Way back, when Messrs. Corbitt, Riegel, Baumel, Nichols and others developed and implemented our measuring method one of the main reasons (uses of the process) was to ensure accurate (at least as long as the advertised distance) race courses for the purpose of performance record keeping. As the running population increased, the main reason for accurate courses became more to allow race directors to provide a quality product for the masses, than accuracy for record keeping purposes. Although the record-keeping motive is still completely valid today, I doubt that the majority of course certification is driven by record keeping accuracy. I think it is driven by the desire to provide a quality product to the “parade” runners. Either way, our process and the resulting product is no less important. The headline of Pete’s article “Younger Athletes… Less Concern About Time” is certainly valid in this neck of the woods. While participation is up, fast performances (certainly record breaking performances) are way down. That’s not a reason for a race director to offer an inaccurate course. Even a slow runner wants the accurate course.