Run in the Dark 2014 - Dublin

WithCheesePlease

Going to start a new thread for the Dublin "event".

Any one else do the 5k and find it long? I did the 10k last year and it (amaong other things) was short. I know Garmins aren't always accurate but I clocked the 5K at 5.3k, very annoying. It's just impossible to aim for a time at this event, if you manage to avoid the congestion the dodgy distance will get you.

I say it every year, but I don't think I'll be doing this again.

And YES I know it's a fun run and for charity and any event that can get thousands of people that probably don't normally run out running on a Wednesday night can only be a good thing, but like others are saying, I'd be amazed if more than €1 per entry actually makes it to charity.

PaulieC

Went out to cheer people on as it passed very close to my house. The choice of route looked terrible as it went up the side of Ringsend park, which is no more than two people wide

Piriz

Just home from it... i did the 10k...i felt there was too many twists and turns in the park this year but glad i completed it for the third year in a row...
It is disappointing if it is not actually near 10k distance like the OP suggests...i'd love if anyone has anymore further info on this???

I heard at least two people collapsed and were taken in an ambulance (one at speed i seen), hope they are alright.

Also I would be disappointed if only a very small % of the fee went to charity.

Fair play to all runners... thankfully the rain stayed away....

long_b

Anyone know when the results will be up?

MonsterCookie

long_b wrote: »

Anyone know when the results will be up?

Not sure exactly...from the website;

"Results for each location will be posted after the event on the results section. As soon as possible after the event you will receive a text with your chip time assuming you have entered your mobile number correctly during the registration process.

You will receive your email pdf cert the day after the event. "

Website here

http://results.runinthedark.ie/

Ice Storm

PaulieC wrote: »

Went out to cheer people on as it passed very close to my house. The choice of route looked terrible as it went up the side of Ringsend park, which is no more than two people wide

Thanks for the support.

Yeah, going through Ringsend park was very frustrating! The path is just too narrow to accommodate that many people. At the hairpin bend it was so muddy that everyone virtually came to a standstill then walked it.

My Garmin measured the 10k a little short but it's not going to be exact anyway. I'm convinced that the 9k marker was off! Anyone else notice this? I thought the finish line would never come!

Anyway, I'm glad I took part, not sure if I'll do it again though. It was cool seeing all the flashing lights. My first 10k done.

skittles8710

I think they went up at about half 11/midnight last year. That's when I got my result via text too but I know others got theirs earlier

mloc123

Every year this race has serious issues. I did it the first year when it was in Trinity, the course was dangerous.

I know it is a charity gig but I think they should pay to get an actual race director in to organise it.

Frosty McSnowballs

Second time doing this for me. I prefer the route this time than in 2012. I ran it with a friend and she got a PB even though it was congested in parts. We had good fun and it was great to see all the flashing armbands.

There was a fair amount of support out and about which was nice. Fair play PaulieC.

Yeah, I saw someone being carted off after the Toll Bridge, hope they will be ok. The course measured 9.96km on my Garmin but we all know there's a degree of leeway there.

I'm happy enough, goody bag wasn't too bad. I'd love to know the % that goes to the charity!

slap/dash

Agree with the sentiments here. It was my first race/running event and it was nice to finally do a (virtual) 10k. I went solo so the rah rah stuff was painful and seems geared toward corporate teams. Whatever, the volunteers were some sound and etc but the congestion really sucked. It was generally meh. Are there good events upcoming over winter I should check out?

skittles8710

slap/dash wrote: »

Agree with the sentiments here. It was my first race/running event and it was nice to finally do a (virtual) 10k. I went solo so the rah rah stuff was painful and seems geared toward corporate teams. Whatever, the volunteers were some sound and etc but the congestion really sucked. It was generally meh. Are there good events upcoming over winter I should check out?

Big congrats on your first event!! This one last year was my first too it's a great buzz!

Aware 10k in a month's time might be a good one for you?

buddy22

I thought the course was dangerous tbh. Saw a number of injured people along the route. As someone mentioned earlier, they would really benefit from an experienced race director. I know it's a charity event but it would certainly put me off doing it again.

