Grant Thornton Corporate Challenge

average_runner

menoscemo wrote: »

Just a question, but what would this prove?
I'd have no doubt the course was measured, but if someone put the turnaround (or start/finish for example) at the wrong place it makes no odds. It' not like they measure the course on the night of the race....

It will raise another question, how come the organisers of the race can't put the cone in the correct place two years in a row? I don't believe the course was measured to be honest.

cloneslad

average_runner wrote: »

It will raise another question, how come the organisers of the race can't put the cone in the correct place two years in a row? I don't believe the course was measured to be honest.

there was spray paint on the ground for where the cone was supposed to be placed, I remember seeing it as I ran around it. The cone was definitely put where the turnaround was arranged for...whether the turnaround was arranged correctly is another matter entirely.

average_runner

Here is the response from Irish Athletics:

"The course for the Grant Thornton 5k was measured by IAAF (world governing body) measurer, therefore the course was accurately measured.

GPS watches can often throw up slight inaccuracies which can shorten/lengthen course. Runners not running in the exact centre of the course can also lengthen/shorten the course distance. "





I wonder if a national record was set on this course would it stand ?

demfad

average_runner wrote: »

Here is the response from Irish Athletics:

"The course for the Grant Thornton 5k was measured by IAAF (world governing body) measurer, therefore the course was accurately measured.

GPS watches can often throw up slight inaccuracies which can shorten/lengthen course. Runners not running in the exact centre of the course can also lengthen/shorten the course distance. "





I wonder if a national record was set on this course would it stand ?

Thanks. If you wanted to reply....
And you can get your hands on aquinn's last years GPS of the course and this years (with different turn points apparently: aquinn has linked them but no permission to access the links)........
Then you could ask AAI which one is the correct IAAF measured distance and why are they different? (I.e why is cone in different place this year, as you said)


Also, for debate here...Surprised at the part I bolded. I always thought the race line was the shortest route. So it would go to within a metre of the curb at corners. Otherwise, the race leader on every road race would run less than the race distance by taking the fastest line on the road, which is not the exact centre of the course.

average_runner

demfad wrote: »

Thanks. If you wanted to reply....
And you can get your hands on aquinn's last years GPS of the course and this years (with different turn points apparently: aquinn has linked them but no permission to access the links)........
Then you could ask AAI which one is the correct IAAF measured distance and why are they different? (I.e why is cone in different place this year, as you said)


Also, for debate here...Surprised at the part I bolded. I always thought the race line was the shortest route. So it would go to within a metre of the curb at corners. Otherwise, the race leader on every road race would run less than the race distance by taking the fastest line on the road, which is not the exact centre of the course.

The course was short last year also.

average_runner

aquinn wrote: »

Eh, why aren't you running back up the North Quays?

Mine looks like this?

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/885063859

Last year identical course:

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/581388488

Looks like we should have gone closer to the roundabout at the Point?

Just that I wasn't pukey and able to chat at the finish had me suspicious.

Hi,

I cant access this, can you give me access so I can pass it on to Athletics Ireland if you don't mind of course.

Thanks

Killerz

If we are being told by Athletics Ireland that the course was accurately measured by an approved measurer, then that's good enough for me. I mean we can probably keep debating this forever and compare Garmins etc., but the 5k is over, we've got our times, we ran well - enjoy the moment. The perceived effort was easier coz you were all chasing me in my lovely little short shorts.

Fiona44

Here's my garmin upload from last year -
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/584046600

And from this year -
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/887129284

You can clearly see that the turnaround point is in a different place in both, so one of them is wrong!

yaboya1

Fiona44 wrote: »

Here's my garmin upload from last year -
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/584046600

And from this year -
https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/887129284

You can clearly see that the turnaround point is in a different place in both, so one of them is wrong!

Love your Garmin name

Murph_D

Maybe it was long last year? :pac:

Itziger

If it feels, looks, sounds and smells short, eh, maybe it's like, ya know.... SHORT.

And expensive.

Yes, I get the 'lots of people are getting into running cos of it' argument but there are shed loads of races out there now. Pick non-money grabbing ones organised by clubs.

viperlogic

Accurately measured by official body and placement of turn around points/cones are two totally different things. Sure look at Waterford marathon, twice it has been wrong recently yet still as international acreditation!

PVincent

Athletics ireland don't make much money on this race so you can drop the Money making tag from the race, and any money made goes back into the sport. You totally miss the point..People WILL do this race because their companies will pay the entry because it is aimed at the Corporate sector. They won't do smaller races organised by clubs because they are smaller, and you won't get what you get at this race. It's central for everyone, you can get home easily from it, you can go and have a pint with your workmates after if you want. The race fulfils what it sets out to do . Of course a small percentage will be peeved that there may be an issue with the course being short, but you know 95% won't give a toss , because they have enjoyed the experience , and that is much more important than a small amount who seem to think that every single race is all about the time they run. Running is a lot more than the time you run in a race.

MrMacPhisto

PVincent wrote: »

Athletics ireland don't make much money on this race so you can drop the Money making tag from the race, and any money made goes back into the sport. You totally miss the point..People WILL do this race because their companies will pay the entry because it is aimed at the Corporate sector. They won't do smaller races organised by clubs because they are smaller, and you won't get what you get at this race. It's central for everyone, you can get home easily from it, you can go and have a pint with your workmates after if you want. The race fulfils what it sets out to do . Of course a small percentage will be peeved that there may be an issue with the course being short, but you know 95% won't give a toss , because they have enjoyed the experience , and that is much more important than a small amount who seem to think that every single race is all about the time they run. Running is a lot more than the time you run in a race.

I didn't run this race.

