Sunday, April 24, 2011

Kinrara Metta Run 2011...

Event: Kinrara Metta Run 2011
Venue: Taman Damai Utama, Bandar Kinrara, Puchong
Date: 24 April 2011
Time: 7.15am
Distance: 8KM (8.29KM by Nike+ Sportband)
Shoe: K-Swiss K-Ona
By Frank

Haven't had any runs since last weekend Energizer Night Race 2011. Just wanted to give my ankle some rest. With running resuming today, myself and Jamie initially planned out a 10KM ruJustify Fulln prior to the event start. However, as my stomach was giving problems and that I arrived some 10 minutes late, we decided to skip it, hence paying full attention for some speed work at the race.

Arriving at the race site was a major rush for me. I had to visit the potty pot again and with no help from the driver parking next to me so closely to my car which made maneuvering myself tough to get my stuff out and to put it on, I sprinted to the toilet only to run through some mud hence causing them to splash onto my shorts. This really looked that I pooed in my pants. Darn! And there's no water in the toilet hence I can't rinse it off. But lucky I had toilet rolls with me, else it's H3LL!

With all the necessary done, I hung out with Jamie and Jeff till 6.45am before performing our warming up ritual at a nearby neighbourhood to check them up. I though this place was a nice place to stay in due to the quiet surrounding. But that's for now and we won't know future developments there.

Fast forward, the men were let off at 7.15am sharp, while the ladies a while later. There was around 1000 total runners so running on the reasonably wide road is of no problem. I started off fast. Out on the main street, it was a slight descent but after 2KM or so, it also descent for me. Side stitch began irritating me and due to the earlier pace, I lost my breath. Instantly, I told myself that speed is nothing without endurance, but in a more truthful manner, I don't train for speed, more ever I'm in ultra distances now. With this in mind, at least I don't feel so bad. Hahaha...

Soon enough at around 3KM plus or so near to where our usual Sunday long run start is, we made our turn back. Just before that, there was a refreshment station and a familiar face, Wai Mun was there to serve me a cup of water. Thank you so much! On the return trip, I had Poh Meng with me for a while, while I try to battle my side stitch. Once gone, I managed to up my pace a little while attacking the slight uphill.

Back into Taman Damai Utama, as I was looking down the road, I suddenly notice a yellow figure in front of me. No, it's not the Digi Man. It was Pueh Tian armed with his camera snapping photos at me. And boy, the shot was really an "eye opener". Sorry but I ain't posting it here. :D

We had to run a short 400M or so into a junction and make another turn back out before proceeding to the finish. On the way there, Jamie who was at the opposite side making his way to the finish told me that the turn is just slightly ahead. I initially doubted him as I saw a long stretch of runners in front. I though he was trying to motivate me. But I was wrong as those were the 5KM runners. Indeed the turning point is just a short distance away.

The last 1KM was a climb. Not too tough, but I can feel the effects of it. While having my own sweet time heading towards the finish line, 2 runners who were trying to out run each other, passed me just at the finish while I was thanking Moey and his wife for calling out to me. All in all, distance was accurate as I managed to complete this very easy going well organised run in 00:42:59.

Refreshing cups of orange juice, an apple which was crispy, a red bean bun and a bottle of water made my recovery so much tastier. Pretty healthy too after earlier's purge. Medal was rather nice too but I personally think it isn't necessary as after all, this is a charity event in aid of a Buddhist society in helping them fund to build a centre for them. And they even gave a rather good quality shirt, which I took for my dad as he has been complaining due to lack of shirts.

Though my left ankle showed no discomfort this morning, it's still too early to judge as the run is only 8KM. Signs are rather positive but some attention to it is still needed. Before signing this entry off, a thank you note to Jamie for helping with my registration and race pack collection for this event.

Front view of the finisher's medal...

Rear view of the finisher's medal...

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Energizer Night Race 2011...

Event: Energizer Night Race 2011
Venue: Sepang International Circuit
Date: 16 April 2011
Time: 7.45pm
Distance: 42KM (39.4KM by Jamie's Garmin Forerunner 305 GPS)
Shoe: K-Swiss Blade-Light Run
By Frank

Let's start with a little more cheerful stuff before going into the worse ever running event I participated. Pre-race dinner was an early one with Jamie and Yim at Subway, Carrefour Puchong. Had a good time hanging out there till 5pm and that's about the cheerful stuff we had before we started making our way to Sepang International Circuit. Took me about 70KM plus to get there from my place and I was soon greeted by a RM10 car park fees! CRAZINESS!

