165 replies to this topic

[nikerunner]

I just ran the 10k melb marathon, and i don't think it was a full 10k.
did anyone have this feeling? also because my time was very quick for 10k for myself

[EnduranceMachine]

nikerunner, on Oct 11 2009, 11:37 AM, said:

I just ran the 10k melb marathon, and i don't think it was a full 10k.
did anyone have this feeling? also because my time was very quick for 10k for myself

What Was The Winning Time?

[Janery]

The 5k was very short.  Seemed more like 4k.  I did hear that the 10k was 500m short.

[mikep]

I did 5 min faster than I expected (43 min vs 48 min) - my Garmin showed 9.2km and if that is correct that goes close to explaining it.  I couldn't see any km markers after 1k (might have been there, but with the crowded field I might have missed them) so difficult to check splits.  The pace felt like it should have if I was doing a 48, HR seemed right, and when I checked the Garmin that seemed to confirm I was on about that pace.

My first thought was that I accidentally stopped the stopwatch then restarted a km later trying to record splits - possible but I am pretty sure I gave up recording km splits after 1km because there were no markers and I don't think that is the explanation.  Also, when I downloaded the data and checked the map there were no gaps recorded.  

But I hope I am wrong because that is a huge mistake if I am right, and anyone going for a target time is going to be a bit annoyed.  

But end of day, I don't believe that I did just a few seconds outside my PB on 3 weeks training and when I know I ran at 90% effort, not full throttle.

[tiger angel]

General consenus from the runners was that it was about 800m's short.

[nikerunner]

yeah thats exactly what i thought.... 500-800m short...
if that is so... very dissapointing.

[pbig]

Hard to fathom how they could get it so wrong   - you would expect even a cheap low-key fun run to be more accurate than that! Could runners have been directed incorrectly at some point? Did they forget to include a lap outside the 'G or similar in the course?

[avatar_will]

pbig, on Oct 11 2009, 03:11 PM, said:

Hard to fathom how they could get it so wrong   - you would expect even a cheap low-key fun run to be more accurate than that! Could runners have been directed incorrectly at some point? Did they forget to include a lap outside the 'G or similar in the course?

   It did feel like 500m less than it should have been, but the conditions were perfect and the winning marathon times seemed quite quick (2:17 men's & 2:34 women's). I found the lack of 1km markers on the course rather surprising, considering the pre-race booklet/online info had mentioned them. That said, I'll accept 3 mins off my previous PB (now 40) anyday

Congrats to everyone who took part!

Edited by avatar_will, 11 October 2009 - 10:52 PM.

[natkas]

  What!

Oh, I'm not happy if this is true!   I thought my time was too good to be true - arggghhhh.

I took almost 5 minutes off my previous PB, and I guess if the distance was wrong then that's why!

I didn't see ANY km markers, except for the full marathoners ("36km", etc, etc)

How can this happen for such a big event?

[chivas]

I just had a look at mapmyrun and there's a course called 'Melbourne Marathon 2009 Coffee Club 10km (10.00 km.)' which looks like what we ran, except for it shows two laps of the MCG (or around 800m or so).  The 9km marker is not far outside the 'G, so looking at that it seems that only doing 3/4 lap may have left it short.

D'oh!

[SumDamChick]

okay that answers my question too.. but i posted it in the wrong thread, my request for opinions on if the 5klms seemed shorter were kinda lost amongst the reports of the full marathoners... i should learn to be more careful where i post.. i might get yelled at to  KEEP LEFT.. hehe... my partners Polar footpod recorded the 5klm distance to be 4klms, but we werent sure how accurate that was anyway

[Jo C.]

