Agenda For Annual meeting

I just don't think a can get a Fro in time for the meeting.

Fro in this topic’s title doesn’t bother me. For or Fro, we all know what it should be.

The topics for discussion at the Annual Meeting are always interesting and lively.

I will not be attending the Annual Meeting, but I my comments on the topics follow:

1. Yes, add a line for the certified calibration course number. When I reviewed applications in NY and Texas I always added the calibration course certification number. It’s an important reference. Will certainly cut down on the number of document submitted, electronic and hard copy.

2. The Ted Cobitt documents and possessions should be offered in part or whole to the National Long Distance Running Hall of Fame in Utica, NY. Ted was a part of the inaugural class in 1998. The Hall also welcomes writings about the sport, photography and memorabilia. The cost of shipping can come from RRTC budget or request made to USATF.

3. An Annual Ted Corbitt Award is too important not to make happen. A short list of criteria eligibility can be established, nominations accepted and a 3 person review committee selects the recipient. The cost of award can come from RRTC budget or request made to USATF.

4. The default USATF/RRTC Certifier on the Measurement Certificate seems easy. I personally have been using National Certifier, but have now changed to Certifier. I know others are also using National Certifier. Some use Regional Certifier, which is appropriate for state reviewers. Others just sign their names without a title. A default for Certifier and Regional Certifier seems like a good idea.

5. Application compatibility to IAAF seems okay. Don’t understand why this would be important. IAAF/AIMS have adopted and follow the work done by USATF/RRTC. Maybe urge the IAAF/AIMS to adopt the USATF/RRTC application? The differences in the applications are semantics, like the use of Kilometre and Metre. The IAAF/AIMS application is a bit more simplified.

6. The application question about adjusting the course should be open. This question speaks to the measurer’s understanding of the measurement procedures. Let the measurer explain the final course adjustment, not lead them to explain. Use Question 6 on the Application for Calibration Course, Steel Taping Data Sheet, as the standard. Be consistent across applications.

7. Championship races pre-verified serves everyone, participants and event coordinators. For all Championships USATF requires the hosting organization to have various USATF Officials officiating race day, at the expense of the event. RRTC’s involvement MUST be required in the Championship bid submittal. Most events will do only what is required.
8. Mike’s GPS document should be added as a reading resource with the statement on Use of GPS devices. Maybe Mike could share the document here on the Bulletin Board?

9. If accuracy of intermediate splits is important, tapes distances to landmarks should be required. The emphasis on certifying the overall distance may have contributed to the lack of information provided. Taped distances for intermediate splits are important for those events needing an adjustment.

10. Good idea to add text to let course measurers know which forms to submit when adjusting a previously certified course. Which forms are used? Isn’t it just a re-submittal of the entire application?

11. Unrealistic measurer work, I’ve seen some that you just know it’s been fabricated. I have always felt that when possible a measurer’s work should be field checked or checked by a Google Earth measurement. Having an opportunity to measure with another course measurer can provide lots of information. There are statistical probabilities about the differences in 2 measurements by the same measurer. With measurement experience we pretty much know what measurement outcomes should or shouldn’t be. Those “no difference” between 2 marathon measurements should be thrown out – what is the probability of that?

As another prospective non-attender, I like Kevin's idea of giving feedback, so here's my 2 cents on some items.

1. I agree mostly, but remember that the original idea was to make sure measurer had actually seen the cal course map so that they could be sure to use correct endpoints etc, as well as verify that the course is still as certified.

2&3 Agree with Kevin's suggestions and comments.

4&5 No opinion but curious what questions would be added per suggestion?

6 I agree that this question should be as open as possible. What about "describe and explain how the course was modified to achieve the correct distance"? Or the like.

9 Accurate splits: I think we should encourage accurate descriptions. Provide, where possible, a long-range reference to get into the right area, and a short-range way to pinpoint the location, like distance from a utility pole. But we should recognize that some locations don't have many handy reference points and we have to accept that. I would quibble with Kevin on taped distances; I think for most split descriptions it's ok to use distances along the road which you can obtain from the bike measurement.

11. I think a GE measurement of the course would be a good way when to check a course when there are doubts. Ideally figure out a way to measure with the person, then at least they can learn good methods if they're not already.

Guys, this is good to have your thoughts and I welcome other to comment. I will present these during our meeting. Thanks!