It is astonishing that decades after its introduction and after a lot of recent discussion on the Bulletin Board that the SCPF continues to confuse even the most experienced measurers right up to the current validations of the two courses of the Olympic Trials.
Whenever something is measured many times it is perfectly normal for some values to lie below that of the true value even with a competent measurer. Lack of appreciation of this fact and an abhorrence to recognize any record set on a course that validates at less than the advertised distance must have led to the introduction of the trick of the 0.1%. SCPF. Ironically, there was later some acceptance of courses validated at less then the advertised distance and an extra allowance of 0.05% was tacked on. We are now pretending that a 10,010-meter course is only 10,000 meters and for validation making a shortage allowance of 15 meters or 0.15%.
It would be much more logical and all the current confusion would go away if we scrapped the SCPF and measured courses to what they are supposed to be. These true courses would be regarded as passing validation if they were say less than 0.1% short.
I realize however that the SCPF is too firmly entrenched in USATF and IAAF to leave much hope of a change, and we will probably have to live with it. However, the 0.05% shortage allowance is a different matter and probably can be scrapped quite painlessly because most measurers are unaware of it. Apparently, this was added to allow for the normal error inherent in any measurement process quite oblivious to the fact that we already had an allowance for this in the 0.1% SCPF. Elimination of the 0.05% shortage would have the following advantages:
1. Simplification of the validation process and make it a bit more intuitive.
2. Bring USATF in line with IAAF.
3. Please measurers such as Gene Newman and Mike Wickiser.
4. Allow Records to retain the prerogative to allow records set on courses failing validation by a small amount.