Run in the Dark 2014 - Dublin

HeyArnold320

HeyArnold320 wrote: »

Your overall position seems to be based on overall time and not your net time. Is this normal?
I enjoyed it overall but it was very frustrating to be caught up at the bottle necks along the way

sorry think I got this wrong. My position was 929 but my net position was 811th
My net finish time was 00:49:43

pmeehan

Does anyone know what your NET POS means? I ran the 10k last night in 41:06 (NET TIME of 41:03). My POS is 81, my CATEG(POS) is 77 and my GENDER(POS) is 78...but my NET POS is 98...confused!

HeyArnold320

Sorry I thought I got it but I don't. Reports seems to be generated by Position over Net position. I don't really get that

coalshed

For 5kers, if you look at your results and navigate to the splits you can see a 5k time (not sure if it's net or not), as opposed to the 5.25k time that your headline results are based on.

safetyboy

2 of our teams timers didnt work either

DubOnHoliday

I enjoyed it. It was a fast course, except for the park, which was more about staying on your feet than running unfortunatly. Conditions were perfect, I'd say people with more than one layer on regretted it big time.

However the goody bag was brutal. They should have a look at what the Grant Thornton guys gave to people. Also trying to get out of CHQ was probably more challenging than the 10k run.

Well done to all the runners.

viperlogic

HeyArnold320 wrote: »

Sorry I thought I got it but I don't. Reports seems to be generated by Position over Net position. I don't really get that

In all races the position is always based on the gun time ("time" in RITD results site), not your chip time ("net time" in RITD results site). The RITD results site does list net positions also but that is normally very rare and if there was prizes then the net position wouldn't be used as otherwise the first person to cross the line may not get first place!!!

Hope that helps

HeyArnold320

viperlogic wrote: »

In all races the position is always based on the gun time ("time" in RITD results site), not your chip time ("net time" in RITD results site). The RITD results site does list net positions also but that is normally very rare and if there was prizes the net position wouldn't be used.

Hope that helps

That makes sense in some ways. But to not use a net time in a short 10k seems a bit strange. It took me forever to get started and I was halfway down I reckon.
This was my first event and I thought I would go where my expected finish time would be. I figured that what everyone would do, but I wasn't even running 10 mins send I had to dodge hoards of walkers. That's hardly normal is it? I'll stand closer to the top next time if it is

sassyj

DubOnHoliday wrote: »

I enjoyed it. It was a fast course, except for the park, which was more about staying on your feet than running unfortunatly. Conditions were perfect, I'd say people with more than one layer on regretted it big time.

However the goody bag was brutal. They should have a look at what the Grant Thornton guys gave to people. Also trying to get out of CHQ was probably more challenging than the 10k run.

Well done to all the runners.

It's not really comparable though- Grant Thorntons is a corporate race, and only a small amount of the entry fee goes to their nominated charity according to the website. It clearly states on the Run in the Dark website that all the entry fee goes to the trust, they are not trying to con anyone.

If you did other races like the DCM race series, and you got a good goody bag and technical t-shirt, maybe you were disappointed, but really if that's what people are looking for, they should be checking the details before signing up to avoid the "disappointment". Some people love a medal, some a t-shirt, I know someone who won;t enter a race unless they get a medal! whatever floats your boat. But I think it's silly to do a charity race, and then complain about the lack of goodies /t-shirt afterwards. Plenty of free/cheap races to participate in if you don't want to fork out the cash as others have mentioned.
I think the armband Lifestyle did for this is nifty, have always used the one I got 2 years ago running in the dark mornings/evenings.

niallo32

Really enjoyed it last night.

Like others, I thought the last km dragged on and felt way longer than 1km.

Some amount of idiots at the front walking 3/4/5 abrest - took about 2km to clear the walkers.

donaghs

I did the 5K was a bit better organised than last year I thought. It started on-time too. 10K in the park sounded bad. But I couldn't believe all the groups of walkers who started the race at the very front?!
Enjoyed it though, a good night.

