Skip to main content

Reply to "How Long Is Too Long?"

I agree that we need to indicate the real distance on the certificate. I dunno 'bout putting it on the map. In the instance of my 5K that is 60 feet long, I see no benefit and lots of potential for unnecessary confusion on the part of the RD. That RD was gonna' have a her 5K with a contiguous start-finish, by golly, and no excuses. Didn't matter to her what I had to do to make it so. Since I was fundamentally opposed to routing the course across an untracked field with waist-high weeds just to make it 5.000K, she got a slightly long course.

Putting "5.028 K" anywhere on that map would have opened the proverbial can of invertebrates. I see no value to anyone in doing that. If asked about the number on the certificate, I could just say something like "Well, that's just a USATF RRTC technical detail that has no relevance to the race" or some equally plausible if mildly disingenuous canned response.

Now, what if it had been 300 meters long over ~ 5K? I feel confident in asserting this is back-to-the-drawing board different. I am going to hazard a wild guess that no one will disagree with this. Alright, so what about 300 feet? On a curvy, hilly course, who would know the difference? As Bob says, the GPS-wearers already "know" the course is long, no matter if it is actually exactly 5K. I am not much concerned about them. .018% doesn't sound like a big difference. But, as Mark says, our credibility is at stake if we just measure extra long to ensure we aren't submitting a short course (not that I know anyone who does this) or we accommodate some special need for a particular event and then in essence advertise the distance falsely. On a flat, record-eligible course, an extra 300 feet in a 5K could result in the "slower record" we discussed earlier.

Knowing that other weird scenarios like mine, or the Pi races, may continue to come about, it may or may not be helpful for us to have guidelines. I am trying to make up my mind if and how. In the situation with my 60-feet long 5K, I have to wonder if I could have got past the contiguous S/F requirement with my client by referencing a USATF rule that required me to not advertise the race as "5K" on the map in this instance. It wouldn't hurt to have the imprimatur of USATF/RRTC behind us when we have to draw the line somewhere. I believe I would like to have some room to make a judgement call on how to deal with these anomalies on a case-by-case basis. I don't expect this to come up often. But , maybe it is a consideration that is out there that isn't discussed much. I can understand why. So, maybe I am sorry I brought the whole d*mn thing up. Frowner

Please excuse me now, I am retiring to a dark corner to sob quietly for a while.


quote:
Originally posted by Duane Russell:
Guido, this discussion is about what to put on the map and certificate, if the measurer turns in paperwork that indicates the course measured longer than the advertised distance. Accuracy of the paperwork/methodology was not the catalyst for the discussion.

I think we should put the measured distance on the map, and definitely the cert. For the name of the race, I would put Joe's "5k", appearing exactly as I typed it. This is an indicator the "5k" is a claim, but the map and cert would show the correct length.
×
×
×
×