After gearing up, we made our way on foot to the paddock which was a long walk. Walking in will be fine, but out will be a problem after the race. The chaos started in the underpass which will lead to the race track. As runners from the quarter and half categories was queueing up to receive their headlamps, it created a queue at least 200m in the underpass which was stuffy! After finding out that we do not need to queue, we just rush up to get some fresh air.

Hung around and met friends like Sim, Lynn, Shih Ming, Saya and more. I was in a little stress trying to spot Alex and Karen as I need to pass them their GU Chomps. I couldn't spot both of them till the later stages.

Fast forward to 7.30pm and we are on the starting line. Line up with Jamie, Karen, Kelvin and some others. At 7.45pm sharp, we were let off and I nearly trip at the start due to the pushing from the back. Started fine with Jamie and our pace was consider pretty fast. Out from the circuit on to the main road, we were greeted by fumes from the vehicles. Darkness is all I can describe and I tried to run on the road's white line to ensure I don't step into a hole, or even a poor frog. And I suppose to do this for 5 loops. Geeezzz...

I think each outer loop is around 6KM plus or so only, so immediately I knew that this race will be under distance for sure, which was similar to last year's edition. Good in a way though. I lost Karen at the start and I felt bad about it. I paced with Jamie till the second loop when my left ankle's problem began to surface. He went ahead hammering the run while I slowed to readjust myself.

At the beginning of my third loop, I spotted Chris who was running his first ever marathon distance. Gave him a tap to check on him and was glad he was still doing fine, both physically and mentally. Proud of him. Shortly in front, I spotted Yim who was reduced to walking. It seems his century distance a couple of weeks back is taking its toll on him. But I know it won't be my last time seeing him on the road this night. He will for sure pop right out behind of me in the later stages which he did at the end of my fourth loop. Way to go! Oh and yeah, I had to remove my socks at the end of my third loop to ease the pain on my left ankle which did help. I ran sock less from then on.

From the fifth loop, I had Yim and Pui San for company which I was really grateful of. And just after the start on the road, someone shouted to me from the car. It was Lynn and I was surprised that she is able to spot me in the darkness. Hahaha... Thanks! Continued on and soon after, I spotted Mohan and called out to Pui San as she is awaiting her Naughty G! I continued with Yim till we entered the circuit. The journey in was filled with other runners cheering for us including Ashe. Thanks everyone!

After the first corner on the circuit, I told Yim to go ahead as my left ankle was hurting. I had to walk which I think I did for almost 70% of the track. Daniel, Saya, Ian all passed me and I was dry on the track and the refreshment station only appeared at the last 1.5KM! But towards the end, I made friends with a Perakian named Yee and we run together side by side crossing the finish line together. I clocked 04:29:28 but it was only 39.4KM! Way much lower compared to last year.

Crossing the finish line was a sad affair. It was plainly quiet and there was no marshalls to assist runners or to even give out at least a bottle of water. And where's the finisher's medal and t-shirt? Apparently, there was a riot after the first wave was let off due to insufficient goodie bags or some sort. Therefore, the other runners turned their attention on taking the medals and t-shirt. Event the police was called in. I didn't bother much then and just want to get back home. I couldn't find Jamie and therefore headed back to the car hoping he was there. He came by shortly and after clearing ourselves up, we began our journey home. And that was the end of one horrible event.

Before signing off from this entry, here's my 2 cents of this event:

- Why can't organisers give out the goodie bags during the race pack collection day? Why wait till event day? Why perform double logistics when all can be done at one shot? The riot could have been avoided if this has been looken into.

- Boasting and praising way before the event started and being over confident. Together with another friend, we offered our services and advices free of charge but was rudely refused. Therefore, by all means, serves you guys right for not listening to runners and instead trusting your own instinct as a battery manufacturer.

- Why bother marketing so much when the good welfare of runners alone are not taken off? There wasn't even any instructions on baggage, car park, etc... handed out in the race pack or even website. When the participants are being well taken off, automatically its marketing for the brand. Again, no double work.

