Course name

Yes, the certification is valid until the expiration date shown on the map.

I always suggest that the new race that wants to use the course ask for permission from the race director of the original race who paid to have it measured. And maybe even offer to pay part of the cost of the original measurement.

What Mark said!

Thanks. This particular race director had a falling out with the brewery that the race started and finished at so he pulled his race out, the brewery has now started their own race and advertised that it's a USATF certified course using the former race's certification. When I can, I have been certifying the course using the location name vs. the race name so that it's generic to the course.

What the new race, in this case the brewery, cannot do is change the certification map in any way to use it for advertising (such as change the name of the course at the top of the map).

Fine, Mark. But what would stop the brewery from just doing this anyway?

If they simply use the course and claim it is USATF certified, they are not breaking any rules. They can even display the original map on their website, and they are still not breaking any rules.

But if they change the map, and keep the USATF logo on it, they are violating USATF rules and infringing on USATF copyright. Of course it's unlikely they will get sued, but I will let them know they are violating USATF policy. I've done this in a couple cases and the race removed their modified map from their website.

Interesting. I am not completely grasping the purpose of a prohibition on a race using an existing currently certified course while placing its own name on the map.

If Sam's Restaurant, say, holds a spring 10K on a course certified for Dave's Restaurant's fall 10K, Dave's Restaurant can't really do anything to stop Sam's - right? If Sam's wants to work within our rules, would we then say that Sam's must obtain its own certification for the exact same course? Are there extant instances of this in our database?

By offering our certified course maps, even of expired courses, to the general public, it seems to me we are in fact giving up control of how they are used. If one of the race directors who is asked to remove the new race name from the certification map simply ignores this request by USATF, we can't practically do anything about it - right?  Does USATF Legal have some blanket copyright restriction in force for all certified courses? Even if we were to add language to each certification map such as "Copyright 2023, USATF.org", what would this accomplish?

Not asking because I want to be the devil's advocate here. I just have questions about the purpose and the efficacy of this policy. In Washington, D.C., after 9-11-2001, the streets that can be made available for races in the downtown and the federal complex were severely restricted by the authorities. Most of the certified courses in this entire area went away, except for some that are completely within National Park Service properties. Even the Army Ten Miler and the Marine Corps Marathon were forced to change their courses to comply with the new rules. Only a single 5K was allowed in the Pennsylvania Avenue corridor - in the space between Freedom Plaza near the White House and our U.S. Capitol.

Since this restriction was enacted, several medium-to-large footraces stage their annual event on this one remaining course. A few that I know of:  Cherry Blossom 5K, Purple Stride 5K, Race For Hope 5K, Race For Every Child 5K. All of these events take Bob Thurston's certification map and create their own version of it with their event name and the certification number on it. If Bob has any problem with this - actually I am almost certain he doesn't - I doubt he is likely to ask any RD to change their customized course map.

If the USATF policy can thus be ignored, I am still wondering what we want to accomplish with a restriction on "re-mapping" or "re-branding" our certified courses. I hope no one in USATF is contemplating some kind of enforcement of this rule. I think that could be quite unpopular. A more useful endeavor in my way of thinking is for us to establish national minimum fees for course certification that take into account the labor and skill to establish and renew cal courses, to measure, and to create good quality course maps. Then, we can ask RDs who want to re-brand a certification map to pay the original client part of the cost of the certification. And they can still ignore our requests. I for one am OK with this.

Sam's can do almost anything it wants to without anybody's permission. It can use the certified course for its race. It can claim it uses a USATF certified course. It can put the certification map on its website.

The one thing Sam's cannot do is display the USATF logo on a certification map that it has modified. If it wants a USATF certificate with its race name at the top, and it has the original race's permission, it can be obtained for a nominal fee.

https://www.usatf.org/resource...f-a-certified-course

All fine, Mark. But, who is going to stop them?

Should Bob Thurston tell Phil Stewart (Cherry Blossom RD) he has to pay for a new certification for a currently certified course if he wants to use the USATF logo and a certification logo on the map?

So I am confused. Are you saying that a race can take a map and change the name or not? I have a race OH15031MW (Rich Dalessandro Memorial Fall Turkey Trot 5K(#3)). After 15 years the family running the race is quitting and another RD wants to say it is a continuation of the race. The original race director doesn't want her brothers name associated with this race. So are you saying the new RD can change the name on the map and put their own name on the map? I am totally against changing anything on the map. Let's say the new race takes over and wants to change the finish by 50' and then change the start 50' to make up the difference. So they change the certified map to show that would this then be allowed?

