Where is the most winnable marathon?

--amadeus--

I had a drunken discussion late in teh Spanish sunshine where I admitted that I had mentally kicked around the idea of doing the Faroe Islands marathon. It's not because of a love of herring or North Atlantic / North Sea weather, more the fact that it was won last year in 2:51 and sub 3 should get you on the podium. And if you are a member of a Faroe Islands running club and you win then you are teh Faroe National Marathon Champion, which would be quite cool...

Anyhow I was roundly told off for carpet bagging but the idea is still there and when I went looking it seems there are a fewsmaller marathons with slower winning times, where winning in a 2:45 - 2:50ish range is possible.

So is it slightly wrong for a "normal" runner to seek out these races just to place well? And assuming it's not then where in Europe is the most winnable race? Bearing in mind that you need a slow wining time but also a road course that's flat-ish and weather that's not too extreme...

nomadic

Its a bit pointless and sad really. I think measuring yourself against the best is what everyone should aim for and there'd be no satisfaction in it at all.

Krusty_Clown

I dunno if that's entirely fair nomadic. There are a few names that you recognize at the top of the marathon finishers lists around Ireland, who are consistently winning and picking up prize-money. No doubt they could save themselves, and run one or two big marathons a year, finishing in the top 20 in a larger marathon field, but why not target a race where you have a good chance of winning the race outright and picking up some prize-money at the same time?

Quite a number of the elites dropped out of the Berlin marathon at around the 40km mark on Sunday as they knew they weren't going to win. I think chances of winning is quite an important factor for a lot of elite runners, so why would it be any different for Joe Soap? I would love to have a podium finish, wherever the race happened to be. Obviously I'd prefer if it weren't soft, but I'd take it nonetheless.

Pisco Sour

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

but why not target a race where you have a good chance of winning the race outright and picking up some prize-money at the same time?

I think whatever prize money one would pick up in such a low key marathon would be offset by the expense of travelling to the Faroe Islands and the accomodation expenses.

TheRoadRunner

I personally would have no interest in winning a mickey mouse race. In fact the weekend just gone I was about to enter a 5km until I realised the field was piss poor. Would have won some cash but traveled to Blessington instead, finished 10th and got a great workout and met some new faces of a similar standard to where I'm at.

Much prefer to jump into a field where I'll be dragged around to a faster time. If the field is relatively strong and I get a podium place then that's a bonus.

Krusty_Clown

04072511 wrote: »

I think whatever prize money one would pick up in such a low key marathon would be offset by the expense of travelling to the Faroe Islands and the accomodation expenses.

Yes, I was talking more generally about targeting lower quality race fields rather than the Faroe Island example. Don't mean to emphasize the money element either, but rater the podium finish.

theRoadRunner wrote:

I personally would have no interest in winning a mickey mouse race.

This is the voice of someone who has seen a podium before.
Perhaps I'll change my tune if it ever happens.

catweazle

Isn't Abhainn the Cyprus Marathon National Champion?

nomadic

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I dunno if that's entirely fair nomadic. There are a few names that you recognize at the top of the marathon finishers lists around Ireland, who are consistently winning and picking up prize-money. No doubt they could save themselves, and run one or two big marathons a year, finishing in the top 20 in a larger marathon field, but why not target a race where you have a good chance of winning the race outright and picking up some prize-money at the same time?

To specifically target a race because the field is crap is what I have the problem with. People do races for a whole heap of reasons but targeting a race because it has a poor field is a bit sad.

There's no glory in being a banger.

kingQuez

Hmm.. If you targeted a race where the field was pretty poor (by comparison to bigger races), but the winning time was still right on the edge of what you can achieve, or maybe a bit beyond it... then I'd say go for it. It's an actual race; and youre going to bust a gut to try and get that first place, and the guy that was planning to take first place is not going to just give it up for free when they see there's competition at about the same level. So what if there are people in the world that could whip both of you, its about as close to the feeling an elite racer will ever get when its all on the line. And lets face it, they're being selective about the races they enter too. If its a race where you know you'll waltz across the line to finish first then it would (to me) seem to be a right waste of time, but if its still an actual challenge then I see no problem with it...

Krusty_Clown

nomadic wrote: »

To specifically target a race because the field is crap is what I have the problem with. People do races for a whole heap of reasons but targeting a race because it has a poor field is a bit sad.

