As soon as the Calendar is published (a la Langdale)
you mean this course?:
http://www.runningahead.com/maps/5d5...ec26a405639528
If you've done the race you'll know it isn't 12.3 miles. Who has measured it at that distance? I assume they used the appropriate equipment?
The course is dead flat and very well sheltered, with no tight corners to slow you. Of course people are going to run fast times there.
It just seems scarily fast times, people I run against, sometimes beat, have ran times there I don't think I'd get near.
Like Liverpool half, another one that seems suspiciously fast....
I ran 74 there feeling tired, then 73 at Wilmslow a few weeks later feeling fresh, which seems about right. Without checking past results, I can't remember any ridiculously fast times for people at the front and I don't know what standard you are at, but the effect of being dead flat would be exaggerated further down the field. Give it a go if you've not done it before.
Good one, you must have been well up then. Well my pb is 1:21 something, the day after a 10k pb, but I should be comfortably sub 1:20 now, but guys I tend to race with (you know that regular pack who you end up against most races) all do 75-76 there. Just seems a bit fast. Done the 10k there too and ran a PB by a good minute so it is a fast area.
That reminds me, I did the 73 the day after a hard 5km relay, which makes me more sure it is just a fast course. If you've done the 10km there and that was fast, would you think that could be short as well? I honestly don't know about the course, but assume it's been well measured as evidenced by the map linked to above. I'm pretty sure if it had been very short I would have been able to tell.