According to the policy it looks like the other race can change the name by sending $10 to the Regional Certifier with the original certificate. Then the new certificate would be submitted to the Vice Chair with the normal fee (what is the normal fee?) and they would get a new course. Or just have it remeasured as the 3rd option.

Thanks for any help in what I should propose to the original RD.

Jim's example is a good one. Lyman is it ok for the race director to move the start description on the certification map 50' east and then also move the finish description 50' east to make up for it? And then display the modified cert map with cert # and USATF logo on his race website?

If you say No, then tell me, who's going to stop him from doing that? If no one's going to stop him, should USATF/RRTC just say it's okay for RDs to move the start on certification maps as long as they also move the finish to make up for it?

Good questions, Jay, Mark. It seems to me the core issue here may be characterized as the difference between what we officially sanction and what RDs do in practice. Of "course" we shouldn't condone moving the course and using the cert # and logo. As to your question about who can stop the RD from doing this, Mark, your guess is as good as mine. If we have no enforcement authority other than denying a record performance on any course thus modified, I would say we have little if any leverage over what most RDs do with their course maps and names.

In Jay's example, he could re-do the map with a new name, pay the $10.00 fee, pay $3.00 to Jane and $2.00 to his Regional Vice Chair, and have a new cert # with a 2025 expiration. He can then charge the Turkey Trot whatever for this work. If the client says "No, I don't see the need", who can stop him?

Mark, do you have some ideas about how we can prevent races from using existing certified course maps with a different event name? As long as I have been measuring, over 35 years now, I have seen numerous instances of "co-opting" certified courses for events other than for the original. I for one have no interest in telling anyone that, say, the popular 5K course in Fairfax Corner, VA, home to several annual events, is the intellectual property of only one event organizer, and anyone wanting to re-brand the certification map for their own event must step through a procedure to get their own certification number. If the course is one that can feasibly be expected to produce a record performance, this becomes a different kettle of fish. In this particular instance, the property management company paid for the certification, and they encourage the various events to re-brand the certification map to suit their preferences.

Recently, I have been retained by Loudoun County Parks in Virginia to measure and certify 5Ks in their parks, for which the parks intend to host several annual races, including some conducted by "outside" entities. To my knowledge, Loudoun Parks imposes no restrictions on re-branding their course maps.

This thought brings me to another instance in the region in which I measure where this "unique certification #" policy doesn't seem to work well. In Washington, D.C., only a handful of running events are permitted on city streets. All but the largest events are then forced to apply for permits in the National Park Service properties. There are only a few 5K and 10K courses that are allowed by the authorities for the dozens of annual events here. For decades, events have readily used Bob Thurston's and my certified courses while branding the course with their own race name. I know of no imperative any of these event organizers have experienced to apply for their own certification.

USATF can deny records and/or sanctions for events that flaunt our policy. That would be effective for, say, a race like the Cherry Blossom 10 Mile, which regularly produces record performances. The nearby Purple Stride 5K, with 200 runners and 1500 walkers? Not so much.

With theory and practice being historically this far apart, I question what we really want to accomplish here. Personally, I am in favor of requiring a totally separate measurement/certification for each event. But I see no way to enforce this. I also know of events that had their course certified over 10 years ago that perceive no need to re-certify it. They decline to pay for a re-certification and they just keep using the same old map. No one complains.

I don't have any bright ideas on how to control our policy. Other than denying validation of record performances, which affects a tiny percentage of events on certified courses, what kinds of leverage might we pose for consideration?

My point in citing Jim's example is that just because it's difficult to enforce a rule is not a reason to change the rule and condone the activity. It should be, and is, against USATF/RRTC policy to change a certified course map in any way: a name change, a change to the start/finish description, a change to the path of the course. Just because it is difficult to stop people from doing it, is not a reason to eliminate the policy.

Regarding RDs changing the name of a course on a certification map, if the original RD who paid to have the course measured and certified doesn't care, or even encourages as in Jim's case, other RDs changing the name at the top of the map, then it certainly does seem to fall into the category of victimless crime. But if the original RD does not want others "stealing" their certification, it's not a victimless crime, and I definitely don't think USATF/RRTC should condone the practice.

Regarding how to stop it, the few times that it has come up in Michigan I sent an email to the RD telling them they are breaking USATF/RRTC policy and asking them to take it off their website. If they ignore me they ignore me, but so far the races have removed it.

I get this, Mark. Not an enviable task doing this. Thank you.

I understand the reasons for your position. I still regard this as appearing to be tantamount to a solution looking for a problem. My humble opinion is that we are in effect promulgating dead letter law, with which there is bound to be selective enforcement, which potentially creates its own problems, as we see.