I take your point, but crap is a relative word. If for example you can win an Irish regional marathon in a time of 2:29, come second in 2:45 or third in 2:52, well below your respective PBs, are you sandbagging? I wouldn't have thought so, given the amount of effort still required to hit those times. But those times in the context of Dublin marathon wouldn't get you anything like the same finish positions. Would that be crap? Should you only target races where you can't win?

Gringo78

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Anyhow I was roundly told off for carpet bagging but the idea is still there and when I went looking it seems there are a fewsmaller marathons with slower winning times, where winning in a 2:45 - 2:50ish range is possible.

So is it slightly wrong for a "normal" runner to seek out these races just to place well? And assuming it's not then where in Europe is the most winnable race? Bearing in mind that you need a slow wining time but also a road course that's flat-ish and weather that's not too extreme...

Sounds like you're the sort who'd like to win the Disney Princess HM.....they might have a Princess Marathon next year.

Sport101

nomadic wrote: »

To specifically target a race because the field is crap is what I have the problem with. People do races for a whole heap of reasons but targeting a race because it has a poor field is a bit sad.

There's no glory in being a banger.

Its sad if you are an elite athlete.

Other than that its fair game.

nomadic

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I take your point, but crap is a relative word. If for example you can win an Irish regional marathon in a time of 2:29, come second in 2:45 or third in 2:52, well below your respective PBs, are you sandbagging? I wouldn't have thought so, given the amount of effort still required to hit those times. But those times in the context of Dublin marathon wouldn't get you anything like the same finish positions. Would that be crap? Should you only target races where you can't win?

The actual achievement is in hitting whatever time and not in the position you came though.

Achievement is relative, but if your good enough to be thinking about winning races then you should want to be beating the best. Not looking for a sub standard field to get a cheap win for the sake of a win.

Kissy Lips

The smell of self righteousness in this thread, by the sounds of things we should never bother running again if we all cant do a 2:03:59 marathon, huh?

Go for it man, go over and win a marathon. You will be the best person there on the day and I say well done. It is a great achievement.

RoyMcC

I think I line up with nomadic here (maybe less bluntly). You can't take much self-satisfaction out of a cheap win. Yet if amadeus had professed a liking for herring and that was the reason for entering the Faroes Marathon then I'd agree with him as well.

Some runners regularly turn up and win 'smaller' races on an annual basis because they enjoy the race, the location, all sorts of reasons. Other races can be offbeat, like the Faeroes, or the Alderney Half (44 finishers this year) which give you a different experience from your standard big event.

But no, I'd never seek out a 'weak' race though it would need to be a strange race indeed for me to end up on the podium :pac:

Woddle

Your still going to try and run your fastest if someone wants to give you prize money for that, great. Seeking out a race of a lower standard to win is similar to a bhaa handicap race and having read a few training logs from the bhaa track meet, alot of people were delighted with a podium finish.
Wouldn't it be great to tell the grankids you won a marathon but if they asked what time did you do, I'd be embarrassed to say.

nomadic

I hope I'm not offending anyone and I didn't mean to be blunt.
I don't see someone winning a marathon in 2.55 as a bigger achievement than someone running 2.55 and coming 5000th.

nerraw1111

I must say the scenario that Amadeus outlines would appeal to me. Would be fantastic to win an obscure marathon in a little visited region.

The sense of fun and adventure would be the main attraction and that yes, you won a marathon. It'd be a Tony Hawk style whimsical adventure rather than of a purely competitive nature.

But it would the event's quirkness rather than just a weak field that would be the attraction.

--amadeus--

Gringo78 wrote: »

Sounds like you're the sort who'd like to win the Disney Princess HM.....they might have a Princess Marathon next year.

It's the semi naked firemen that do it for me. Not that I could do 26 miles in my stilettos & little cocktail dress...

As it happens I don't see that as a comparison - there is a world of difference between a man entering a woman's race to win it and a man entering a mixed race with a smaller field to win it. No matter what you should be competing with your peers and men in women's races aren't doing that.

nomadic wrote: »

Its a bit pointless and sad really. I think measuring yourself against the best is what everyone should aim for and there'd be no satisfaction in it at all.