I think 95% of people will be upset that their shiny new 5K PB is in fact a new 4.9km PB. A race is a race. Not necessarily against other competitors, but for most, people go out to better themselves in races.

I agree running is a lot more than the time you can run in a race. But for me, a race is where most people go for an all out effort. People train for and target races. I run for fun/enjoyment at park run etc and training runs during the week.

SnappyDresser

My son ran in it and his time definitely suggested that it was short. You can also see that many sane people know when they have PB'd and when something was not quite right. This race unfortunately was short from all the evidence.

donaghs

My team all got PBs, and I was suspicious as I definitely didn't run my best race ever.

Just checked yesterday again on the results page, and our times have actually gone down from the ones that were available on the day after?! (By up to 10 secs)

Were we actually even faster than we first thought?

donaghs

Well, another year, another batch of PBs for everyone?
Same again for my team anyway, all levels of runners.

Was the course short again by 100m? according to my garmin it was.

Still not as bad as the 10k run in Malahide Castle last month, where it was 300m short.

PVincent

My Garmin was marginally short but explainable by the effects of the buildings . There is always argumenst about any race in this area of the city.

However I have to say , this event gets better and better each year. There were almost 4500 finishers on Tuesday night , all out running with their workmates. The race was never set up to be a ' top quality' race for individuals or club runners. It was set up to cater for the Corporate Sector and to encourage camaraderie, team building, socialising , and a better and healthier lifestyle for people. With the numbers taking part and the genuinely fantastic atmosphere and buzz, it has succeeded beyond all expectation as far as I am concerned. The race organisation was absolutely exemplary, a good registration process ,and a clear and easy collection point. The goodie bag was very decent , the tee shirt is good. The refreshments just after the finish line were really good ( Water, Fruit ) and then if you headed back to Bag Drop there was the largest spread of sambos I have ever seen , tea and coffee and more fruit . In fact they were giving it away as the night ended. The course was very well marshalled altho one mad cyclist nearly caused mayhem as he ran across the course with his bike. The race results were available in a very short space of time and were posted not only on the website but also in paper at the race HQ. 99.9% of the runners will not give a fiddlers if the course may or may not have been 50 yards short . They were there for the right reasons . The issue facing this race now is how will they restrict the numbers as clearly it will continue to grow and propser, but the race route is at full capacity ( and possibly over it ! ) ...AAI clubs should be down there handing out info about their clubs ...plenty of talent that are not in clubs ...over 500 runners under 20mins ...1200 under 22mins ...

TheBazman

I measured 4.89km this year pretty much the same as last year. I checked with a few others and they were around the same distance. No big deal but I dont know why they dont stretch it a bit. Fair enough they want to start and finish outside the GT building but just extend the turning point a bit.

I have to agree though, the organisation is excellent for that size of event. I do think they will have a capacity issue though as it is very crowded for at least the first 2.5/3k.

seanin4711

10 feckin % to charity,from the most recession proof crowd of shysters.

Slogger Jogger

5K on my watch. I'll happily take the hard fought PB I got.
Standard of runners was super. Also had people around you to target / pace off.
Agree that it was a well organised event. We had a huge crowd from our organisation from that perspective it worked too with runners of all ages and abilities.

Killerz

4.97km on my watch which I'd accept for a 5k with tight corners and high buildings all around. Did this last year and I have no doubt the turnaround point was much further along this time round. I'm in the same organisation as Slogger Jogger and have to agree, we had had something in the region of 190 participants which is fab

average_runner

4.95 km for me. Course was longer this time as the turn up by 3 arena was further up the road.

Also they said the course was measured by athletics Ireland.

davedanon

So how long have you been working for Grant Thornton, PVincent?

davedanon

I've never run this race, and I probably never will, after what I've read here. The only two cents I have to contribute are of a general nature, therefore. It's overwhelmingly likely that a course is short, when a large number of people achieve pb's, and are surprised by the fact. Nearly everyone knows his or her capabilities, and it's a rare beast that can record a 40 second pb that feels like a less than absolutely all-out effort. From what I read, there were congestion issues as well. In a 5k race, there is literally no time for anything but flat-out racing. No drinks, no pauses, no traffic. I had a pb myself this weekend, at Tymon parkrun. Afterwards my garmin measured it at 3.07, but that is irrelevant, because that course has been unchanged for a couple of years. I've ran it dozens of times. I know when I've run it well, and the fact that it has measured between 3.07 and 3.1 means nothing. Yesterday I ran strongly, finished ahead of people I wouldn't normally, and so the 8 second pb rang no alarm bells at all. If I had clocked 18.50, I would have smelled a very big rat.

Hani Kosti

We all know the course is short, no matter they try to convince us it's not.The PBs are due to fact the elevation is 6m so flat as it gets! Whatever, i take my PB and come back another year, like the race the crowd and the jazz.
Please make sure the bag collection area has double the amount of volunteers, torch lights and some systems, absolute disaster (again)

davedanon

Hani Kosti wrote: »

The PBs are due to fact the elevation is 6m so flat as it gets! (again)

No, the pb's are because the course is short. It's not the only flat 5k around either. No preponderance of unlikely pb's in those.

average_runner

davedanon wrote: »

No, the pb's are because the course is short. It's not the only flat 5k around either. No preponderance of unlikely pb's in those.

It's officially a measured course according to.athletics Ireland. Didn't get a pb and not a pb course compare to kilcock and Enfield. A lot of tight turns on it.

davedanon

average_runner wrote: »

It's officially a measured course according to.athletics Ireland.

As we've established, that amounts to the square root of fock all, as these problems arise at ground level, when you get human error. The sheer weight of anecdotal evidence says - short course.