Camille Herron's 100-mile world record won't count, because of short course - The Washington Post
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Race director modified the course and didn't get it re-certified. Very unfortunate.
A reader comment on this story in the Washington Post that I like:
"Race organizers have one job: give the runners an accurate distance. Nothing is more frustrating than running a great race and learning that the course was off, either short or long. Even non-professional athletes base so much of their life and training around the effort to shave seconds or minutes off of a time. To run your best and then discover the race length was off and there is no way to measure that time against yourself. It has been two generations since my PR's, but they still mean something to me as do those 16 minute 5k's that weren't."
Heartbreaking
Re-measuring a course during the event? Did I read this accurately?
That is apparently the case, during the 2nd day of the event.
Whether Brandon was rude, whether he got in some runner's way, whether he should have waited until everybody was done with the race, is all irrelevant to the fact that he measured the course while it was still set up, and it came up short.
"Three years ago, I changed one-turn on the course due to a near collision between a runner and a baby stroller. I compensated for this turn change with precise cone placements on the course, especially the right turns. Due to soil erosion, a dirt section of the course gets rebuilt most years and as such, hand-wheeled measurements are done each year using two devices to ensure distances are correct."
- Ken Rubeli, from the referenced article.
A: Where are these "precise cone placements" shown on the course certification map?
B: How does a "wheeled measurement" seem to be regarded by anyone as accurate? Mark Neal surely put the lie to this idea in his recent post on the topic of measuring wheels.
C: As others have pointed out, the course map references "cones and barricades", but does not display them on the map nor reference their placement locations.
D: The course map records only one reference point for the Start, and only one for the Finish. For a course with this many loop repetitions, this fact alone could have accounted for the distance discrepancy.
E: How did this map elude being corrected prior to its publication? It doesn't even show a city or a location.
F: It seems now that we have yet another incident with a high-profile record at stake in which the failure of the record appears to be the responsibility of the certifying organization as much or more than the race organization. If USATF produces an accurate map of a measurement by an "A" or "B" measurer, and the race organization feels it has followed the map accurately, the course shouldn't be short or long, right?
G: The race organizers apparently took some liberties with course modifications without obtaining a re-certification. This is not the first incident of this happening.
H: I do not understand how anyone would attempt to re-measure any course while the event is in progress, outside of some emergency, as when Bob Thurston performed an "emergency" re-measurement of a mis-laid portion of the Marine Corps Marathon course years ago. This strikes me as unprofessional and it is indefensible, IMHO.
I: For events likely to produce record performances, or in which records are more likely than average to produce records, it seems to me we need to take a long look at establishing a new category of certified courses. I do not know what a good name for this category would be. Maybe "USATF Assured" or "USATF Endorsed For Record Performances". These events would require the following:
- Pre-verification of the cal course and the race course in question
- Corrections, if any are needed, to the certification map.
- Race day monitoring by at least one certifier, preferably an "A" or "B". This individual will assume full responsibility that the mapped course is laid out and is traversed exactly according to the certified path.
- Post-verification, taking into account any race day anomalies, such as the baby stroller accommodation mentioned in the article.
We can thus establish national standards for "Record Endorsed" races, possibly even set minimum rates for this premium designation.
In the D.C area where I tend to do most of my measuring, Bob Thurston and I are hired by the 30,000 - participant Army Ten Miler to ride around the course beginning 2 hours before the start of the first wave and ensure the layout is accurate. Every year of the last 15 this event has been run live, the course layout by the Army is not accurate - as expected - and Bob and I always make numerous changes to the cones and barricades before runners appear. Some of these changes are just for better runner flow, and some are material to the course distance to be covered by participants. We arrange for vehicles parked on the race tangents to be towed away. We have many soldiers and law enforcement personnel who are effectively at our direction in terms of the course layout. We have always ensured the course as run is perfectly accurate.
