Error message

Notice: unserialize(): Error at offset 0 of 2 bytes in variable_initialize() (line 1184 of /var/sites/c/caac.org.uk/public_html/includes/bootstrap.inc).

Annual membership 2018/19 now due

 
 

Edinburgh half + a bit more?

See the Edinburgh half was actually 300metres longer than it should have been.

So what should we do about results as far as "the power" is concerned? Put in the actual chip time (which is what our runners ran) or the calculated time that the organisers promise to give (which is just a number)?

I would vote for the real time but its an interesting problem.
Christopher's picture

The real time being the time

The real time being the time the organisers will yet provide or as recorded by chips and displayed firstly?

I suppose it really depends on how they calculate the HM time? Given their ineptitude being displayed repeatedly in failing to organising the Edinburgh Half for the last seven years without making rudimentary mistake after mistake (and still having the cheek to charge £30 to toe the line) can we be sure they wont just pick a random line in the sand and guesstimate these times? And even then would we trust them to guesstimate right, I mean they cant have had a chip time mat 300m from the finish also - did they? 



Christopher's picture

To be noted John Christy made

To be noted John Christy made the Edinburgh Evening News today finishing as the winning V50 Male. Congratulations John!

The winner was also accredited as being from &;Corstorphine&; ;]
Bob Innes's picture

In the good old days it was

In the good old days it was easy. The gun went bang and that was the start for everybody. Now we have chips which makes it easier for big races and I have happily used that for quite some time now. It is the time you ran for from start line to finish line so I reckoned it was fine.

Now, they are suggesting they can work out your "time" for a half-marathon based on the time it took for a half marathon + a bit. Its only going to be some calculation but I think we should resist it as it is just some silly arithmetic. No matter what distance they ran, our athletes thought it was a half and paced themselves accordingly so I vote we stick with chip.

Maybe next year they will get it right..... maybe...