My garmin read 4km for the 5km. Everyone I know SMASHED their pbs (unexpectedly) in the half and 10kms. I don't care personally (although I'm not going to now say my 5km pb is 17mins!!!!!) But is is a real shame for people who have specifically trained for a good time in the race. I'm very surprised they could get it so wrong. Especially with aus championships on the line. Well done to everyone out there though. It was a great atmosphere today. Underlines what a great sporting city we live in  

[Andrew(ajh)]

Jo C., on Oct 11 2009, 06:39 PM, said:

My garmin read 4km for the 5km. Everyone I know SMASHED their pbs (unexpectedly) in the half and 10kms. I don't care personally (although I'm not going to now say my 5km pb is 17mins!!!!!) But is is a real shame for people who have specifically trained for a good time in the race. I'm very surprised they could get it so wrong. Especially with aus championships on the line. Well done to everyone out there though. It was a great atmosphere today. Underlines what a great sporting city we live in  

Yeah, my Garmin read 3.97km and another runners read 4.03km, so the 5km was definitely 1km short.

An absolute disgrace for an event this big to get the distance so wrong. Very disappointing.

[nikerunner]

Andrew(ajh), on Oct 11 2009, 06:51 PM, said:

Yeah, my Garmin read 3.97km and another runners read 4.03km, so the 5km was definitely 1km short.

An absolute disgrace for an event this big to get the distance so wrong. Very disappointing.

Wow i thought it was bad that they got the 10k wrong...
but to get the 5k wrong by 1k, that is a disgrace!
it sucks, cause this was the most training i've ever done for a run, and to be short changed! <not happy> :-(

[kjs31]

What about the 5km race? Seems to be some very low times in that race. Doesn't seem right either.

[Rainlover]

Yep, the verdict definately short. One of the top 10 finishers mentioned that they were not in 2min pb shape. How could the organisers get this so wrong?

[grimsey]

Jeez i haven't done either of these events, but for a big city event to get the advertised distances so wrong has got to be very disappointing.

[SumDamChick]

do we have any organisers of the race on the message boards who can respond ?... to get the 5klm short by 1klm is the equivalent of running a marathon that is short by 8klms..its really not accpetable.. i dont care about my time or the distance or what ever, i am running along side my son to encourage him to do better and improve his fitness, he was pretty stoked about his result today.. so who is going to tell him it wasnt the case now ?

[Jonnoo]

Jo C., on Oct 11 2009, 06:39 PM, said:

My garmin read 4km for the 5km. Everyone I know SMASHED their pbs (unexpectedly) in the half and 10kms. I don't care personally (although I'm not going to now say my 5km pb is 17mins!!!!!) But is is a real shame for people who have specifically trained for a good time in the race. I'm very surprised they could get it so wrong. Especially with aus championships on the line. Well done to everyone out there though. It was a great atmosphere today. Underlines what a great sporting city we live in  

Jo  - are you suggesting here that the HM was also short?   I found the lack of markers after 17km very annoying - but really couldn't tell if short or not.  Did get a PB by a fair way though!!

[MamaHoops]

SumDamChick, on Oct 11 2009, 07:24 PM, said:

do we have any organisers of the race on the message boards who can respond ?... to get the 5klm short by 1klm is the equivalent of running a marathon that is short by 8klms..its really not accpetable.. i dont care about my time or the distance or what ever, i am running along side my son to encourage him to do better and improve his fitness, he was pretty stoked about his result today.. so who is going to tell him it wasnt the case now ?

And my son thinks he just did the 5km faster than his 4km a few weeks ago - 18:42 - there is no way this was 5km - and now I need to explain this to him.  He is only 9 years old and this will be devastating news!!!

[EnduranceMachine]

MamaHoops, on Oct 11 2009, 08:07 PM, said:

And my son thinks he just did the 5km faster than his 4km a few weeks ago - 18:42 - there is no way this was 5km - and now I need to explain this to him.  He is only 9 years old and this will be devastating news!!!

Thats Still A Faster 4k Then A Couple Of Weeks Ago!

[pbig]

Quote

And my son thinks he just did the 5km faster than his 4km a few weeks ago - 18:42 - there is no way this was 5km - and now I need to explain this to him. He is only 9 years old and this will be devastating news!!!

Either way that's a fantastic time for a 9yo!