- Where's the promised entertainment and sponging station along the race route? It was pure darkness. Yes, I know headlamps were given but forcing us to wear is another issue all together. Distance markers were there, but can they be seen? Even ribbons to indicate the number of loops ran were not enough. I only received 2. Traffic police did a good job I think, but where were the marshalls? And were they polite if you meet any of them?

- RM10 for car park in the darkness? Be glad that nothing happen to my and Yim's car!

Seriously, indeed a nightmare event to be forgotten. If I have continued my above, it won't be known as 2 cents. Instead maybe in as an encyclopedia. And seriously, I don't pity the organisers. They are not learning from last year's mistake and even better, they made it so much worse this year. And since I've no photos to share, here's a little dedication.

Monday, April 11, 2011

Spinning To Nowhere...

By Frank

As mentioned yesterday, I will start spinning on my bike using the Tacx Vortex trainer. Why not on the road? I'm pretty clumsy on the road bike and triathlon bike, and besides with the unfriendly road and our driver attitude, I guess spinning indoors to nowhere is the best option for me. And so I did today, and boy, it was tough though I enjoyed it.

Took me a while to assemble the trainer though. It was just purely some silly mistake from the user side, else it's actually pretty easy to setup. Once done, it was all good to go.

Started off well as I'm really looking forward to it. With just 10 minutes gone, my legs were already sore and I was sweating a bucket though I was spinning inside my house with the ceiling fan turned on. As I wanted to concentrate on my pedaling stroke, therefore no disturbance from sources like the television or music player. My only view was my car porch and the trainer's computer. The plan was to do some intervals and I managed just that for a duration of 30 minutes producing maximum speed of 43.2km/h on the highest gear. But at the end of it, legs were feeling jellified and it brought back memories of my Powerman Malaysia participation. The feeling... ooohhh...

Overall, it was a great workout. It gives me some variety over running and I just simple like the feeling on going on the aerobar. It just feel nice, in a way. Oh... And my left ankle held up. No sore or pain. Perhaps spinning is the answer for now.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Let's Spin...

By Frank

Had a miserable run this morning. Started off at 5am with Jamie and Fui Cheng running in the "Giant hypermarket loop" for 3 times as part of warming up and also to wait for Rao and the others to arrive. Vince who is supposed to start with Fui Cheng at 4.30am overslept and didn't make it. Vince, how dare you "aeroplane" the lady in our Aladdin Runnerz group. Hahaha...

The comfy pace during the warm up gave me a boost during the start of the run with the others. In fact, so boosted that I was going at a rather fast pace. Decided to slow down upon hitting a total of 10KM and just drafted behind Jamie till he increased his pace. I remained with my own pace till hitting 18KM when suddenly the area around my left anterior talofibular ligament suddenly felt painful. Yes, it's pain and not sore. It's the third time I'm experiencing this pain, the previous 2 probably due to tight socks. But today, my socks was of normally padded socks. Not sure if it was an after effect from the recent Twilight Ultra Challenge 2011 as I did experience the same thing there, which caused me to remove my socks.

Area of pain. Mind the leg hair please...

Due to the pain, I decided to jog and walk back. Didn't want to risk anything, though I'm kind of worried about any tear there. Hmmm... All in all, a 25KM really slow and miserable run for me this morning. Only the first 18KM was fruitful.

YS recently asked about my next game plan for tackling the century distance. Initially, due to my work commitments, I've planned to put in runs between 5KM to 8KM three times on the weekdays after office hours, while I pile on the mileage on the weekends. However, due to the above, I guess I have think twice now. I guess it's time to open up my bike trainer which has been in the box for over 2 months since I collected it from Chee Kong. Instead of running 3 times on the weekdays, spinning will be the alternative now. At least it keeps my legs moving and my heart pumping. Not sure how will my ankle react to it, but will see how. There's always another plan. Just have to be creative.

It's time the trainer comes out from it's box...

Tuesday, April 05, 2011

What Running Shoes Should You Wear? The Myths Busted...

Came across a really interesting article regarding running shoes nowadays. As a shoe retailer, I have used my knowledge gained in trying to assist customers in choosing their shoes for them. I'm one that does not believe in shoe technologies like stability, motion control or neutral shoes. Just a simple minimalistic shoe that shares a hard compound rubber sole has the perfect make of shoes for our legs, if you ask me. However I'm no doctor, chiropractor nor podiatrist hence convincing or advising customers still poses a challege for me. Perhaps this will be able to futher explain the myths that most runners are still clouded in.