We could require certification clients to sign an agreement in which they are prohibited from sharing their course with another event. While this could reduce the number of infractions, we would still have no way of preventing anyone from downloading a certified course or taking a screenshot of the certification map, then modifying it for their own purposes - as happens today. How would we even know who is doing this?

Would it be more useful for us to satisfy ourselves with the knowledge that events that use certifications purchased by another entity are at least using a certified course as opposed to courses that are created with one of the many inaccurate online apps? Isn't this more in accordance with our basic goals?

Apart from you taking your valuable personal time to send "cease and desist" emails to RDs when a violation happens to come to your attention, Mark, a toothless rule seems to me to serve little purpose. "Legislating" ethical behavior in this sense doesn't strike me as a worthwhile endeavor. What are we publicly offering our products for if not to encourage the use of properly measured and recorded courses? Since we have no way at present to stop USATF.org visitors from "poaching" courses for their own uses, why not take a look at handling this availability differently?

Here's one thought:

1. Make available publicly only a list of certified courses.
2. The searchable list will be the same as today's except:
   1. it will allow users to see maps and certificates only after they pay a modest fee to USATF for each session. Otherwise, only the flat list.
   2. These documents will be protected with "Anti-Scraping" technology so that users will not be able to take a screenshot of the map. Users will thus be only able to see whether there is a certified course of the desired distance in the applicable location. A visitor to our site could take a photo of the screen, but we would auto-generate digital watermarks for all displayed maps which would make such photos less than useful.
   3. Users could then apply for their own version of the course by paying a more substantial fee -say, $350.00 - to have a measurer of their choice access the map and certificate and create a new certification map and certificate with the new number and the old expiration date.
3. While this approach wouldn't prevent someone from poaching a certification map from a race website and then modifying it for their own purposes, or creating an entirely new map with the existing certification number, it would at least eliminate the common practice of "re-purposing" our certifications from USATF.org by events that paid no one anything to use them.

Lyman I feel like your posts are all over the place.

In one post you seem to say that anybody should be able to change the course name at the top of a certification map, and in fact we should encourage them to do so.

In another post you propose a hugely complex system designed to prevent them from doing exactly that.

What is it specifically that you want?

Hmm. I respect your question, Mark. My comments are intended as questions, too. I am not grasping how I come across as "encouraging" anyone to change the course name at the top of a certification map. Maybe you can help me understand this. Then, maybe I can write more lucidly in future posts.

What I am questioning here is the purpose and the practicality of having an unenforceable rule. I am looking for a rational approach that incorporates the tendency of human nature to seek the path of least resistance - in this instance, of RDs simply finding the certified course map they want and then modifying it for their own use - which, as we know well, is done frequently despite any USATF prohibitions against it. My thought process here is comparable to that of music download management in response to the previously common practice of users circumventing legal restrictions on distribution. Most owners are now mostly in control of that intellectual property.

We are thinking this through as we go, hopefully. To me, it doesn't seem like anyone has all the answers to the issue here.

The system I proposed really isn't "hugely complex", IMO. Especially since USATF, RRTC, and measurers gain a new revenue source that pays for itself.

• Anti-scraping and digital watermarking are mature technologies.
• USATF already has an online store in place, which can handle payment acceptance.
• The problem with "certification poaching" mostly disappears. No one needs to send any "finger-shaking" emails to RDs.

If we are happy or mostly complacent with frequent violations of our rules, which it seems some of us are not, we can just do nothing, and individual certifications will continue to be used for multiple events without approbation.

I am proposing a solution here. Some people will not like it because they feel it is unnecessary, because they did not come up with an idea to fix the problem, or because they may want course certification and our products to forever remain in the non-professional realm. I am simply voicing an opinion that we should think about doing one of two things in the interest of evolving into a more professional and more respected institution:

1. Come up with an online system to enforce our rule and provide acceptable revenue to USATF and the professionals who perform the labor required to issue a new map and new certificate.
2. Stop wasting time pursuing an ineffective and unprofitable policy.

"What I am questioning here is the purpose and the practicality of having an unenforceable rule."

Then there's no reason to have a rule/policy against changing the start or finish description on a certification map either.

Or for that matter, no reason to have a rule/policy against saying your race uses a USATF certified course when it doesn't.

I do not understand your position, Mark. But I respect your opinion.

I'll try to make it clearer for you.

This is what you said.

"What I am questioning here is the purpose and the practicality of having an unenforceable rule."

Based on that logic...

There's no reason to have a rule/policy against a race changing the start or finish description on a certification map and displaying that changed certification map on their race website, because there is no way to enforce that rule either.

There's no reason to have a rule/policy against saying your race uses a USATF certified course when it doesn't, because there is no way to enforce that rule either.