Wow! Great response guys. Thanks!
I’ve perhaps not been clear. Back in 2008 Matt asked a question about the loop course. Gene responded quickly and appropriately. Matt thanked him. But then Matt asked a follow-up question, this time referring to a NON-LOOP course. Nobody saw his new question – but it’s an interesting one.
Duane, I read your response three times. I’m convinced you’ve answered Matt’s ORIGINAL question again quite nicely but have not addressed the NEW question. Correct me if I’m wrong here. You communicate very well – if you did answer my question, then this is the first time I can’t follow it.
Here’s what we have:
0) This is NOT a loop course. About quarter mile separation between start and finish.
1) There is a good active certified course, NY10015JG, that race #1 created and still uses.
2) A new race wants to have a similar course in the area but starting nearer it own venue.
3) The old race is not going away, it is happy with the existing course and not involved.
4) The prospective new course will have entirely different undocumented START and FINISH points.
5) But all other aspects of the new course are the same as the existing course, NY10015JG.
I must take exception to the new RD claiming that he is using THE certified course NY10015JG. There is no existing certified course with these START and FINISH locations. There is no certified course map. There has been no certifier review of his course or documentation, if any. I don't know how we can claim that anyone can take the certified course map and set-up this new course in the future, one of our most cherished tenets. I would not think it proper to validate an un–reviewed course. We could do it but isn’t this inconsistent with our existing policies?
If it were proper, then I like Duane's explanation above. If he had a Jones counter, then the RD could capture the counts comprising the START-FINISH separation and just move the separation gap to start where he wanted -- no steel tape or calibration needed. Slick.
Ok, Does that help? Thanks a million Duane, Bob, Mark and Gene for taking a look.
Thanks for any new input.