[MamaHoops]

Yes, it is a good time and is his PB for a 4km run - so I explained that to him - and he was cool about that.

Thanks for the comments - he liked to hear that from some "real runners"!

He doesn't train - so pretty impressive I think.  I think some kids are just born to run.

We are very proud of him.

[Morley]

I did the 10K and was also surprised at my time of 43:52. My Garmin recorded 9.14K. Looking at the data it did drop out twice. Once passing under StKilda Road at the back of the Arts Centre and running alongside the MCG which would put the distance out a little. My pace was consistant at about 4:47/8 for most of the race. I didn't feel as if I got a PB by 1:10 (pace 4:23). I'm still recovering from a Patella tracking injury and still running with a strapped knee and would have been happy with anything sub 50 mins!

I recall reading somewhere that the 10K and 5K were not actually shorter distance. I can't remember the source. I checked the Competitor Information Booklet and the web site but didn't find anything. The 10K was part of the Australian University Championships so you would expect it to be 10,000 metres.

I also can't recall any km markers on the course other than for the marathon from 38K.

Otherwise I was happy with my run and wasn't it a perfect day for a run. Cheers.

[TechGirl]

My GPS showed 42.6 for the marathon. However, there is a blip in my speed data which may have accounted for some of the increased distance and add that to some of the weaving at the start and when we joined the half marathoners. I don't think the marathon course was short.

[Shuffleupagus]

Jonnoo, on Oct 11 2009, 07:53 PM, said:

Jo  - are you suggesting here that the HM was also short?   I found the lack of markers after 17km very annoying - but really couldn't tell if short or not.  Did get a PB by a fair way though!!

My Garmin was 21.22 for the half, so if it was short, it definitely wasn't by much. Whew, was enjoying that PB too - was just PB weather I think  

[avatar_will]

This year's 10km route was quite a bit different to last year's run:

http://connect.garmi...ctivity/1063056

It's frustrating to think that this year's 5/10km distances were so short.

Edited by avatar_will, 11 October 2009 - 11:59 PM.

[Long Arms]

I coached several people who lined up in these Melbourne marathon events thinking they were accurate distances. Most were targetting pbs. The 5km and 10km races were so far off being accurate it is appalling. ie it appears 5km was about 1km short and 10km was about 800m short. When you get feedback from countless people with their Garmin readings you get a good idea of race accuracy very quickly. Plenty of runners travelled from interstate and I coach one from overseas who travelled to Melbourne believing they would get to race on an accurate, fast courses.

I suggest runners in the 5km and 10km ask for a full refund from their race fee, plus a free entry to next year's event. If you travelled from interstate or overseas you may like to send the race organisers copies of your receipts for your travel and accomodation costs. It may make them think about putting on a dodgy race (s) in the future.

You could get a class of Year 3 kids with plastic trundle wheels to do a better job of measuring courses than the Melbourne marathon organisers.

After the Sandown 10km debacle last year I thought Melbournites would have learnt how to measure.

[EnduranceMachine]

Long Arms, on Oct 12 2009, 06:59 AM, said:

I coached several people who lined up in these Melbourne marathon events thinking they were accurate distances. Most were targetting pbs. The 5km and 10km races were so far off being accurate it is appalling. ie it appears 5km was about 1km short and 10km was about 800m short. When you get feedback from countless people with their Garmin readings you get a good idea of race accuracy very quickly. Plenty of runners travelled from interstate and I coach one from overseas who travelled to Melbourne believing they would get to race on an accurate, fast courses.

I suggest runners in the 5km and 10km ask for a full refund from their race fee, plus a free entry to next year's event. If you travelled from interstate or overseas you may like to send the race organisers copies of your receipts for your travel and accomodation costs. It may make them think about putting on a dodgy race (s) in the future.

You could get a class of Year 3 kids with plastic trundle wheels to do a better job of measuring courses than the Melbourne marathon organisers.

After the Sandown 10km debacle last year I thought Melbournites would have learnt how to measure.