The Black Oil

First timer as well. Ringsend park was a bit of a bottleneck alright. As a newbie I hadn't much of a clue what to expect. Didn't look at my watch until the end (56:30 ish), but as running experience it felt nowhere near as long as when I'm out on my own. The red lights bobbing along were great! Heard a few comments along the way about the 9k thing Ice Storm touched on. Will plug in the Garmin and see what it thinks. Communication often takes a battering at big events, was a little hard to hear the PA at the start. No harm to look deeper into the charity side, if you've seen the documentary about Mark he's about as far from woe is me as you can get.

Saw the two ambulances as mentioned above, and people being looked after - hopefully they are alright.

slap/dash

skittles8710 wrote: »

Big congrats on your first event!! This one last year was my first too it's a great buzz!

Aware 10k in a month's time might be a good one for you?

Thanks! I left feeling I could have just done it in the park. I'm REALLY not into the generic charity buzz. But yeah it felt way more dangerous than cycling sportives I've done.

sassyj

WithCheesePlease wrote: »

Going to start a new thread for the Dublin "event".

Any one else do the 5k and find it long? I did the 10k last year and it (amaong other things) was short. I know Garmins aren't always accurate but I clocked the 5K at 5.3k, very annoying. It's just impossible to aim for a time at this event, if you manage to avoid the congestion the dodgy distance will get you.

I say it every year, but I don't think I'll be doing this again.

And YES I know it's a fun run and for charity and any event that can get thousands of people that probably don't normally run out running on a Wednesday night can only be a good thing, but like others are saying, I'd be amazed if more than €1 per entry actually makes it to charity.

A quick look at the website gives you the answer

http://www.runinthedark.org/faqs/#charity

Can I raise money for charity?
Yes your entry fee will go directly to The Mark Pollock Trust. You can also choose to fundraise for The Mark Pollock Trust or you can fundraise for any other charity of your choice.

iancairns

Garmin says 6.09 miles. Ran 37.32 Broke my 10k pb (apparently)by over a minute but Garmin won't recognise . Agree Ringsend park was a shocker. Picth black and muck at corners nightmare.

Amazing weather for a run. Blessed wasn't yesterday

Murph_D

sassyj wrote: »

A quick look at the website gives you the answer

http://www.runinthedark.org/faqs/#charity

Can I raise money for charity?
Yes your entry fee will go directly to The Mark Pollock Trust. You can also choose to fundraise for The Mark Pollock Trust or you can fundraise for any other charity of your choice.

Ah but what does that organisation actually DO? Interesting that a good few people are questioning the charity after the event. Maybe if it was a better race people wouldn't care. But surely the time to ask where the money is going is BEFORE you hand it over.

Edit: Guff from the MPT website will not constitute an answer to the my "what do they do" question.

sassyj

It's funding for the treatment/research he is doing trying to find a "cure" for (his) paralysis. I think the race was originally called Run in the Dark for Mark.

Edit - here's his TEDx video, worth a watch, and the documentary recently released about him also worth a watch, he's inspiring (IM0)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rMYfiRNT7g

sassyj

Murph_D wrote: »

Ah but what does that organisation actually DO? Interesting that a good few people are questioning the charity after the event. Maybe if it was a better race people wouldn't care. But surely the time to ask where the money is going is BEFORE you hand it over.

Edit: Guff from the MPT website will not constitute an answer to the my "what do they do" question.

Yeah I find it strange that you would run a charity race and not know what it's for.

MonsterCookie

Just got a text with my time...48.07 net which I assume is chip time.

Not a PB but still happyish

The Black Oil

Just got the text there.

Well done Black Oil. You finished in ____ your net time is _____


Which time are we meant to take as accurate ish?

Ruu

Chip time (net result) is the one to go by I think.

WithCheesePlease

The Black Oil wrote: »

Just got the text there.

Well done Black Oil. You finished in ____ your net time is _____


Which time are we meant to take as accurate ish?

Net time is your time - that's from when you crossed the start line.