Well by that logic Rushden & Diamonds should be playing Liverpool this weekend (although the way Liverpool are playing that might be a fairer match up than you would think). Likewise that Katie Taylor should cop herself on - going around beating up skinny women and calling herself teh worlds best? If she really thinks she's the best in the world then put her in against the Klitschkos, let's see how good she really is.

And as Woddle says we might as well scrap the graded T&F meets - what kind of eejet runs a race against a weak field when he knows a stronger field is running the same distance later on that night!? Chancers and frauds the lot of them.

Or maybe (as KQ says well) the point of sport is to compete against your peers. Fair and equal match ups. Now an elite athlete entering a local 10k and winning by 10 mins just because he can is a joke. And it's a joke because he isn't racing his peers. But (for example) Village Runner ran 2:54 in Berlin. Last year the Faroe's race was won in 2:51. Running that race VR would be competing with his peers, running for time and also fighting for a race win. The fact it is a smaller field or an obscure race might mean that those who are at the sharp end of bigger races might scoff but to run an open race and win it is still a personal achievement.

Road running is unusual in that you can directly compare yourself to the elites. I can do keepie uppie in the garden and cod myself on that if I'd had the breaks I could have been a pro footballer because I've no direct experience of the demands of elite football. I could never con myself about racing because I know to the second how much slower I am than the world record. No matter where you race or who against you'll have your time to compare yourself against "the best". But there is no harm (as I see it) in trying to find races where your pace puts you in contention. Soon enough I'll be older and slower and the chance will have gone. Why not grab that chance now - after all what will impress (bore!) your grandkids more when you are in the rocker and dribbling in your soup - "I ran a 2:59 marathon once" or "I won a marathon once"? What will give you the better memory at the end of your running career?

--amadeus--

nerraw1111 wrote: »

I must say the scenario that Amadeus outlines would appeal to me. Would be fantastic to win an obscure marathon in a little visited region.

The sense of fun and adventure would be the main attraction and that yes, you won a marathon. It'd be a Tony Hawk style whimsical adventure rather than of a purely competitive nature.

But it would the event's quirkness rather than just a weak field that would be the attraction.

Forgot to say that this is a huge part of it as well. The big marathons are grand but there is something of the Quixotes about going to an obscure race in a bizzare corner of the world and running well

shels4ever

--amadeus-- wrote: »

"I ran a 2:59 marathon once" or "I won a marathon once"? What will give you the better memory at the end of your running career?

If I had a pb of 2:59 and won a marathon in a time close to my best ie 3:00-3:05 then thats what i'd remember, but If I won in a time of 3:20 then it's 2:59 all the way.

If you win any race and run close to your best then thats a bonus, but if you enter a race knowing that your 10-15 mins faster then anyone in the field your a pure chicken..

Just my view ...

nomadic

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Why not grab that chance now - after all what will impress (bore!) your grandkids more when you are in the rocker and dribbling in your soup - "I ran a 2:59 marathon once" or "I won a marathon once"? What will give you the better memory at the end of your running career?

Would you rather win a marathon in 2.59 or run a 2.45 pb and come 5,000th?
Or a 2.58 for that matter.

I totally agree about competing against your peers and it probably would be a massive achievement to win the Faro Islands marathon but it's no bigger an achievement than running a similar time on a similar course and coming nowhere(although your grandchildren won't think so).

Peckham

Interesting debate...

...but could you run close to your PB without other runners around you to pace yourself off? If memory serves me correctly, this is something that Abhainn struggled with in Cyprus.

RodSteel

nomadic wrote: »

I hope I'm not offending anyone and I didn't mean to be blunt.
I don't see someone winning a marathon in 2.55 as a bigger achievement than someone running 2.55 and coming 5000th.

I would have to agree with this, its a bit sad (childish) really that you would go to great lengths just to say you came first in a race/marathon.
Its typical of some people though no matter what age they are..

Pisco Sour

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Well by that logic Rushden & Diamonds should be playing Liverpool this weekend (although the way Liverpool are playing that might be a fairer match up than you would think). Likewise that Katie Taylor should cop herself on - going around beating up skinny women and calling herself teh worlds best? If she really thinks she's the best in the world then put her in against the Klitschkos, let's see how good she really is.