I Total Agree If You Have 5000 People Enter A Race, With A Large Amount Of These Runners Aim At The Race As A Goal Race All There Hard Work Is Sort Of A Waste Cause A 9.2k PB Doesen't Help Your 10k Pb.
I Am So Happy Now That I Did Not Run I Can Get Very Angry In Races Like Last Year When I Got Knocked Over Coming Into The G By A Pram.

Edited by Finny3, 12 October 2009 - 07:17 AM.

[dinnas]

Well I thought my time for the 10k was too good to be true. I had put it down to it being a flatter course than I usually train on (I live in the Dandenongs so train on a lot of hills) but to shave 5mins of my PB really surprised me, now I know why. I really enjoyed the day but this has taken the edge of it.

Nevermind, I have only started running this year & my only regret is that I didn't start years ago. I thoroughly enjoy the fun runs mainly because I find other runners, such you guys on these forums, to be just wonderful & friendly people  (no doubt because we share a common interest) who are always prepared to help & encourage others. I know I have benefited from the thoughts & advise from forums such as this one.

Keep enjoying your running.  

[zandrsmum]

It is quite amazing that the 10 & 5k courses could be so wrong. I would be really dissapointed had I run one of these events. I will be interested to read an official response. As for the half my Garmin showed 21.3 so pretty accurate. K

[hezza]

MamaHoops, on Oct 11 2009, 08:39 PM, said:

Yes, it is a good time and is his PB for a 4km run - so I explained that to him - and he was cool about that.

Thanks for the comments - he liked to hear that from some "real runners"!

He doesn't train - so pretty impressive I think.  I think some kids are just born to run.

We are very proud of him.

If the short distance for the 5K is true, then I am 'pissed-off-Peter' today! I dragged my wife (first race) around in 27:45 and was over the moon. Even more disappointing for my 15 yo son who blasted a 16:41 and officially came 54th overall.

I have a cunning plan to keep this under my hat when e-mailing and telling people (other than Crs of course)

[Jo C.]

Jonnoo, on Oct 11 2009, 02:53 AM, said:

Jo  - are you suggesting here that the HM was also short?   I found the lack of markers after 17km very annoying - but really couldn't tell if short or not.  Did get a PB by a fair way though!!

I'd suspected it may have been from what some people were saying, but since then everyone I know who wore a garmin said the distance for the half checked out.

[jasegroom]

zandrsmum, on Oct 12 2009, 09:12 AM, said:

It is quite amazing that the 10 & 5k courses could be so wrong. I would be really dissapointed had I run one of these events. I will be interested to read an official response. As for the half my Garmin showed 21.3 so pretty accurate. K

I got 21.24 on my Garmin for the half, which is about normal - it always reads a bit longer than the official distance due to weaving to pass others / not taking the perfect line on bends etc. My splits were near enough even (as taken on the Garmin, not using the km markers on the course, which were fairly randomly placed, in particular the halfway one) and I did a lot of running at that specific pace in the lead-up to the event, so I'd be pretty confident in stating that the half was accurate.

That's crazy about the ten and five km events though. It does sound like they've made a fundamental error somewhere along the way and forgotten about an outside lap of the MCG or something like that. I agree with Longarms - ask for your money back.

[moby]

hezza, on Oct 12 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

If the short distance for the 5K is true, then I am 'pissed-off-Peter' today! I dragged my wife (first race) around in 27:45 and was over the moon. Even more disappointing for my 15 yo son who blasted a 16:41 and officially came 54th overall.

Can't be any doubt about it.  The announcers in the stadium were really surprised when the first 5km runners turned up minutes before expectations.

The winner ran 13:11 and the first female 13:21 which would have beaten the womens 5000m world record by 50 secs and the Australian 5000m record by 1:26!!!

I would expect (and hope) that the organisers will have to make a statement about the distance being inaccurate.