A few years ago, after the course layout debacle at the 25,000 - runner Cherry Blossom 10 Mile event in D.C. in which two U.S. records failed, the race organization began hiring "A" measurer Bob Thurston to verify its race day layout in the hours before the start. No problems since.
The Delaware Distance Classic 15K in 2018 was another situation where our processes were not up to the challenge of validating an amazing age group record performance. Bob Thurston and I concluded that the athlete in question most likely covered slightly more than the certified distance, but because the certification map lacked detail of the course layout or of the exact path, a significant record was denied - by the same organization that certified the course and that sanctioned the race. This strikes me as an untenable situation that demands we address it and cure it. There are other examples.
The race Operations Director for the Army Ten Miler is a seasoned and highly qualified individual who long ago understood the many challenges to ensuring a record-eligible course holds up to the scrutiny we impose on such performances, and he took action. He seems to be in a small group. Even the Cherry Blossom organization, with its fast course and its cash prizes on the line failed to bridge the gap between our certification and the race day layout. It did have the decency to award the prize money to the two athletes whose records were denied due to the sloppy course layout.
It now seems obvious - to me, anyway - that few if any RDs are aware of the restrictions to modifying a course without obtaining a new certification, or of how their race day course layout may or may not support a validate-able performance. I see no bulletproof method of ensuring potential record-setting events avoid future record-denying fiascos other than establishing and promoting some "Record Endorsed" category in which we thereby effectively guarantee that any valid record performance is recorded and recognized as such.
Opinions may vary among us about how much of a "black eye" USATF may thus avoid by improving our process. But it seems clear that the race organizers of the Jackpot Ultra Running Festival 100-miler, for one example, are not willing to accept blame for Camille Herron not being awarded recognition for her incredible performance in Nevada. And we can see exactly where they are pointing their figurative finger.
@Race Resources LLC posted:"Three years ago, I changed one-turn on the course due to a near collision between a runner and a baby stroller. I compensated for this turn change with precise cone placements on the course, especially the right turns. Due to soil erosion, a dirt section of the course gets rebuilt most years and as such, hand-wheeled measurements are done each year using two devices to ensure distances are correct."
- Ken Rubeli, from the referenced article.
A: Where are these "precise cone placements" shown on the course certification map?
B: How does a "wheeled measurement" seem to be regarded by anyone as accurate? Mark Neal surely put the lie to this idea in his recent post on the topic of measuring wheels.
C: As others have pointed out, the course map references "cones and barricades", but does not display them on the map nor reference their placement locations.
D: The course map records only one reference point for the Start, and only one for the Finish. For a course with this many loop repetitions, this fact alone could have accounted for the distance discrepancy.
E: How did this map elude being corrected prior to its publication? It doesn't even show a city or a location.
F: It seems now that we have yet another incident with a high-profile record at stake in which the failure of the record appears to be the responsibility of the certifying organization as much or more than the race organization. If USATF produces an accurate map of a measurement by an "A" or "B" measurer, and the race organization feels it has followed the map accurately, the course shouldn't be short or long, right?
G: The race organizers apparently took some liberties with course modifications without obtaining a re-certification. This is not the first incident of this happening.
H: I do not understand how anyone would attempt to re-measure any course while the event is in progress, outside of some emergency, as when Bob Thurston performed an "emergency" re-measurement of a mis-laid portion of the Marine Corps Marathon course years ago. This strikes me as unprofessional and it is indefensible, IMHO.
I: For events likely to produce record performances, or in which records are more likely than average to produce records, it seems to me we need to take a long look at establishing a new category of certified courses. I do not know what a good name for this category would be. Maybe "USATF Assured" or "USATF Endorsed For Record Performances". These events would require the following:
- Pre-verification of the cal course and the race course in question
- Corrections, if any are needed, to the certification map.
- Race day monitoring by at least one certifier, preferably an "A" or "B". This individual will assume full responsibility that the mapped course is laid out and is traversed exactly according to the certified path.
- Post-verification, taking into account any race day anomalies, such as the baby stroller accommodation mentioned in the article.
