Skip to main content

I have seen this happen multiple times. Let's say we have a certified Half Marathon closed Loop. The race director would like to run this loop twice, hence we have a certified Marathon. The course search engine would only show the half as being certified. Hence, if the runners want to use this closed loop run twice as a Boston time for that race. Boston, more than likely would reject this.

I don't understand Boston, but is there a solution. I really don't think we should issue multiple certificates.

Any thoughts?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I think there should be a separate certificate. It is important to understand how the transition from loop 1 to loop 2 is accomplished. In the cases I have measured there has been a half and a full event, but the race directors don't want the loop 1 running through the finish area so the transition needs to be correctly designed to ensure that both events are exact.
I think Paul makes a good point. My first reaction is that there are a great many certified loops that are used in races of a variety of lengths-- especially, for example, for race walks, but also for low-key club events. The key thing may be this question: is the course altered or disrupted for any of the runners by the fact that some runners are doing more or fewer loops? If it's like a track, there is no particular disruption if some runners pull over to finish at 5 miles while others go on to complete 10-- just put the finish chute on the outside lanes of the track.

But things may have changed since the old days of using loops for ultrarunners and walkers, etc, with more races using some form of electronic timing. Nowadays there seems to be more concern about how close continuing runners come to the actual finish line-- and also concern about runners who have finished a shorter race getting "read" as finishing again.

It may be that multiple loop races in many cases need to be laid out with a repeatable loop with an "early pull-off" spur for a finish line. This spur can be used after any number of loops, as long as the distance to the finish will be equivalent to completing a loop.
Couldn't we create a little box to be put on such loop courses that says multiple loops of the course can be considered a certified course of the appropriate distance? This could only be used for courses where there is no transition as Paul mentions. The multiloop people simply run next to, and then past, the finish chute. If there is some type of transition there would need to be multiple certificates because the loops are not exactly the same.
I agree with Paul and Bob (could not tell if Mark is agreeing with Paul, or not) - issue a new certificate. It is imperative that the deviation for the Finish is shown, so continuing runners are not running through the Finish chute. Putting the Finish line outside the loop (offset 5 or 10 feet) is the cleanest way to do two loops.
For the course Joe is pointing us to, I would think you could include a detail map of the start/finish, showing a finish chute displaced to the left side of the street with continuing runners staying straight and on the right.
Question: couldn't this qualify as one certification? This would be a "transition-less" course per Mark's categories. In other words, you can run any number of loops (including just one) but you finish to the left.

I've gathered recently that there may be other reasons why you need to do separate certifications, but the rationale isn't clear to me. I think it would be much more user-friendly just to have one certification, and have it used for any race distances that are multiples of 5 km.

I can't figure out who I'm agreeing or disagreeing with-- maybe I just disagreed with myself!
Guido - Except for the scenario where BAA won't accept a marathon time run on a half-marathon course run twice, no matter the configuration.

For shorter courses, it may be fine to issue one cert for the one-lap length. I don't see any potential issues with this, unless a record is set, and the certification is challenged. Two (or more) laps of a certified course is acceptable under USATF guidelines, so that should not be a problem. Can someone (the old record holder) challenge the USATF acceptance of a two-lap record? I think not.

But, if an event is advertising their course as a "qualifier" for another event, it may be in their interest to spend the extra $30 or $50 (so measurer gets some compensation for making the second map, with reference only to the longer course) on a certificate for the second course.

But, if we have a 5k course with mile splits marked, a 10k (two laps) will have to have additional splits identified. That is additional work for the measurer, and additional info on the map. Another reason to only mark km splits!

In general, the Boston Athletic Association will list a course as an approved marathon if it is certified at the marathon distance.

Course with laps, like Ultra courses, may also be eligible for qualifying for Boston, with the requirement that ALL lap times are included. Although an Ultra may run on a certified course, unless there is a certified marathon split, it is not going to be listed as an approved marathon.

If the course does not appear to be a marathon then it will not, automatically, get picked up by the registration folks in Hopkinton. In those situations, it is the responsibility of the qualifying event director and the athletes to make the BAA aware of the course configuration. That will give the BAA a starting point on what they need to look for.

Hope this helps. -- Justin
Justin's explanation solves the problem for Boston or any other race where one needs to qualify. Otherwise the "certified loop" is all that's required.
We certify a race walk course as 2km not 10k, 20k, 50k, etc. Tracks are certified for 400 meters. It is the responsibility of the Officials to determine if athletes ran the proper number of loops(laps)not ours.

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.