That's awful, Roger.
You made an aside about your school cross-country course. I recognise your suffering. You (and I) ran - or walked - "proper" cross-country courses, over rough terrain. As well as fords, we had woods, tree-roots, ploughed fields and stiles to contend with. I liked it because I was good at it but I can see how it might be mildly irritating to others! The current European and World championships are invariably dominated by the needs of television technology and so the courses are very flat with occasional rises of about ten feet and a few yards of sand or gravel here and there. If it's in Africa or Spain it will virtually be a track race. Hence the pre-eminence of great track runners in cross-country, now, rather than specialists. There should be MUD, it's cross-COUNTRY! Also it's the only way a European who has to train in weather could ever win anything!
But this event you cite seems to have been a complete disaster. I have my doubts about "extreme" events anyway because they can attract entrants who want the medal to take to work but have no real idea just how hard (and stupid) they are. But the addition of appalling weather exacerbates the difficulty, obviously, It's very, very sad.