[SumDamChick]

i tried to contact the organisers by phone but was unable to...i therefore sent them an email requesting either a reasonable explanation of the distances or failing that a partial refund

i dont expect to hear back from them as the error does not involve the half or full marathon - it is my experience that shorter distance or less experienced or slower runners are treated as second class citizens and always being yelled at to KEEP LEFT!! (even when i am keeping far left) or sworn at when being passed by half or full marathoners, there is nothing right we can do to satisfy some ego maniacs other than to continue to show up in the thousands to fund an event for them for which we get no recognition for anyway

<end rant>

[aussieandrew]

SumDamChick, on Oct 12 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

i tried to contact the organisers by phone but was unable to...i therefore sent them an email requesting either a reasonable explanation of the distances or failing that a partial refund

i dont expect to hear back from them as the error does not involve the half or full marathon - it is my experience that shorter distance or less experienced or slower runners are treated as second class citizens and always being yelled at to KEEP LEFT!! (even when i am keeping far left) or sworn at when being passed by half or full marathoners, there is nothing right we can do to satisfy some ego maniacs other than to continue to show up in the thousands to fund an event for them for which we get no recognition for anyway

<end rant>

As a first time participant, I am sorely disappointed if the course was 20% inaccurate (5km). I thought it felt short, and I was in disbelief that I had averaged 10kph (30 minutes), when I never get over 9.5kph on the treadmill.

At 4km, it is within my expectations of averaging 8kph.

Worse than that, the "showbag" contained a PINK waterbottle. Any color but pink would have been useable.

Other observations: a number of "sardine" points on the course:

first LH turn under the bridge.

Drink station on south side of swan street bridge bottleneck.

alexandra parade onto swan street bridge. Very dangerous.


As gun time is not important in 5Km run, suggest stagger start groups of 200 ish?

Time to write a letter to the organisers!

Andrew

[natkas]

Just a thought, if you get no response from the organisers, perhaps seek a media outlet - although I'm guessing the Herald Sun may not be interested if they are a sponsor...

I'm still quite peeved about all this. It's quite unbelievable that this has happened.

[Bandanna]

TechGirl, on Oct 11 2009, 08:32 PM, said:

My GPS showed 42.6 for the marathon.  I don't think the marathon course was short.

42.45km for me on the 310xt. I found all the km markers to be accurate, except for the 2km marker which was about 300m long.

Appalling to hear about the 10km/5km debacle, agree with LongArms that the organisers should be looking at reimbursing those that had entered these events (doubt that they will though), it is quite farcical really.

[hezza]

moby, on Oct 12 2009, 10:48 AM, said:

Can't be any doubt about it.  The announcers in the stadium were really surprised when the first 5km runners turned up minutes before expectations.

The winner ran 13:11 and the first female 13:21 which would have beaten the womens 5000m world record by 50 secs and the Australian 5000m record by 1:26!!!

I would expect (and hope) that the organisers will have to make a statement about the distance being inaccurate.

Bloody outrageous. They should refund the part of the entry fee which didn't go to the CP charity

[Jesspo]

I am very dissapointed that such a well know event makes a mistake about one of the crucial elements of any event such as this!
I entered the 5km and knew by how I felt at the end I hadn't run 5km - and my time was far better than any time I had done previously.
I have emailed through to enquiries@melbournemarathon.com.au and made a complaint - and asked for my entry fee back - I signed up for 5km and was short changed - I didn't get what I paid for.
I think everyone should do this and show them they can't mess up events like this and not expect to get reprimanded!

[EnduranceMachine]

hezza, on Oct 12 2009, 12:04 PM, said:

Bloody outrageous. They should refund the part of the entry fee which didn't go to the CP charity

If The 10km Wasn't Short But The 5k Still Was But By Not As Much I Would Not Be To Upset As The 5k Being Classed As A Non - Competitvie Race Just A Fun Run Or Walk.

[avatar_will]

Jesspo, on Oct 12 2009, 12:19 PM, said:

I am very dissapointed that such a well know event makes a mistake about one of the crucial elements of any event such as this!
I entered the 5km and knew by how I felt at the end I hadn't run 5km - and my time was far better than any time I had done previously.
I have emailed through to enquiries@melbournemarathon.com.au and made a complaint - and asked for my entry fee back - I signed up for 5km and was short changed - I didn't get what I paid for.
I think everyone should do this and show them they can't mess up events like this and not expect to get reprimanded!

