@Race Resources LLC posted:"Three years ago, I changed one-turn on the course due to a near collision between a runner and a baby stroller. I compensated for this turn change with precise cone placements on the course, especially the right turns. Due to soil erosion, a dirt section of the course gets rebuilt most years and as such, hand-wheeled measurements are done each year using two devices to ensure distances are correct."
- Ken Rubeli, from the referenced article.
A: Where are these "precise cone placements" shown on the course certification map?
B: How does a "wheeled measurement" seem to be regarded by anyone as accurate? Mark Neal surely put the lie to this idea in his recent post on the topic of measuring wheels.
C: As others have pointed out, the course map references "cones and barricades", but does not display them on the map nor reference their placement locations.
D: The course map records only one reference point for the Start, and only one for the Finish. For a course with this many loop repetitions, this fact alone could have accounted for the distance discrepancy.
E: How did this map elude being corrected prior to its publication? It doesn't even show a city or a location.
F: It seems now that we have yet another incident with a high-profile record at stake in which the failure of the record appears to be the responsibility of the certifying organization as much or more than the race organization. If USATF produces an accurate map of a measurement by an "A" or "B" measurer, and the race organization feels it has followed the map accurately, the course shouldn't be short or long, right?
G: The race organizers apparently took some liberties with course modifications without obtaining a re-certification. This is not the first incident of this happening.
H: I do not understand how anyone would attempt to re-measure any course while the event is in progress, outside of some emergency, as when Bob Thurston performed an "emergency" re-measurement of a mis-laid portion of the Marine Corps Marathon course years ago. This strikes me as unprofessional and it is indefensible, IMHO.
I: For events likely to produce record performances, or in which records are more likely than average to produce records, it seems to me we need to take a long look at establishing a new category of certified courses. I do not know what a good name for this category would be. Maybe "USATF Assured" or "USATF Endorsed For Record Performances". These events would require the following:
- Pre-verification of the cal course and the race course in question
- Corrections, if any are needed, to the certification map.
- Race day monitoring by at least one certifier, preferably an "A" or "B". This individual will assume full responsibility that the mapped course is laid out and is traversed exactly according to the certified path.
- Post-verification, taking into account any race day anomalies, such as the baby stroller accommodation mentioned in the article.
We can thus establish national standards for "Record Endorsed" races, possibly even set minimum rates for this premium designation.
In the D.C area where I tend to do most of my measuring, Bob Thurston and I are hired by the 30,000 - participant Army Ten Miler to ride around the course beginning 2 hours before the start of the first wave and ensure the layout is accurate. Every year of the last 15 this event has been run live, the course layout by the Army is not accurate - as expected - and Bob and I always make numerous changes to the cones and barricades before runners appear. Some of these changes are just for better runner flow, and some are material to the course distance to be covered by participants. We arrange for vehicles parked on the race tangents to be towed away. We have many soldiers and law enforcement personnel who are effectively at our direction in terms of the course layout. We have always ensured the course as run is perfectly accurate.
A few years ago, after the course layout debacle at the 25,000 - runner Cherry Blossom 10 Mile event in D.C. in which two U.S. records failed, the race organization began hiring "A" measurer Bob Thurston to verify its race day layout in the hours before the start. No problems since.
The Delaware Distance Classic 15K in 2018 was another situation where our processes were not up to the challenge of validating an amazing age group record performance. Bob Thurston and I concluded that the athlete in question most likely covered slightly more than the certified distance, but because the certification map lacked detail of the course layout or of the exact path, a significant record was denied - by the same organization that certified the course and that sanctioned the race. This strikes me as an untenable situation that demands we address it and cure it. There are other examples.
The race Operations Director for the Army Ten Miler is a seasoned and highly qualified individual who long ago understood the many challenges to ensuring a record-eligible course holds up to the scrutiny we impose on such performances, and he took action. He seems to be in a small group. Even the Cherry Blossom organization, with its fast course and its cash prizes on the line failed to bridge the gap between our certification and the race day layout. It did have the decency to award the prize money to the two athletes whose records were denied due to the sloppy course layout.
It now seems obvious - to me, anyway - that few if any RDs are aware of the restrictions to modifying a course without obtaining a new certification, or of how their race day course layout may or may not support a validate-able performance. I see no bulletproof method of ensuring potential record-setting events avoid future record-denying fiascos other than establishing and promoting some "Record Endorsed" category in which we thereby effectively guarantee that any valid record performance is recorded and recognized as such.
Opinions may vary among us about how much of a "black eye" USATF may thus avoid by improving our process. But it seems clear that the race organizers of the Jackpot Ultra Running Festival 100-miler, for one example, are not willing to accept blame for Camille Herron not being awarded recognition for her incredible performance in Nevada. And we can see exactly where they are pointing their figurative finger.
Very well said.