Chip time is just a personl thing the race is gun to tape so clock time is what decides your place.

Which again I think works well for the elite runners who are actually racing for places in the top but only encourages people to start in the wrong wave further back.

gerard65

3 stars (average)

Did anyone notice the young fella, about 10 or 11, running today. I passed him at about 3.5 miles, he must have been running just over 7min/mls, no number, but looked as he was running the full race. Very young to be running 5 miles and on a hard surface.

geld

Does anyone know why the Poll is closed on this race?

Anything to do with the mainly negative comments made already perhaps?

daymobrew

3 stars (average)

fletch wrote: »

Anywhere we can get a full extract of the times so we can mess around in Excel to find our true position?

I'll ask for them when I email raceseries@dublinmarathon.ie with my comments. I might email info@tds-live.com too.

robinph

geld wrote: »

Does anyone know why the Poll is closed on this race?

Anything to do with the mainly negative comments made already perhaps?

The mods are probably doing something else and it didn't occur to them yet.

curraghyid

my wife did five mile today ,in finishing categories what does abreviation fs mean anyone?

peanuthead

2 stars (poor)

Did Coughlan and Maher finish joint first?

That wasn't what I heard this morning, but thats what the online results are suggesting:

http://dublinmarathon.ie/results.php

peanuthead

2 stars (poor)

curraghyid wrote: »

my wife did five mile today ,in finishing categories what does abreviation fs mean anyone?

well its female anyway, lol I thought the s was single?? But it can't be if she's your wife ????? And why would they be asking such a question anyway??

Tipsygypsy

2 stars (poor)

I really enjoyed today, exceeded my expectations with chip time of 49:23, not quite under 50 when you add on the missing .1 but pretty close and a very noticable improvement on my last race so happy out. Pity about the .1, I originally thought it was an error on my imapmyrun, then came on here. It doesnt make a massive differance to me but I can understand why it would piss off a more experienced/serious/faster runner, not what you expect from such a well known race. Other than that though it was a really good day. I apologise for wishing for rain though, I didnt mean tropical rainstorm, if the weather gods are reading this - a gentle drizzle was more what I was looking for.
Well done everyone, even if it doesnt count as a PB, some of your times just put me in awe!

xebec

3 stars (average)

Pageant Messiah wrote: »

Which again I think works well for the elite runners who are actually racing for places in the top but only encourages people to start in the wrong wave further back.

Depends on what you call elite. There are winners of age categories much further down the field (M75 winner finished in 4696th place), these prizes have to be by who crossed the line first not who had the fastest chip time. This is the standard and rule in all large athletics competitions.

TBH, my placing overall in a race is something that I glance at, but it's not something I care about before or after a race. I think for the majority of people it's their time that counts - hence chip timing - as they're running against own expectations/previous bests.

Regarding the runners in the wrong position at the start, chip timing definitely helps this situation. The real problem is human nature, people wanting to be near the front. At pretty much every big race I've run the organisers have made an effort to educate people that they should pick a start position based on their ability, but as with everything else, some just won't learn/listen.

It is nice if you can get a complete list of results and sort by chip time, but the organisers of this race are completely right listing the results by gun time.

Brianderunner

2 stars (poor)

peanuthead wrote: »

well its female anyway, lol I thought the s was single?? But it can't be if she's your wife ????? And why would they be asking such a question anyway??

It's female senior.

One point to note is that people starting further back have a running start on the start line so its an advantage over those who had a standing start so it has to be gun time that counts.

xebec

3 stars (average)

curraghyid wrote: »

my wife did five mile today ,in finishing categories what does abreviation fs mean anyone?

Female Senior As opposed to F35 etc which are age group categories.

Tipsygypsy

2 stars (poor)

curraghyid wrote: »

my wife did five mile today ,in finishing categories what does abreviation fs mean anyone?

I was wondering about this too, female - standard? senior? slow?! sexay?!!

xebec

3 stars (average)

Really enjoyed this race today. All went well for me and ended up beating my expectations for pace - the dream was 7:36 average miles, ended up managing 7:27/mile so delighted - although nearly cocked it up on the 4th mile but managed to pull things together again.

Obviously a bit disappointed by the short distance, it would have been a very nice PB for me too (by about a minute based on my calculations), but I'll get over it. I'm not a particularly serious/fast/experienced runner, but I do enjoy challenging myself against my own times and feel a little robbed of an achievement today.

Other than that, very pleased with everything about today - well except for the rain!!

