Is Pre-Validation a Good Thing?

Pete Riegel's initial response to Jim Gerweck's question in the "A Validation Question" discussion thread said that if during pre-validation the [5000 m] course was found to be "less than 5005, then it should be adjusted to 5005". This begs the question, is formal pre-validation a good thing from the race director's standpoint? As an alternative, the RD could recruit an expert measurer to do an "unofficial check" of the original measurement. As long as this "unofficial check" was more than 99.95% and less than 100.1% of the required distance, then why adjust upto 100.1%? Under this circumstance, is the RD not better off from a record-setting standpoint to wait for validation if a record is set before any course adjustment is made, so that potentially record-breaking runners run the shortest possible "acceptable" race distance, where "acceptable" means that it will pass validation?

6/27/0610:47 AM

❤️ 0

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

kevinplucasMember

I can remember a few after the fact validation measurements that shot down the initial course measurement performed by an experienced measurer.

Much like the measurement certificate is the important document of record for course certification, listing a course as "A" for active. A passing validation is yet an important and higher documentation, listing a course as "AV" for active and validated. Once the validation is completed and the course passed, for the life of the course, it will never be subject to validation again. All records run on a pre-validated course automatically flow through to ratification, given that the course was set up and run as certified.

Pre-validation benefits seem evident. Why wait until after the fact? What major event director wants to handle the media night mare for a record being negated because the course validated short?

6/27/0611:28 AM

❤️ 0

peteriegelRCMBB Founder

Before we beat the drum for lots of prevals, we should look in the stables and see how many horses we have to do the work.

Almost all the time a preval is a waste of time, especially if the course was measured by an experienced person.

6/27/0612:03 PM

❤️ 0

kevinplucasMember

Pre-validation measurements should always be coordinated through the validations chairman who would appoint or agree to a particular measurer. In most cases, pre-validation measurement is done at the pleasure of the event director. The event would normally pay for these services like paying the original course measurer.

Post-validation is paid for by the USATF with limited funding - having to prioritize and balance course validations with the importance of each record performance.

What time is wasted by pre-validating a course?

6/27/062:02 PM

❤️ 0

peteriegelRCMBB Founder

Kevin said:

"I can remember a few after the fact validation measurements that shot down the initial course measurement performed by an experienced measurer."

I can think of only one.

The reason a preval is mostly wasted is that record times are quite rare. Still, a few high-profile races wish to avoid risk. I can't argue with their desire, but if they use an experienced person to begin with the risk is small. The system works.

6/27/062:31 PM

❤️ 0

jimgerweckMember

One of the reasons race directors like to have a course pre-validated is so they can announce any potential record to the media immediately upon the conclusion of the race. Imagine if, when Barry Bonds broke Babe Ruth's home run mark, Major League Baseball announced, "this is pending measurement of his bat, etc." (I won't even get into the BALCO/drug issue, but you get my drift.) Records, whether course, national, or world are a big attention grabber to the average sports fan, thus race directors like to trumpet them.

6/27/066:52 PM

❤️ 0