DubOnHoliday

sassyj wrote: »

It's not really comparable though- Grant Thorntons is a corporate race, and only a small amount of the entry fee goes to their nominated charity according to the website. It clearly states on the Run in the Dark website that all the entry fee goes to the trust, they are not trying to con anyone.

If you did other races like the DCM race series, and you got a good goody bag and technical t-shirt, maybe you were disappointed, but really if that's what people are looking for, they should be checking the details before signing up to avoid the "disappointment". Some people love a medal, some a t-shirt, I know someone who won;t enter a race unless they get a medal! whatever floats your boat. But I think it's silly to do a charity race, and then complain about the lack of goodies /t-shirt afterwards. Plenty of free/cheap races to participate in if you don't want to fork out the cash as others have mentioned.
I think the armband Lifestyle did for this is nifty, have always used the one I got 2 years ago running in the dark mornings/evenings.

That is fair enough actually.

WithCheesePlease

donaghs wrote: »

But I couldn't believe all the groups of walkers who started the race at the very front?!

I hadn't done a 5k in ages and I did start near the front cos I was pushing for a time (<18:30 for the 5k) and didn't want to be held up and there was a group of middle aged women beside me who were giving out about the "serious runners" and saying did people not know it was a fun run. And they kind of had a point. 95% of people near the front didn't look like they should have been up there, but then I don't think this event is something anybody really should be racing or hold any high expectations for. In hindsight, I shouldn't have done it myself, I should have just made it along to a park run or something.

donaghs

WithCheesePlease wrote: »

I hadn't done a 5k in ages and I did start near the front cos I was pushing for a time (<18:30 for the 5k) and didn't want to be held up and there was a group of middle aged women beside me who were giving out about the "serious runners" and saying did people not know it was a fun run. And they kind of had a point. 95% of people near the front didn't look like they should have been up there, but then I don't think this event is something anybody really should be racing or hold any high expectations for. In hindsight, I shouldn't have done it myself, I should have just made it along to a park run or something.

I'd have to disagree. Even if its only a "fun run" its still common courtesy at these events to let faster runners go first, otherwise you are literally holding up everyone else who isn't walking.

Also the race participants were asked in advance about expected finishing time, and starting positions for those times. At the actual race, the various positions were flagged with signs for various finishing times (e.g. sub-25mins). And then race announcer also mentioned this over the megaphone. So its as much a case of "I do what I want and not really concerned about what anyone else thinks" as "sure its only a fun run, everybody relax".

WithCheesePlease

And there's also the element of some people genuinely just not knowing better if it's their first race / event of this kind. But yeah, I completely agree that some people just couldn't care less and are always going to start in the wrong place anyway, you see that at any race.

There just seems to be a higher percentage of people who either don't know or don't care at this event, which I kind of understand is all I'm saying, given the nature of the event.

diego_b

The Run in the Dark 5K last year was my first ever race and I loved it, I was concerned with the crowd and the cobblestones at the start as it was so dark around that start area but once you got onto the quays it was fine.
This year though I was doing the 10K and I found it lethal dangerous for a lot of the route, I went to what should be my appropriate starting area which is 45-50min for the 10K and the amount of people I had to pass the whole way to Ringsend was something unreal. Crossing the Beckett bridge I had to try safely pass around 5 people walking abreast of each other taking up the whole road. Ended up on footpaths around the Grand Canal Theatre (also had a pedestrian walk right into me, in fairness the lad was trying to get home from work...we were both fine but that shouldn't happen) and onto Ringsend Road.
It was fine then from the split up until that poxy park, the whole group condensed and slowed right down trying to navigate the tiny paths in the dark, picked up again then once we got out of the park and through and over the east link.....then back into passing people with the 5K walkers. All the way to the end which was very congested.
I dunno maybe it's me with my expectations a bit higher from more race experience, I've done a few parkruns, local club 10K races around the country and of higher profile races in the last year I did the Great Ireland Run, the Dublin Half Marathon, Grant Thornton 5K, BHAA Dunboyne 5 mile and each was better organised and safer than last night...the first two being in the park which is fair enough but the Grant Thornton run was a much safer route I found. Maybe Run in the Dark would be better going back to the 2 lap course and try have a better wave system for runners/walkers. Don't expect to run the race again next year and if I do I will have to make sure I get up nearer to the front ahead of the walkers.

dublin runner

The 5k was indeed long. I received a free entry so I went along. I decided against the 10k as the course liked like a bit of a joke.

