Course name

Mark, I think you may be confusing the issue here with your logical thinking!

I don't agree with this "logic", but I do believe we can always strive to improve. Especially when we can harness technology to enhance our productivity and our efficiency. I am guessing you do, too, in different ways. I view this as a good thing. By discussing alternate views about what makes sense in our presumptive quest to improve, we can leverage more good thoughts and minds in pursuit of solutions. I doubt anyone thinks we should abide races that claim their courses are certified when they aren't - even though we have done something tantamount to that in a couple of instances where we have accepted faulty certifications. Yet, we realize that, at present, there is little we can do to prevent such abuse unless the event happens to be USATF sanctioned.

Upon reflection, I feel that my ideas are sound. I am eager to hear what others may think. And, BTW, thanks for all you do for us, Mark.

There are many interesting thoughts, comments, and suggestions posted here.

Like Neal, for years I have recommended to any race wanting to use an existing certified course to seek permission from the race that had the course originally certified.  With permission, we can then issue a certificate and map with the second race’s name.  Simple enough when people are cooperating.

Many races are promoting and raising funds for their charitable causes.  These races are generally operating as non-for-profits.  For them, affordable course certification must be justified within a race budget with limited funding.  Using an already certified course is an easy decision to make. The expense of hiring a measurer to measure, mark, and have certified a new course is avoided.

We cannot discuss these issues without noting USATF is also a non-for-profit organization, which RRTC is a very small part of.  Like charitable races, USATF squeezes and justifies budget dollars.  Charitable races and USATF both rely on a volunteer workforce.  USATF has not really changed that much since the overshadowing days of the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU).   The word “amateur” looms large, reminding us of their mandate. Charitable races and USATF must maintain a volunteer culture to exist.

Of course, policing property ownership rights with certified courses and getting paid commensurate with the technical skills and safety risks are against the tenets of volunteer culture.  We are fighting an uphill battle to get paid for these professional services rendered.

The volunteer philosophy is also strongly built into our course certification program, which allows anyone to measure a course for certification.  Those of us who have been State Certifiers, reviewing certification applications and course maps, can speak to the learning curve of newbies.   The cost to have a course certification application reviewed has not changed in 40 years.  The necessary programing cost to maintain the new online course certification system should clearly be a practical reason to increase the course certification fee.  

Maybe with World Athletics’ influence, the RRTC can start to move away from the volunteer model.  Training and ranking measurers is essential for World Athletics and could easily be adopted by RRTC.  With more properly trained measurers, our culture could finally change.   

Kevin, so many of us have a history of volunteering for running events for so many years that it seems to me there is an expectation among some charities that there is a willing cadre of folks who can be expected to offer their services to running events free of charge. In the past few weeks, I have had to tactfully explain to two prospective clients that I must charge something for the professional services they require when they asked me to do something, without mentioning paying for my work. A timer for a large Thanksgiving race recently asked me to create "pretty" versions of two certification maps. They did not bother to ask me what my fee would be. When I responded with a bargain-basement number to produce maps that would take hours to produce, they replied "Never mind".

I admire and respect the volunteer ethic in our sport and the work of members of our group who have helped build the sport of running over many years to the robust level we enjoy today. Sometimes, it seems to me that we may have created an expectation that we are employees of USATF or some other organization that somehow supports us in our work, or that we are all generous hobbyists who look to volunteer our services. No disrespect to those of you who willingly fit this category!

When, over many years, I have discussed becoming a measurer with prospective candidates, and they then get a feel for what we do, most of them have said something akin to "Wow, that's a lot of work. Too much for what you get paid." I have heard other active measurers say the same thing about encouraging new measurers.

As I think about this challenge of bringing in new measurers, the things that can go wrong in the certification process that can result in denials of record performances, and of the median age of measurers nationwide, I am left to wonder how to address these issues. I agree with Kevin that the time has come to at least examine our volunteer model.

As Kevin points out, the fees paid to certifiers, regional certifiers, Vice Chairs, and the Registrar are now lamentably out-of-date. I would extend this view to the fees that we as measurers are paid. If we consider how our fees work out on an hourly basis, it often makes little sense in comparison with any other professional fee-for-service, it seems to me. I think we sometimes fail to give ourselves full credit for the value of our work.

I was reminded of this while measuring a marathon a few years ago. The RD, president of a large running club and long-time runner, wanted to ride with me for several miles to see how the measuring process works. I explained the SPR concept to him in detail as we began. As we rode, I repeatedly pointed ahead to the path I needed to ride. Nevertheless, I was forced to stop numerous times to ask him to move off of the tangent I was heading into. What we all take for granted seemed to be inscrutable to him. Another competitive runner, back in the day when I occasionally ran times that were competitive for women, told me she always followed my path in races when I was in the field because she knew I always ran the SPR - which path wasn't apparent to her.

I could go on. I expect that most of us can relate similar experiences. I agree with Kevin that we should take a hard look at the pros and cons of making some changes in how we operate. If it is not too late to add this as a discussion item for the 2023 annual RRTC meeting, I would appreciate this topic being included in the agenda. If it is too late for this, I for one would like to see a robust dialogue about it on this forum. This is about fair compensation for all of us, especially those of us who cannot afford to donate more than a modicum of our time to our work. It is about securing the future of the measuring/certification profession when it seems there is little if any prospect of a new technology supplanting our measuring methods in the near future. I hope everyone who has any thoughts about this topic will chime in here.

Stay safe out there.