Re: Co-lympics
Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:03 pm
I'm 18 years old and in pretty good physical shape; I'll give you some times sometime during the next few days.
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
I got dehydration cramps going up the epic hill around the 9 mile point. Not fun. It's a shame you can't see my mile splits; I went through halfway in about 45 minutes and then went to pieces. Bear in mind that my target time was 1:45 and the stick was no alcohol until my 20th birthday (May this year); I'd given it up for the 5 months of training. Just as well I made it really, I was getting sick of J2O.Ian Dent wrote:I ran the Windsor Half last year with no training Phil. It nearly killed me, the hottest day of the year as well.
Maybe he ran the 100m in 11 seconds before he got injured, and now he can't do it that quick anymore.Richard Brittain wrote:
Phil - Seeing as you're not even 21, and have ruptured your knee ligaments twice and broken your leg, blighting your career, but have still run the 100m in 11 seconds, why not train up seriously as an athlete? You'd probably get down to sub-10 second times in no time.
One of the aspects of my genetic fuckuppery is that I have weak retinas. The upshot being that I try to minimise any sort of trauma to my head - this includes not running any more than I have to. (There's also a fairly non-negligible risk of me falling over.)Richard Brittain wrote:MW - I'm quite curious. What would happen to your eyes if you tried running?
Oh, well if we're allowed to take steroids, I'll be able to make sandwiches for the whole town, not just you lot!!Phil Makepeace wrote:Ohhh stop it. I ran that 100m 2 years ago during rugby training, my 'career' in athletics stopped when I was 15 when I tore quads during a 4x400. And those times I mooted were mere estimates. I'd have to take steroids to get below 11s for the 100.
Having worked for years in an opticians my money was on detached retinas. No bungee jumping for you either! (Are you a high minus Rx?)Michael Wallace wrote:One of the aspects of my genetic fuckuppery is that I have weak retinas. The upshot being that I try to minimise any sort of trauma to my head - this includes not running any more than I have to. (There's also a fairly non-negligible risk of me falling over.)Richard Brittain wrote:MW - I'm quite curious. What would happen to your eyes if you tried running?
I don't know what Rx means, but I presume you're talking about my prescription, which is about -21.Sue Sanders wrote:Having worked for years in an opticians my money was on detached retinas. No bungee jumping for you either! (Are you a high minus Rx?)
Michael Wallace wrote:I don't know what Rx means, but I presume you're talking about my prescription, which is about -21.Sue Sanders wrote:Having worked for years in an opticians my money was on detached retinas. No bungee jumping for you either! (Are you a high minus Rx?)
They don't make contact lenses this thick.Sue Sanders wrote:Minus 21 - that's a hum-dinger, mate. But are you reasonable with correction ? - which I hope for your sake is contact lenses.Michael Wallace wrote:I presume you're talking about my prescription, which is about -21.
6/18 with correction, I think. I'm borderline visually impaired. I tried a contact lens once, but because of my prescription they have to hard (as opposed to soft, but you'll know that), which meant I could only wear it for up to 8 hours a day, which ended up being more hassle than it was worth.Sue Sanders wrote:Yeah, sorry...Rx is prescription (used because Px is taken up by 'Patient').
Minus 21 - that's a hum-dinger, mate. But are you reasonable with correction ? - which I hope for your sake is contact lenses.
Funnily enough , as someone who went into hard, then their supercedant, gas permeables, at the age of 14 and wore them for 28 years, I would say a competantly fitted gas permeable ('GP') contact lens is far more comfortable than softs. Not at first, admittedly the first two weeks take a bit of working at, but once the tolerance is built up, very comfortable and much better quality of vision than softs. A couple of years ago, I got out of the habit of wearing them as I rather liked my glasses and my eye shape changed, messing up the fit of my GPs (GPs hold your eye 'in shape' which is why going into them at 14 was recommended - I seriously believe they halted the progression of my shortsightedness) so for non glasses wearing occasions I wear softs and in my experience, although the much vaunted comfort of a soft lens IS true is a dusty atmosphere but for normal, daily wear GPs won hands down for me. I could wear them from waking to sleeping day after day (and cat-nap in them with no problems) When I wear softs these days, if is for the evening time, I put them in as late as possible. 8 hours and I want to rip them out - they dry my eyes out and feel stuck on. The thing is - opticians have their work cut out to fit GPs competantly and many shy away from it and bung everyone in softs. More profit in softs and easier to fit = GP lenses getting bad press. Sorry - this is long, but I'm a bit of a fan of the old GP and seriously would suggest you give them a try.Michael Wallace wrote:6/18 with correction, I think. I'm borderline visually impaired. I tried a contact lens once, but because of my prescription they have to hard (as opposed to soft, but you'll know that), which meant I could only wear it for up to 8 hours a day, which ended up being more hassle than it was worth.Sue Sanders wrote:Yeah, sorry...Rx is prescription (used because Px is taken up by 'Patient').
Minus 21 - that's a hum-dinger, mate. But are you reasonable with correction ? - which I hope for your sake is contact lenses.
