On another thread there were concerns expressed about whether this year's run was a bit less than 10km, with several people citing that last year's was 0.3 short. I looked at results from both years, mostly from the M50-59 age groups, and what follows are a series of pairs with the first number being the '04 run time, the second number being the '05 time (of course, the numbers in each pair apply to the same person!):
47:28/51:21....57:05/61:09....43:46/44:49....42:44/48:20....49:07/51:45....45:58/60:56....52:42/54:58
57:14/61:24....59:34/65:47....54:57/56:18....68:03/71:53....34:09/35:51....34:54/34:56....52:28/52:23
The last one is the only one I checked where the '05 time was better than '04's. The second-to-last one is for Stephen Smith, the overall a.g. winner. The third-to-last is for the winner both years for M45-49. There are some serious differences here that exceed what one might expect form just a 0.3 adjustment. (Where did last year's run go, anyhow?)
So, Kus, be happy with your time on Sunday, as it looks as if it might indeed be legitimate!
47:28/51:21....57:05/61:09....43:46/44:49....42:44/48:20....49:07/51:45....45:58/60:56....52:42/54:58
57:14/61:24....59:34/65:47....54:57/56:18....68:03/71:53....34:09/35:51....34:54/34:56....52:28/52:23
The last one is the only one I checked where the '05 time was better than '04's. The second-to-last one is for Stephen Smith, the overall a.g. winner. The third-to-last is for the winner both years for M45-49. There are some serious differences here that exceed what one might expect form just a 0.3 adjustment. (Where did last year's run go, anyhow?)
So, Kus, be happy with your time on Sunday, as it looks as if it might indeed be legitimate!