The 5k was decent. I was only jogging it but the course itself was decent. Last year's 10k was simply dangerous. The 2 laps of the 5k route meant the 10k running into the back of the 5k race.

For me the race was a big improvement on last years but I have a feeling that if I ran the 10k I would be saying something very different. Not having any water stations on the route is totally unacceptable.

Sandwell

dublin runner wrote: »

Not having any water stations on the route is totally unacceptable.

Water stations for a 10k on a November night in Dublin? Really?

dublin runner

Sandwell wrote: »

Water stations for a 10k on a November night in Dublin? Really?

While I would never need it that doesn't mean it shouldn't be offered. Some people take 80 minutes to complete the course. Add to that some people might need it e.g the older runner/walk etc. It's basic health and safety in my view. It's a cost cutting exercise no matter how they put it.

Auntie Matter

I was hoping to improve my (very slow!) 5K best time last night.

The final info email on Tuesday said the following about the 5K finish:

"Where is the 5k finish line?
For all of you 5k runners your time will be taken at the correct 5k distance. But take note it is a couple of hundred metres before the 10k finish line. But keep going, you need to finish through the 10k gantry to get your goody bag!"

From this, I thought that the finishing time would be recorded at the 5K point. I had set my GPS watch for a 5K run, and it beeped for 5K very near the timing mats up the quays. I wasn't too happy to see the finishing line 380 metres away in the distance, but I figured the correct 5K finishing time would be given. Nope. The stated chip time was for 5.38K. The detailed info on sportsplits.com looks to contain a gross time for the 5K point. I knocked 3 minutes off my best 5K race time on that (and on the time my watch recorded), but that's not shown in the official results.

I know it's marketed as a charity fun run, but if they have chip timing, surely the least they can do is provide an accurate course and times!

starWave

dublin runner wrote: »

While I would never need it that doesn't mean it shouldn't be offered. Some people take 80 minutes to complete the course. Add to that some people might need it e.g the older runner/walk etc. It's basic health and safety in my view. It's a cost cutting exercise no matter how they put it.

It was a health and safety issue to not provide water on the course, as people would throw the plastic bottles or cups on the ground, and people would trip up on them because of the poor visibility.

It wasn't like we were running in the desert, or even a warm summers day. It always amuses me that people are drinking water 2 or 3km into a 10k race. People always have this fear of dehydration, when in fact they're probably drinking too much water.

Water was provided at the end of the course which I thought was fair enough, but unfortunately I couldn't find it with the crowds. They could have had a water station just after the finish line. All I got was a can of red bull outside the CHQ, which was no use to me.

safetyboy

starWave wrote: »

It was a health and safety issue to not provide water on the course, as people would throw the plastic bottles or cups on the ground, and people would trip up on them because of the poor visibility.

Ringsend park was like a swamp with no lights, I doubt a few cups of water would of made a difference. The 5K mark in the park was so slim people went around it so the people doing 10K came out as 5K. Fun was had but the organisation was a mess from day one! It was more a danger than a charity event. The leaves off the tree's were more slippery than a few plastic cups! Here's to the next one. Anyone know what the aware one in December is like?

starWave

safetyboy wrote: »

Ringsend park was like a swamp with no lights, I doubt a few cups of water would of made a difference. The 5K mark in the park was so slim people went around it so the people doing 10K came out as 5K. Fun was had but the organisation was a mess from day one! It was more a danger than a charity event. The leaves off the tree's were more slippery than a few plastic cups! Here's to the next one. Anyone know what the aware one in December is like?