Oh come on for the love of God! Katie Taylor is a WOMAN. She is beating the best WOMEN in the world. She is the best in her gender. You hardly expect her to be competing against men! As women and men dont compete against each other in any sport (bar showjumping) I think of all the examples you could have thought up this has to be the worst you could have picked.

As for R&D´s, they actually do have the opportunity to play the best. It is called the FA Cup!

On topic, while I'm far away from being able to run the times being discussed here, my opinion would be that, yeh, theres no reason why some people here couldnt head over to the Faroes and win but in the end of the day what would it prove? I could set up my own marathon in the backar*s of Kerry and limit the entries to people who I am related to and promote it and get everyone in the locality out to watch it and ultimately win it. I could then tell my grandkids I won a marathon back in my heyday. Whats the point!

Nobody here is an elite. Times are more important to people of our level, not placings!

RodSteel

Is this thread a windup? OP, why dont you set your own race with your own mates etc. as above poster suggested, you might even set a record....

Gringo78

Amadeus, if you have any connections to the Faroe Islands tourist board you should make it known now. Why don't we have the Boards AC marathon championships in Faroe Islands in 2011? Place wouldn't know what hit them. We could start a campaign to target 'weak' marathons around the world and make them more competitive, rotating the Boards AC championships each year.

myflipflops

There are two scenarios here.

The first is where somebody picks an easy race that they feel they can definately win just for the sake of saying you have won one. This is pretty pointless. It won't feel like much of an achievement.

The other is finding a race where you feel you can be competitive and going out and testing yourself. Winning a race against equal competitors is a challenge and an achievement. Not everyone can win a national 1500 title but they may be able to win a graded 1500 race. Does that mean they should only test themselves at national level? I think it would be great to see someone like Krusty run in a marathon where it is won in 2.45-2.50. That is his standard right now and it would be a completely different challenge to run at the front of the field and test yourself in that. The tough parts get tougher when you have to fight at the front and the head to head nature of competition is miles away from the nature of a mass participation event where you are mid pack.

I was lucky enough to win a fair few races before. It feels pretty good. There are very few feelings in sport better than flying by somone at 200 to go to win a race. I've won some where it wasn't a challenge at all due to weak competition and that doesn't feel particularly good.

TheRoadRunner

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I ran a 2:59 marathon once[/I]" or "I won a marathon once"? What will give you the better memory at the end of your running career?

If I had to choose between the two I'd go with the time.

The Davestator

I am nowhere near the times being discussed on here, but I have some experience of this

A few years ago, I was doing a fair few 10 k runs / races. At one, in wicklow town, half way through, i realised I was in the top 10, picked up the pace and won fairly handy.

The time I won this race in is above my PB but this is my favourite race, and the one I tell people about!

Right or wrong, its nice to win something every so often. Sure, compete against the best most of the time, but if you are of a level that you can win a race, go for it!

How cool would a framed picture of you on a podium be in your kitchen FOREVER be?

TheRoadRunner

The Davestator wrote: »

How cool would a framed picture of you on a podium be in your kitchen FOREVER be?

Not as cool as the bragging rights of a fast PB

kennyb3

RodSteel wrote: »

Is this thread a windup? OP, why dont you set your own race with your own mates etc. as above poster suggested, you might even set a record....

<snip-Kennyb3, if you have a problem with a post, press the report button, no need for back-seat modding- donothoponpop>

Clearly this thread is not a wind up more a topic for debate as has been the case hence the 30 posts re same.

Condo131

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Not as cool as the bragging rights of a fast PB

Well my Marathon PB is 2:46:03 and I'd LOVE to have won a marathon! Ain't gonna happen now. I still try though! :D:D ...Roll on Dublin!!

Anyway, back to topic. Never mind the Faroes/Swaziland/wherever, what about Portumna? A certain Corkrunner, who sometimes posts here - when he isn't blogging, pacing or ultrarunning - won this year is 3:06.

Afterwards he said: "This beats running a time any day"!

TheRoadRunner

Condo131 wrote: »

Well my Marathon PB is 2:46:03 and I'd LOVE to have won a marathon! Ain't gonna happen now. I still try though! :D:D ...Roll on Dublin!!

Anyway, back to topic. Never mind the Faroes/Swaziland/wherever, what about Portumna? A certain Corkrunner, who sometimes posts here - when he isn't blogging, pacing or ultrarunning - won this year is 3:06.