Murph_D

sassyj wrote: »

It's funding for the treatment/research he is doing trying to find a "cure" for (his) paralysis. I think the race was originally called Run in the Dark for Mark

How is the money being used exactly?

safetyboy

Murph_D wrote: »

How is the money being used exactly?

This! not even a T-shirt for the price. Will be dodging this again next year, I seen more T-shirts for other events than any promotion for this. absolute joke! seemed like I spent more time organizing 7 people than they did the hole run!

WithCheesePlease

Murph_D wrote: »

Ah but what does that organisation actually DO? Interesting that a good few people are questioning the charity after the event. Maybe if it was a better race people wouldn't care. But surely the time to ask where the money is going is BEFORE you hand it over.

As far as I know they're trying to train his body to walk again with the help of bionic robotic legs. Over in Berkley, California. I'm leaving out all of the science behind it, I'm sure there's lots more to it than that. Loads more in info here - https://markpollock.wordpress.com/

For what it's worth I've been aware of and amazed by Mark's story since he was "only" blind; before he wound up in the wheelchair. I did the first Run in the Dark for Mark 4 or 5 years ago back when it was a simple affair with just 3 laps around Trinity campus. Since then it has grown into a bit of a behemoth and I think lost the run of itself a little.

But all of that aside, I ran this totally for my own selfish reasons - I wanted to use it as a 5K time trial! So any other complaints about how it's organised, the course, congestion, the price of entry etc. aside, I was personally just disappointed that the course was long so my time is pointless.

People can think want they want of it (and are entitled to) but I think it's a great intro to get people out running and give them the buzz of a race. I think we need to remember it's a fun run and not a race at the end of the day. There are a lot of people like slap/dash probably feeling as proud as punch right now for having done this. If you want to step on from that there are park runs all over the place ever Saturday for free, and races organised by clubs, BHAA, etc. that cost a fraction of this, run like clockwork and give you a technical t-shirt.

Reality_Check1

This was my first ever run. decided to go at the last minute with a friend because one of her other friends backed out. Only gripe I have was it was difficult to get a decent starting position. Either people were very unrealistic about how fast they could run it or everyone just piled into the start gate wherever they could get a spot. This lead to a lot of congestion over the first 2km. There was also a lot of congestion over some narrow bridges further down the course. Overall happy enough will probably do another one soon as I enjoyed it had a time of 00:34:30 and a net time of 00:26:27 (just giving you some indication of how congested the start was)

long_b

10K results
http://www.sportsplits.com/Home/IndividualResult?clientId=74&raceId=10310&eventId=1&athleteId=122829

5K results
http://www.sportsplits.com/Home/IndividualResult?clientId=74&raceId=10310&eventId=2&athleteId=115290

Apologies for the funny links (and congrats to the two winners!) - coudn't figure out how to link directly to the full results without choosing someone.

Anyways, just pop in your bib number on the top right hand side

And CONGRATULATIONS TO US ALL !

mrsdewinter

Thanks for that, long_b!
That was my first 10k in years, and I'm a little cross with myself because I was just a few seconds over the hour.
Overall, I thought the night was a success - there was a definite buzz about the place, and there was no shortage of stewards. But Ringsend Park was a definite bottleneck - and the first km marker I saw was at the 5k point. For a noob like myself, it would have been nice to see them at the earlier stages, just to jee one one a bit, like.
Was the 9k marker accurate? I was cross and tired by the time I got to it but the stretch between it and the finish line seemed to go on forever.

HeyArnold320

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

PaulieYifter

iancairns wrote: »

Garmin says 6.09 miles. Ran 37.32 Broke my 10k pb (apparently)by over a minute but Garmin won't recognise . Agree Ringsend park was a shocker. Picth black and muck at corners nightmare.

Amazing weather for a run. Blessed wasn't yesterday

I finished 2 seconds behind you. I actually quite enjoyed the run - we had a nice group trotting around together Ian.

I do think the course was a little short - mostly because I wouldn't expect that time from current training and the garmin backs that up (maybe 100m) - but who knows.

Couldn't open the taps for the last km running into the 5k field but until then there wasn't much congestion although I imagine the park was bad a couple of mins later.

Congrats on being 1st lady home

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!