February 17th, 2011 by Ian Griffiths

Never ones to be scared about throwing the cat in amongst the pigeons we asked Ian Griffiths from to give us his educated opinion on the prescription of running shoes. In an extensive and thoroughly researched post Iain busts a few myths and concludes that current methods for running shoe recommendation are flawed. As result we will be reviewing our running shoe recommendation process. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter…

Myths busted:
- Pronation is not consistently predictive of injury - Individuals should not all be aligned similarly. ‘Normal’ alignment is subject specific

- Foot shape is NOT predictive of dynamic function. The wet foot test is nonsense.

- There is very little research investigating the relationship between running shoes and injury prevention. Stiffer midsoles do reduce pronation speed and magnitude, but in doing so may increase vertical loading rates. Running shoe ‘cushioning’ may be a myth

Following a media frenzy in 2010, the concept of running barefoot came under rather close scrutiny. With respect to its potential long term risks/benefits the research is not yet available, so for many professionals the jury is still out and they remain healthily skeptical. However these same professionals generally recommend road running shoes based on a model which has been used for decades. At this point in time it seems only fair that this is re-visited and also put under the same scrutiny, with some of the available research relevant to running shoes looked at in closer detail. This blog aims to do just this; to discuss how road running shoes are currently ‘prescribed’, and to see if there is any rationale for this current practice.

Road running shoes can be generally split into 3 groups; motion control shoes, stability shoes, and neutral/cushioned shoes. Historically we have all been told that there are 3 main foot types (what a fantastic coincidence I hear you cry…); the ‘flat’ or ‘pronated’ foot, the ‘normal’ or ‘neutral’ foot, and the ‘high arched’ or ‘supinated’ foot.

1. Flat/Pronated foot = Motion control running shoe

2. Normal/Neutral foot = Stability running shoe

3. High/Supinated foot = Neutral running shoe

It is not entirely clear where this model of shoe selection came from. It’s conception may have been based upon the work of Colonel Harris and Major Beath, who performed an Army foot survey back in 1947, and whilst doing so invented an ingenious new method of assessing footprints. It was in 1980 that ‘The Running Shoe book’ showed the first picture (as far as I’m aware) of the three arch types and how these may relate to running shoe selection. Despite the lack of certainty regarding its origins, pretty much every edition of Runners World magazine printed since has regurgitated this information, as have most running shoe shop assistants, not to mention numerous websites (including those of many major shoe companies and sports injury professionals. We are even guilty of this at For several decades runners have therefore been advised to check their footprints (often easily assessed by observing the mark a wet foot leaves behind) and pick the corresponding shoe. They are told this ensures ideal alignment and minimises injury risk. Simples. Or is it?

Before we continue take a look at the following foot (a freeze frame during running):

Have a think about what running shoe you may recommend for this individual based on the visual information you have. Now read on.

To identify whether the well known model of shoe selection is appropriate we need to break it down and analyse the preconceptions it is based upon. These are:

(A) Pronation is consistently predictive of injury.

(B) All individuals should be aligned identically (i.e. ‘normal’ or ‘neutral’).

(C) The wet foot test (i.e. foot shape) is predictive of dynamic function.

(D) Assuming preconceptions (A), (B) and (C) are correct, running shoe technology will actually achieve what it claims to.

If these points are not true or backed up by research, then the entire model falls apart. So, let’s take a look at these preconceptions one at a time.

(A) Pronation is consistently predictive of injury.
Running stores and magazines seem to be fixated on pronation. Most shoes are marketed with respect to how much ‘pronation control’ they offer. Why is this? Well, it has generally been thought that a more pronated foot type is a significant risk factor for injury. However the fact is that there are very few prospective studies which have actually shown this, with numerous studies actually concluding that there is no association between foot type and injury. Two studies have even shown that a pronated foot is actually a protective factor against injury.

The point I’m trying to make is that the relationship between foot mechanics and lower limb injury is still not as well understood as we think (or as we would like). But what we do know is that functioning in a pronated position does not mean that you will necessarily get injured. In fact the experimental evidence suggests you are much more likely to get injured from training errors or from dysfunctional hip musculature.

Verdict = Pronation is not consistently predictive of injury

(B) All individuals should be aligned identically (i.e. ‘normal’ or ‘neutral’).