I have also sent them a letter, although Nicole Sherwood has an 'out-of-office' auto-reply.
Maybe they can rename the shorter distance races as the Claytons 5km & Claytons 10km  
I may have to step up to the half-marathon if the event organisers can't get their act together.

As I recall, the MS run@Albert Park this year had the same measurement problems as well.

[hezza]

Finny3, on Oct 12 2009, 01:24 PM, said:

If The 10km Wasn't Short But The 5k Still Was But By Not As Much I Would Not Be To Upset As The 5k Being Classed As A Non - Competitvie Race Just A Fun Run Or Walk.

Sorry Finny, I disagree.

Runners like me are competing against ourselves in wanting to get a good time and thinking I got under my goal of 30 minutes for the 5K was a great feeling only for my chips to be p*ss*d on today by this information. Not everyone on the CR forum who have stated the courses were short can have faulty Garmins.
Yes it is a fun run but everyone's competitive spirit comes out when they get to the starting line and the occasion does get the better of you sometimes in running too fast.
Thinking back, I didn't think I ran any faster than my normal 'plod'.

Still disappointing in my book.

[Janery]

I don't know why they didn't just change the 5k run to say it was a 4k run.  For a 4k run the distance seemed to be pretty spot on.  

I guess I wouldn't expect it to be exactly 5k as they do say it is non competitive and the marathon is the main event and the start and finish times are set up for them.  Bit hard to make it exactly 5k I would think.  But its a lot of money to pay for a 5k race so if it isn't 5k they should say so.

I would have been very happy for it to be a 4km run but I just want to know that is what I wold be running and I feel the medal is useless because it says 5k on it.  I feel cheated and I feel like a cheat.

And is anyone else having trouble viewing the results now?  They seemed to have taken the links off the home page and put it back to the pre-race website.

[hezza]

moby, on Oct 12 2009, 10:48 AM, said:

I would expect (and hope) that the organisers will have to make a statement about the distance being inaccurate.

Someone is going to dob them in it to the media I reckon so they are going to have to make a statement!

[SumDamChick]

Finny3, on Oct 12 2009, 01:24 PM, said:

If The 10km Wasn't Short But The 5k Still Was But By Not As Much I Would Not Be To Upset As The 5k Being Classed As A Non - Competitvie Race Just A Fun Run Or Walk.

exactly where was it classed as a non competitive event ?... although i was running non competitively i am aware of others who were !!.. and more interestingly, why would they supply timing devices if it was a non competitive run ?.. why bother ?

[EnduranceMachine]

SumDamChick, on Oct 12 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

exactly where was it classed as a non competitive event ?... although i was running non competitively i am aware of others who were !!.. and more interestingly, why would they supply timing devices if it was a non competitive run ?.. why bother ?

EVENT AGE CATEGORIES
Individual competitors – Male & Female categories listed below:

MARATHON HALF MARATHON 10KM
Overall
18-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75+
Wheelchair  Overall
16-17
18-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75+
Wheelchair Overall
13-17
18-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75+


Please note – the ASICS 5km Run AND Walk are non-competitive events and therefore age categories are not listed.

[nikerunner]

from the website:
"The results from 2009 will be available at www.melbournemarathon.com.au within 24hrs of the completion of the Event."

yeah sure it is... so where is it??  pretty dismal overall this year.

[Bjjavg]

nikerunner, on Oct 12 2009, 02:18 PM, said:

from the website:
"The results from 2009 will be available at www.melbournemarathon.com.au within 24hrs of the completion of the Event."

yeah sure it is... so where is it??  pretty dismal overall this year.

Nikerunner,
Up until about 20mins ago results for the 2009 Melbourne Marathon were at:
http://multisportaus...om/default.aspx
But they have now vanished...