Thursday, December 15, 2005

Clarification

Hmmmm Central Coast Half Marathon results are out and they have me as dead-heating with another guy in 1.50.06. If you are not entirely deaf or illiterate you would have heard about me crowing after the event that I ran 1.49.53. That's what the man at the finish told me and it is corroborated by my Garmin which I didn't turn off immediately - I was running too fast :-)


The Garmin may have measured short but I can't imagine the stopwatch could be a minimum of 10 seconds out!!!

My recollection is that there was no other competitor finishing at exactly the same time. My memory (Silverfox for sure and I think Miss S and Truckie might have seen it too) was that a girl almost passed me not too far from the finish and I out-sprinted her to the line, there is no way I beat her by 39 seconds which is when the next female time is recorded.

Anyway I'm not complaining or whinging, just wanted all to know that the time I reported is what I genuinely believed I had achieved at the time. I still do ;-)

12 comments:

Tesso said...

I'd be whinging!

My Garmin told me I did 2:05.15 at Kurrawa and the official results have me as 2:00.11. You can have that 4 seconds if you like.

Tesso said...

Whoops, meant to say 2:00.15 from my Garmin. And I wasn't even into the Christmas spirits last night.

Steve's Stuff said...

Didn't they use an electronic system for timing? I wouldn't worry about it too much, my pb from the weekend was put back 10 seconds (still a pb). I didn't start my Garmin until I crossed the start line, so I was expecting it.

miners said...

After viewing the quality of the presentations, the fact that Omni at 19 years of age apparently won the under-16's category, that the results have me beating Nat when I actually didn't even cross the line till I came home with Kazz another 10 minutes later, and the multitude of other problems, I reckon you're safer to say you actually recorded a sub-80 mate

Dave said...

A real pity, seems a few snafu's with the results all round. Such a shame for what sounds like a great race. Sounds like the usual issue of limited knowledgable volunteers.

Bennyr said...

Looks to me like the Garmin is definitely the most likely to be correct.

They didn't even have a result for me - I was on the page they lost, not that I'm heartbroken about it.

Cirque said...

We believe you 2P. Go with the Garmin and your gut feeling.

Hilda said...

It is a difference, right, but it is only cents of second!!
This is what matters:
"I genuinely believed I had achieved"

Gronk said...

Yep, they sure need a shake up mate. Lets hope they get their act together by next year.

Lulu said...

The rules of Garmin use that I found hidden deep in the instruction manual, clearly state that the results of the Garmin are to be taken as gospel if they are faster than the official results:) I rest my case m'lord.

Don Juan said...

They are practical jokers up there on the central coast.

I think on race day someone spiked their toothpaste or tobacco pouch.

Katie said...

Stop watch Vs human error.... Garmin wins. As you say it may get the distance a liitle long or short, but the timer would only measure go to wo! Does'nt it just give you the shits though!!!