When referring to ‘ideal’ alignment what is actually meant? What exactly is ‘normal’ when it comes to the alignment of the lower extremity? Answer: We don’t know. The word ‘normal’ is probably an inappropriate word to apply to the human body. As far as normal foot alignment or mechanics is concerned, the normal (average) foot type reported in sampled populations is actually mildly to moderately pronated. So why then is the main aim of the current running shoe selection model to align runners to ‘neutral’ (i.e. the foot sitting perpendicular to the horizontal ground)?

When we consider that the subtalar joint (the joint where pronation and supination occurs) has variable anatomy, it seems obvious that function will not be the same for everyone, and therefore that the ‘optimum’ position to be in would differ from person to person. Unsurprisingly, differences in foot alignment between individuals is reported to be high.

It still amazes me that in a world where human variation is so vast in almost every aspect of our being, that when it comes to running there is a suggestion that we should all be in one particular alignment or position. The reality is that each of us most likely has own preferred alignment – a subject specific ‘normal’.

Verdict = Individuals should not all be aligned similarly. ‘Normal’ alignment is subject specific.

(C) The wet foot test (i.e. foot shape) is predictive of dynamic function.

The association between static foot measures and dynamic function has been well researched in the literature. Several different methods of assessing foot shape, arch height and foot posture in static standing have been investigated, with the conclusions generally being that there is no association between these measures and dynamic function (what the foot does when we actually run).

The work which really puts the wet foot test out of business was completed by a team of researchers from the US army over the last year or so. Their prospective studies assigned running shoes based on plantar foot shape prior to basic military training, and investigated if this influenced injury risk at all. They showed that assigning running shoes based on the footprint shape had little influence on injury risk in Air Force Basic Training, Marine Corps Basic Training, and Army Basic Combat Training.

Verdict = Foot shape is NOT predictive of dynamic function. The wet foot test is nonsense.

(D) Running shoe technology will actually achieve what it claims to.
The technology that shoes provide can be generalised into 2 main areas. They offer cushioning, and market this as essential for the dampening of the high impacts associated with running, and they offer increased durometer (stiffer/harder) midsoles which are aimed at controlling or reducing pronation. These technologies have been called into question before, with some researchers suggesting that the protected environment a modern running shoe provides will diminish sensory feedback, resulting in inadequate impact moderating behaviour and actually serve to increase injury risk.

A 2010 study concluded that the prescription of shoes with elevated cushioned heels and pronation control systems tailored to an individuals foot type was not evidence based and another very recent piece of research suggested this approach was overly simplistic and potentially injurious. How did the latter study come to this conclusion? Well to very briefly summarise: every single runner in their study who had been classified as having a ‘highly pronated’ foot type and was subsequently put into a motion control shoe reported an injury during a 13 week half marathon training programme. Let me repeat that – highly pronated feet that were put into motion control shoes resulted in injury. Yet that is exactly what the current shoe selection model suggests. Let’s go back to the video gait analysis snapshot.

Given what you have read so far, what shoe would you recommend this person now? Has it changed from earlier?

Back to the running shoe research. Numerous studies agree that shoes with softer midsoles (cushioned/neutral shoes) result in greater pronation values, and shorter times to reach maximum pronation i.e. they make individuals pronate more, and pronate quicker. Does this sound bad to you? [If so go back and read the research which refutes preconception (A)]. Most of these studies also concluded that harder/stiffer midsoles (such as those found in stability and motion control shoes) significantly decrease the speed and magnitude of pronation. Some of these shoes now also have a slight varus tilt (they are higher on the inside of the heel than they are on the outside). Research has also shown that this decreases foot level pronation. (Remember these studies are just investigating kinematics/alignment and not injury).

So ‘anti-pronatory’ shoes with stiffer midsoles are actually doing what they promise to. The problem is we don’t know whether we need them to do it for us or not. And as an aside, varus posting/tilting was shown in one study to increase tibial shock and vertical loading rates. (Is this perhaps why all those injuries occurred in the motion control shoes in the aforementioned study?)

Finally, let’s not forget cushioning. That must reduce the amount of force we are subjected to when running – right? Wrong. As shoe cushioning decreases runners modify their patterns to maintain constant external loads. However, it is thought to contribute to comfort, and this seems to be the most important variable on which to select sports shoes, which we will talk about shortly.