Cups could work, but then Volvic or whoever was supplying the water wouldn't get their exposure. Bottles would definitely be a hazard. I've seen people trip over them in daylight, even seen a guy trip and fall on his own bottle that he had just dropped.

Ringsend was a bit of a disaster, and some of the streets were really dark. To make it better they would need more streets closed off for a good 10k race.

kkcatlou

I did the first run in the dark 3 years ago when there was only a few hundred people doing it. Organisation wise that one was a complete joke, but it was for a good cause so nobody cared.

Now, because there are so many well run events going on around the country and so many more people into running, people's expectations have skyrocketed! I would definitely agree that parts of it were poorly organised and the 5k being 5.4k was a joke! I feel like every time somebody asks my time I have to qualify it with, "But actually it was 5.4k" like I'm making excuses for doing a crap time (when actually I really did just do a crap time, but at least now I have an excuse!!).

The finish area was a bit all over the place, with water in one place, bags in another and goodie bags in another, so you were ages getting through. Also, no clock at the finish line and very poorly informed stewards, and no text message after meant I didn't know my time til the next day!

That said, the atmosphere was fantastic. I thought there was a really good buzz. Toilets were easy to get to, all the restaurants around were letting people in. Getting the Luas right to the start line made it really accessible. The pubs afterwards were heaving, and it was great to see Mark Pollock himself there cheering people on at the end, reminding you that at the end of the day, it's not about PBs and water stations, it's about raising money for research that could potentially help millions of people. From what I heard (unverified) all of the set up was paid for by sponsors, so all of the entry fee went straight to the charity. If so, it would be hard to begrudge the lack of t-shirt or cheap medal!

On another note - has anybody heard anything about the welfare of the guy who collapsed? I heard (again unverified) that he died after, but I assume if this was the case it would be in the news, so I'm hoping lack of reports means he's OK!

dublin runner

starWave wrote: »

....people would trip up on them because of the poor visibility.

If visibility was that bad then the race shouldn't have taken that route. It sounds dangerous. No place for a race.

Just because you didn't need water it doesn't mean it should have been offered. Sure the marathon this year started at 9am on what should have been a cold/wet Bank Holiday Monday. It wasn't. You cannot predict the weather.

Like I said, I didn't need/want water but it's still a basic requirement for a 10k in my eyes.

swervring

I quite enjoyed the 10k, first time doing the Run in the Dark - only races I've done before were Women's Mini marathon & Dublin race series. Now in saying that I was aiming to not get cut off and made do the 5k so I was at the back and didn't have any issues with congestion that others seemed to have - mind you I did get told to move out of the way by a Garda as they re-opened the toll bridge before the stragglers like myself had got through. Think they should give it another 10 mins because if you do what they ask and wait at the back of the runners, aiming for a 1:20 finish there's no way you'll be over the toll by ten past 9.
I didn't find the park really dangerous as it wasn't too congested while I was there, but all the leaves do make it tricky. And I know it's called the run in the dark but the park just feels very oppressive or something!
In saying all that I got a PB of 1:13:04 which isnt breaking any records other than my own I know - but its 20 mins faster than I did 10k two years ago, so I'm thrilled with that!

The Black Oil

9.89k is what my Garmin said.

PaulieC

kkcatlou wrote: »

On another note - has anybody heard anything about the welfare of the guy who collapsed? I heard (again unverified) that he died after, but I assume if this was the case it would be in the news, so I'm hoping lack of reports means he's OK!

My wife told me that he died. She works with someone who knows him (I think that was the connection)

The Black Oil

Terrible news. I saw someone on a bridge being tended to I think it was the Red Cross or similar, then an ambulance and fire appliance nearer the finish line.

kkcatlou

PaulieC wrote: »

My wife told me that he died. She works with someone who knows him (I think that was the connection)

Oh no, that's awful. If that's the case, I'm surprised Run in the Dark haven't made some statement about it. There was a huge deal (rightly so) made about the poor guy who died during the Dublin Half Marathon last year.

Really sad news.