Michael Wallace wrote:Thanks for the advice, but I don't really have the inclination to try contacts again at the moment. I was never particularly convinced by them when I did give them a go - bit too much fiddling and effort for what was ostensibly not much reward. Plus it doesn't help that hospitals are generally a bit nervy of doing anything when you've only got one eye to begin with - they'd much rather I just stick with what I know works, and I'm inclined to agree, for the time being at least (plus I've got a cataract, so my sight is going to be doing silly things too).
Well...they do - but that aside ...Great photos, Phil, and exceptionally fine captions!Phil Reynolds wrote:They don't make contact lenses this thick.Sue Sanders wrote:Minus 21 - that's a hum-dinger, mate. But are you reasonable with correction ? - which I hope for your sake is contact lenses.Michael Wallace wrote:I presume you're talking about my prescription, which is about -21.
Now get off c4c and get back on apterous to finish the game you just quit after losing 100-20 using the excuse of "your tournament partner is here, bye" despite saying before we started that it would take seconds to finish.Richard Brittain wrote:There is also the official website here with a link to more pictures, and an interesting article here. Dwain Chambers trained there last year.
Clearly, the track is officially closed. The last time I used it was in the summer of 2008, after it had been closed, and there was a 4 foot gate you had to hop over. It's possible that they have now erected a 20 foot gate with spikes, but I find this unlikely. What would be useful would be if someone fairly local (such as MW?) could check the track out for us sometime soon. Because, I don't intend to come to England before the 5th November; It would be a 6 hour, £70 return trip for me, to the track.
Also, I'm thinking now that 6pm is too late a start, because the floodlights probably won't be operational. If I changed it to 4.30 pm on the same day, would anyone drop out? If so we can change it to a weekend.
To be honest, I'd be very happy using it as long as we weren't trespassing. Holding it in a dump like that would add to the beautiful amateurishness of the occasion. In addition, there wouldn't be many people around. I voiced my concern because if we all turn up and there's no way of getting in, that would be less than ideal. Basically, someone needs to do a recce - if that someone needs to be me, I'll try to pop along one weekend.Richard Brittain wrote:I'm thinking of changing the location, because Phil Makepeace has voiced some concerns over the state of the track in Enfield. Personally, I believe the Co-lympics would be well suited to a slightly decrepid old track overlooked by a sizeable and completely empty, delapidated old stadium, but I can also see why it might be nice to use a better track.
I didn't say it took priority at all - and I told Priest that I was playing a CA with you and I'd be 5 minutes. You then left instantly. Many of the conundrums were slowed down by you buzzing in like 0.8 seconds and then spending 15 seconds fudging it.Richard Brittain wrote: as you had said that that game took priority. I therefore left the room out of politeness. Everything I have just said is proved by the chat logs. I am now sitting and waiting for you in the Apterous room, even though I have better things to do. I really do not know what to expect from you anymore.
I'd rather leave work and get there for 4.30 than do a weekend. So I'm happy with 4.30.Richard Brittain wrote:There is also the official website here with a link to more pictures, and an interesting article here. Dwain Chambers trained there last year.
Clearly, the track is officially closed. The last time I used it was in the summer of 2008, after it had been closed, and there was a 4 foot gate you had to hop over. It's possible that they have now erected a 20 foot gate with spikes, but I find this unlikely. What would be useful would be if someone fairly local (such as MW?) could check the track out for us sometime soon. Because, I don't intend to come to England before the 5th November; It would be a 6 hour, £70 return trip for me, to the track.
Also, I'm thinking now that 6pm is too late a start, because the floodlights probably won't be operational. If I changed it to 4.30 pm on the same day, would anyone drop out? If so we can change it to a weekend.
Probably not, knowing RB's organisational skills.Marc Meakin wrote:Well did this happen or what?
Yup, no official results yet, but think I came in the top 10.Ralph Gillions wrote:The guy with hands on hips? Then you raise your right hand?
Right, I get you.
Well done.
Good for you! (You didn't look knackered either.)Oliver Garner wrote:Yup, no official results yet, but think I came in the top 10.
All of Richard's friends turned up, and he won Gold in every event.Robert Baxter wrote:How did everyone do
36:49 - nice. I got 36:35 today.Matt Bayfield wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:06 am I'd be tempted by a 10k, as I've never run one on a track. Have got a decent-ish PB for the same distance on the roads so would hope to be competitive. However, if there's not going to be much competition (i.e. if everyone else is going to be either much faster, or much slower), then I'm less interested.
I'm not climbing over a tall or spiky gate though. I had a moderately unpleasant accident doing something similar many years ago, and have learned my lesson.
The CO-event parkruns can be seen as the evolution of this.
43:00 - nice. Oh hi Matt. I'll be on my way.David Williams wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:11 pm http://ukresults.net/2008/seaside.html
Scroll down to 95th place.
Yeah never going to catch onGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:00 pm This won't happen. Is this being taken as a serious suggestion? Why the fuck would anyone think "Let's get Countdowners to do running"?
I'm not sure I have a comeback to this.Dave Robjohns wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 10:08 pmYeah never going to catch onGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:00 pm This won't happen. Is this being taken as a serious suggestion? Why the fuck would anyone think "Let's get Countdowners to do running"?