Verdict = There is very little research investigating the relationship between running shoes and injury prevention. Stiffer midsoles do reduce pronation speed and magnitude, but in doing so may increase vertical loading rates. Running shoe ‘cushioning’ may be a myth.

It seems that the current model upon which running shoes are recommended/chosen is erroneous. Its foundations are based upon preconceptions which have been shown to be false. Due to significant within-species variation it is ridiculous to try and align people identically, (and to aim to do so in a pre-selected ‘normal’ position which is highly unlikely to be ‘normal’ for most individuals is potentially injurious). Shoes do seem to generally achieve what they claim to. However, our understanding of whether they actually need to achieve these variables (and who would benefit from each variable) is poor at present.

And so, the current method of being recommended a shoe still continues (and I imagine it will for some time). Why?

1. Very few people realise it is erroneous.

2. At the moment we do not have anything to replace it with.

3. It is fantastically simple.

4. People don’t generally like change.

The future
Moving forward, a much better model would be to focus on identifying an optimum midsole stiffness for an individual (which may be variable) combined with their optimum alignment/movement patterns for a given activity (i.e. the position in which their injury risk is minimised and their performance is maximised, irrespective of its visual alignment). However, much more research is required before we fully understand how to clinically achieve this.

The concept of intelligent shoes (adidas tried with the adidas_1 above but failed commercially) which modify their midsole characteristics depending on the step by step requirements and effectively ‘tune’ themselves to the wearer and the surface they are on may sound like something from Back to the Future, but it is probably only a matter of time before we start seeing this sort of advancement in our running shoe technology. However, it doesn’t change the fact that we need a greater understanding of injury risk factors, and that these are still likely to be subject (and activity) specific.

So where does this leave the runner choosing a pair of shoes in 2011? There are many choices. Neutral? Stability? Motion Control? Barefoot? Hopefully by now you realise that there is no simple answer.

All decisions could and should be based on one main factor in my opinion: comfort. Believe it or not comfort has been linked to injury frequency reduction and is thought to be the most important variable for sports shoes, and a focal point for any future sports shoe development. We all know that comfort is subjective and subject specific so with that in mind only the wearer can confidently choose the most appropriate shoe for themselves. [Be wary of the shop assistant/Podiatrist who tells you the exact make and model shoe which is best for you]. What one person finds comfortable will differ greatly from another; perhaps this is why some people find that stiff supportive shoes work best for them, and others discovered that barefoot running was the answer to their long history of injury woes.

As most runners know, it can often be a little bit of trial and error with regard to finding the ‘right’ shoe. Once you’ve found what works for you (or if you have found it already) then don’t change it.

Irrespective of the advice given in the shoe shop/magazines/Podiatrists office about your ‘pronation’; on current evidence you are just as well off picking a shoe based on comfort alone, and subscribing to a course of Pilates and adopting sensible training habits.

Sunday, April 03, 2011


By Frank

"Base is being attack", "Base has been destroyed" and "Rebuilding". These are just a few phrases real time strategy gamers will commonly hear while playing their games. And somehow, these phrases played a part in my recent running career.

It's been a week since Twilight Ultra Challenge 2011 (TUC 2011). Doing badly there, I was shaken by the event. Confidence was at an all time low and lots of negative thoughts clouded me. Cracks in my foundation began to show and I thought, maybe things will come to an end. But the tremendous support I received from my friends which was awesome kept me going. And within a few days, I began to rebuild and this morning, I had my first long run. After all, I did not come so far to be beaten by just one single event that went wrong.

A close running friend told me that she has dedicated her 82KM run at TUC 2011 for me (pretty obvious who this friend is with the distance mentioned). Another told me that my previous ultra marathon attempts do not lie (you know who you are). Some even told me that I was their mentor in ultra running. And what really suprised me is that a volunteer from TUC 2011 sent me an e-mail to offer words of encouragement. All these kind words brought sunshine into my destroyed confidence and I soon found out that my running isn't over yet. There's still indeed a long road ahead of me.

Therefore, I acknowledge all of you good friends who have played a part in the rebuilding of my confidence. In no particular order, my gratitude all goes out to Ben, Karen, Jamie, Yim, Paul, Shine, Khairul, Fui Cheng, Cynthia, Lynette, Lynn, Chin Chin, Zin, Tey, Raymond, Adam, David, Jeff, Foo, Zin, Eugene, Chee Kong and many many more. For those whom I accidently left out, you know who you are. THANK YOU!