Educate Race Directors

Duane: This has been an issue for as long as we've been measuring. Race directors have not been hit in the pocketbook by runners not running un-certified races. There is no penalty for failure to certify. Aside from the possible pride in directing a technically complete race, there's not much tangible benefit to a certified course, not counting mega races and USATF Championship races. Certifying an existing course won't increase participation. Our best customer who directs 25-30 races each year, insists that the courses be certified, but feels that putting the cert. number on the race application takes up valuable space and most runners don't care. The result is that the cert. number doesn't appear. Somehow, we need to convince runners that courses should be certified. Until runners demand certification, it won't be a "must have" for race directors.

Maybe it is a regional thing. Maybe awareness is even more localized.

I get about 25% of my business from existing races that have spoken with friends managing or working with certified races. Each has said that they have increased the number of runners when they put the USATF cert info in their advertising. They have pre-cert registration numbers, and post-cert. Non-certified races all seem to be flat when comparing registrations over the years. They have their core of supporters, and that is it.

The two running groups I used to run with both had discussions regarding certification. The consensus was, if it is not certified, they won't run it. I've also done non-scientific polling at races I have worked, and many runners say they look for the cert info before signing-up.

While race directors in your area may feel they aren't hit in the pocketbook, the directors here feel it makes a difference. They cite 25 or more additional runners per year as a direct result of certification. Maybe that is because the Denver-area runners are more aware of certification.

All I can go on is what the race directors out west tell me (not limited to just the Denver area). But you have a point - maybe we need to educate the runners, and the race directors will follow.

I've been finding a new surgence among races that have not been certified, or new races just coming on the scene wanting to be certified. RDs are getting the message from their runners if they are willing to listen. My name is being passed like a hot potato from timers and RDs to have their courses measured and certified. Only a year ago, I couldn't charge any of these same people to measure and certify their courses. Something is definitely changing. The word is getting out that the runners want to compare their performance every week at the races. If we all keep at it, it will be the rare race that is not measured and certified.

Also, it behooves us as the measurer to do it well. I have just measured a marathon that has been measured twice before in as many years. The old maps were light on detail and I would not have been able to follow the course if I was a new race director taking over the course. I have now produced detail maps (representing only a few miles at a time due to the amount of coning on the course) for the client and the certification map has much more detail. The client has stated that they will hire me again. They just want to know that they are getting what they pay for.

Lastly, many of the race directors are doing these races to raise funds for some organization. They don't usually put races on, and some don't even participate in running themselves. When I meet with them, they are generally uneducated as to what a course involves. I will ask questions and they will reply that they had not thought about those answers. They walk away from the experience with a better knowledge of their own course and the planning that goes into one. They feel confident that they will be able to set the course correctly. Many are better prepared the next time I measure for them.