Afterwards he said: "This beats running a time any day"!

don't get me wrong I'd love to win any race especially a marathon. Wouldn't bother my arse targeting a weak race to do it in though. It would make me feel dirty

Condo131

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

don't get me wrong I'd love to win any race especially a marathon. Wouldn't bother my arse targeting a weak race to do it in though. It would make me feel dirty

Well, obviously, you're entitled to take that stance. Personally, I couldn't give a fiddlers. A win is a win. Too bad if all the big shots don't turn up on the day. For the Portumna race, Corkrunning didn't know beforehand who was/wasn't running and his pleasure, and that of his friends and peers, in his win was evident.

In any case, do you think that the 'big shots' in international marathons don't target weaker races for the wins? Of course they do! Naturally their 'weak race' might be 2:08/2:10/whatever - it's all relative, but the vast majority of us lesser mortals can only dream of winning even the 'weakest' marathon.

robinph

RoyMcC wrote: »

Some runners regularly turn up and win 'smaller' races on an annual basis because they enjoy the race, the location, all sorts of reasons. Other races can be offbeat, like the Faeroes, or the Alderney Half (44 finishers this year) which give you a different experience from your standard big event.

But no, I'd never seek out a 'weak' race though it would need to be a strange race indeed for me to end up on the podium :pac:

The winner of this for the past couple of years is a current club mate of mine now. Hasn't come up in conversation the reasons for picking that the last couple of years though, but surely it's good for the smaller races as well to be getting faster people coming along to take part, even if they are basically nobodies as far as elite running goes.

The point of the prizes is to try and encourage people to take part, if you spot a race that is winnable by a time close to your current pb then go and do it. Your racing against people of similar standards and as others have said being at the front and running time X will be completely different than being in the middle of the field and running the same time.

There is a relatively slow 10km which I've done the last few years and this year managed to somehow get a pb and finish 4th. I'd not have got that pb on that course though if it hadn't been for knowing that I was in with a chance of keeping 3rd place until the last k. I'm keeping quiet in my current club about the speed that it's been won at for the last few years though as if a few of the other lads were to turn up then I'd suddenly be nowhere next year in the results. ( I think there is actually another race on that weekend that the fast guys do instead )

Now if Haile was to turn up and run the Faroes marathon then that would be incredibly cheeky of him, but for anyone else that is around that current standard that it's being won at then it's fair game. Get out there and make a race of it.

W.B. Yeats

....

W.B. Yeats

A win or a time.....
I'm so far away from either that this is completely nuts to be honest....
However I'd love to win or place in a race.... the grandkids won't care less about my PBs because they will be modest but to win or place in a race would be a great story no matter how modest the time would be.

Its like that Saw Doctors song: to win just once

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ver0lMNMgw

TheRoadRunner

Condo131 wrote: »

Well, obviously, you're entitled to take that stance. Personally, I couldn't give a fiddlers. A win is a win. Too bad if all the big shots don't turn up on the day. For the Portumna race, Corkrunning didn't know beforehand who was/wasn't running and his pleasure, and that of his friends and peers, in his win was evident.

Fair play wasn't knocking him so apologies if it came across that way.

The point I'm trying to make is I wouldn't deliberately target a race to get a win. And even if I did I wouldn't be traveling to the poxy* Faroe islands for it. With the amount of mickey mouse half and full marathons popping up around the country I think there are a few here who could target them for the win.

Condo131 wrote: »

In any case, do you think that the 'big shots' in international marathons don't target weaker races for the wins? Of course they do! Naturally their 'weak race' might be 2:08/2:10/whatever - it's all relative, but the vast majority of us lesser mortals can only dream of winning even the 'weakest' marathon.

Of course they do but they may be doing it for a living and may be getting their expenses paid. They probably take 10 grand for 5th over 2 grand for first so there is a whole new argument !

I think we have gone way OT on this thread. Let's agree that some people value times over wins. And others vice versa

Now a list of winnable marathons/races.

The Faroes marathon
The Disney Princess half marathon
TheRoadRunners 3.1 Km* (only special guests invited, i.e anybody slower than me. I'm in it for the win)


*apologies to any Faroe nationals on here

Gringo78

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Now a list of winnable marathons/races.