• Start seemed pretty well organised (from the middle of wave 1).
• Lots of toilets and it was a very good idea to spread them out around the start area unlike previous events.
• How the commentator guy at the start doesn't get a slap for some of the comments he makes, I'm not sure, but it's good for a laugh!
• Course was handy enough, passed loads on Military Hill and a few on Upper Glen Road, definitely helps that I train on these roads.
• Finish area worked well with no congestion at the time I went through - apart from the group of boardsies who were blocking the exit and kindly asked to move on.
• Goody bag was decent enough, delighted that I got jelly babies instead of chocolate raisins cos I'm allergic to chocolate (small things make a difference).
• T-shirt looks good, nice idea to change the design from previous years, was getting a bit stale, haven't tried it on yet but they looked to be fairly accurate sizes.

Quick pint afterwards with RK (the rain was our excuse), home for a shower and then off to Croker for the afternoon. All-in-all a very pleasant Saturday

lecheile

Some pictures from race today available on RacePix365 here - more being loaded and some more tagging to do.

RacoonQueen

4 stars (good)

peanuthead wrote: »

Did Coughlan and Maher finish joint first?

That wasn't what I heard this morning, but thats what the online results are suggesting:

http://dublinmarathon.ie/results.php

Coughlan was declared the winner.

peanuthead

2 stars (poor)

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Coughlan was declared the winner.

yeah heard that alright, but the times the same so wasn't sure.

Git101

To put things in perspective from my point of view.

I took up running about 2 years ago and I don't race very often but recently I've tried to up my game and train harder.
I felt I was improving and I was looking forward to todays race to see how well I was doing.

Despite the fact that I had to weave through people who had no reason to be starting where they did I managed to finish faster than I expected, now here is the problem:
My PB for a 5 mile was set in this race last year, this year I ran almost 3.5 minutes faster (on a slightly shorter course) but because of the measurement "issue" I have been robbed of a hard earned PB so now when asked about my PB for 5 miles the answer has to start with "well, the course was short but....."
We've been robbed and someone deserves a kick in the hole...

Oisin11178

1 star (terrible)

Glad i didnt do this race now. A short course is a cardinal sin. If you went the cinema and the film ended 20 mins early would you leave saying"ahh sure everyone makes mistakes".
You would be demanding a refund. Time to get up in arms people:D

RAL3

figs wrote: »

As I haven't been doing a lot of training recently, I only decided to run this as a race after a good 5k race performance mid-week.

My race was going well until a recurring injury struck just before 4th mile marker... I got a twinge in my calf. Tried running it out, but got a second one within 30m so decided best to whimper home.

Was glad didn't have to run an extra 200m! Eventually finished in 34:31.

In hindsight, it was foolish to race this one, as my legs were still sore from Wednesdays race, but just never know when to take it easy.

Good to see you back in action again Figs. Got an injury myself today - crick in my neck from looking around to check when you were going to steam by me!

Oisin11178

1 star (terrible)

RAL3 wrote: »

Good to see you back in action again Figs. Got an injury myself today - crick in my neck from looking around to check when you were going to steam by me!

YOur lucky i was working last night bud. I would have waited till the finishing straight just to pass you:p

robinph

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

It doesnt make a massive differance to me but I can understand why it would piss off a more experienced/serious/faster runner, not what you expect from such a well known race.

If anything the guys up the front won't care as much as we do. They gets their money, name in the paper and off to win the next one.

We are using things like this as standards to measure ourselves against and how we are improving over time, either during the year or just from one year to the next. We are not racing to win but we are racing to beat our previous times, although I've not actually done that particular course before, for them to not even manage to make the course the same as last years is shocking.

It was a good day out and we got a nice tshirt and the course was well marshalled and we get the times appearing online very quickly and we get jelly babys in the goody bag (but only if your one of the lucky ones).

We did not get what we had actually paid for though. First thing that a race has to do is be the distance that they claim to be, it was not advertised as the "Irish Runner 4.88'ish mile".

Dotcomdolly

robinph wrote: »

We did not get what we had actually paid for though. First thing that a race has to do is be the distance that they claim to be, it was not advertised as the "Irish Runner 4.88'ish mile".

Maybe we should all get handy with the laundry pens and adjust our t-shirts and wear them to the 10 mile? :cool:

robinph

Just went and checked how the various Boardsies did in the results, and all Boards AC people finished within 7 minutes of each other. Didn't realise we were all that close, great running from the Boards AC team.