We can thus establish national standards for "Record Endorsed" races, possibly even set minimum rates for this premium designation.
In the D.C area where I tend to do most of my measuring, Bob Thurston and I are hired by the 30,000 - participant Army Ten Miler to ride around the course beginning 2 hours before the start of the first wave and ensure the layout is accurate. Every year of the last 15 this event has been run live, the course layout by the Army is not accurate - as expected - and Bob and I always make numerous changes to the cones and barricades before runners appear. Some of these changes are just for better runner flow, and some are material to the course distance to be covered by participants. We arrange for vehicles parked on the race tangents to be towed away. We have many soldiers and law enforcement personnel who are effectively at our direction in terms of the course layout. We have always ensured the course as run is perfectly accurate.
A few years ago, after the course layout debacle at the 25,000 - runner Cherry Blossom 10 Mile event in D.C. in which two U.S. records failed, the race organization began hiring "A" measurer Bob Thurston to verify its race day layout in the hours before the start. No problems since.
The Delaware Distance Classic 15K in 2018 was another situation where our processes were not up to the challenge of validating an amazing age group record performance. Bob Thurston and I concluded that the athlete in question most likely covered slightly more than the certified distance, but because the certification map lacked detail of the course layout or of the exact path, a significant record was denied - by the same organization that certified the course and that sanctioned the race. This strikes me as an untenable situation that demands we address it and cure it. There are other examples.
The race Operations Director for the Army Ten Miler is a seasoned and highly qualified individual who long ago understood the many challenges to ensuring a record-eligible course holds up to the scrutiny we impose on such performances, and he took action. He seems to be in a small group. Even the Cherry Blossom organization, with its fast course and its cash prizes on the line failed to bridge the gap between our certification and the race day layout. It did have the decency to award the prize money to the two athletes whose records were denied due to the sloppy course layout.
It now seems obvious - to me, anyway - that few if any RDs are aware of the restrictions to modifying a course without obtaining a new certification, or of how their race day course layout may or may not support a validate-able performance. I see no bulletproof method of ensuring potential record-setting events avoid future record-denying fiascos other than establishing and promoting some "Record Endorsed" category in which we thereby effectively guarantee that any valid record performance is recorded and recognized as such.
Opinions may vary among us about how much of a "black eye" USATF may thus avoid by improving our process. But it seems clear that the race organizers of the Jackpot Ultra Running Festival 100-miler, for one example, are not willing to accept blame for Camille Herron not being awarded recognition for her incredible performance in Nevada. And we can see exactly where they are pointing their figurative finger.
Very well said.
We may or may not have all of the relevant facts to trace the provenance of all of the failures with the Jackpot Ultra 100 Miler, Rob. But I feel we already have more than enough evidence of recurring gaps between USATF course certification and course management for record-eligible courses to justify questioning our procedures and to set about devising some fool-proof process that will validate legitimate record performances.
I do not believe anyone here feels we should award any participation trophies to anyone who might have run a record on a short course if there had not been some screwup. But, imagine you are Camille Herron, a 40-year old woman who selects a USATF Championship race specifically because it seems to have everything in place to support her effort to break her own record. She runs for 12 hours and 41 minutes for a whisker shy of 100 miles, thinking she is cracking one of the most difficult world records to beat, only to be told USATF won't recognize her feat. Does anyone think this masters runner will just try again? She is already in an age category in which distance running performances historically stop improving for all participants in this age group.
At the very least, shouldn't we in RRTC find a way to do better?
USATF Competition Rules are specific on rules governing how road race records can be set. Too often Championships are selected by simply submitting a bid application. Nitty gritty details of conducting a record eligible quality event are overlooked, rules aren’t followed. I would like to propose adding an active RRTC position to encourage, oversee, and coordinate with USATF Road Race & Race Walk Championships to advise and ensure road courses are certified and pre-verified and event officials (Clerk of Course, Course Umpires, and Course Recorders) are qualified and in place on race day.