The Faroes marathon
The Disney Princess half marathon
TheRoadRunners 3.1 Km* (only special guests invited, i.e anybody slower than me. I'm in it for the win)


*apologies to any Faroe nationals on here

1:16 to win the princess HM is a pretty good time....

New marathon in Clonakilty in December....sub 2:50 would get you a podium at least I'd say as it's the first year of it....would actually be a very interesting 'race' as you'd have to make decision in the first half mile to stay with the leader or hold back.

Peterx

the Winning (capital W) of your first race is an absolutely amazing feeling. Akin to the quickening which they may even have up in the Faroes.

Go to the Faroe Islands and win the thing. It will be a great weekend even if you don't win.

--amadeus--

Peterx wrote: »

It will be a great weekend even if you don't win.

See that's the thing - marathons in big cities are a nice slick operation with tens of thousands of runners. And while they are great there's not much adventure involved. And while Portumna might be won in an easier time there is something very appealing (to me anyway) about setting off to somewhere you would normally never go to try and run the best race of your life. Like I said it's a little bit like tilting at windmills, if you can then why not?

Van.Bosch

--amadeus-- wrote: »

See that's the thing - marathons in big cities are a nice slick operation with tens of thousands of runners. And while they are great there's not much adventure involved. And while Portumna might be won in an easier time there is something very appealing (to me anyway) about setting off to somewhere you would normally never go to try and run the best race of your life. Like I said it's a little bit like tilting at windmills, if you can then why not?

So are you leaning towards giving it a go? When is it on?

TheRoadRunner

Van.Bosch wrote: »

So are you leaning towards giving it a go? When is it on?

What if you don't win?

--amadeus--

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

What if you don't win?

At least you tried, better than not trying and regretting it.

VB not leaning any direction yet! It's on in Sept so I've got Am'dam and a Spring marathon before then in any case

Peckham

I say go for it Amadeus. It's an adventure I'd love to follow over time, and see how a runner who is of a similar standard to me manages to change his approach to a race to be from all about running inside of himself, keeping his pace, not caring about what goes on around him etc., to proper racing where you're watching what other people are doing, deciding when to make a move etc.

dna_leri

I can see the attraction in entering a race to win rather than get a good time in a mass participation event. The whole business of pacing yourself against a competitor rather than the clock is a completely different game - following the surges, judging how your competitor looks, deciding when to strike for home, is actually what real racing is about. There is nothing wrong with an non-elite runner wanting to experience that.

I am a bit suspect about wanting a podium finish for the sake of it, but maybe if you have never won any running event before, not even u-12s community games.

What is the OPs motivation, is it the racing or the winning?

What about a handicap event, where everyone starts at different times depending on their ability. I know lots of shorter club races use this format, but I have never heard of a marathon?

mithril

Gringo78 wrote: »

Amadeus, if you have any connections to the Faroe Islands tourist board you should make it known now. Why don't we have the Boards AC marathon championships in Faroe Islands in 2011? Place wouldn't know what hit them. We could start a campaign to target 'weak' marathons around the world and make them more competitive, rotating the Boards AC championships each year.

Not quite a soft a touch as you might think.
There may have been only 40 runners but won last year in 2:51 and top 3 went sub 3 hours.
http://www.torshavnmarathon.com/uk/?page_id=82

MrCreosote

mithril wrote: »

Not quite a soft a touch as you might think.

Check out the profile! Not quite a World Record course.

http://www.torshavnmarathon.com/fo/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/marathon_longdarprofil_lc3a6gri.pdf

The Faroes would be great to go to though. Did you see that Brian Kerr documentary last year- looks like a great place.

oldrunner

Every runner in every race in Ireland is, in theory, running a 'sub-standard' race. Look at the winning time of the recent half marathon versus the Great North run.

Your view on this thread is heavily shaped by whether you run to race or to get times. For me, racing comes first and times (while nice) second.

I love a good race - no matter the supposed level. Sometimes it's for first place in the National Master track, sometimes it's a battle for 50th in an open road race.

I always advise younger runners to concentrate on the racing and the times will follow.

nomadic

I think it comes down to doing an easy race(for your ability) for the sake of a win Vs racing with the possibility of winning. Absolutely nothing wrong with the latter.

I think your going to have to enter this now. If you don't podium then you have to stay in the Faroes forever.