Skip to main content

We are approaching the time when all course will have a life of 10 years. There was some discussion at the convention that there should be some exceptions for this. The reason given was that the roads have not changed and if the original measurer can verify this then all that should be done is apply for an additonal 10 years.

IAAF/AIMS now has a 5 year limit on their courses and I find this to be too extreme. I don't see a problem with remeasuring a course after 10 years. I feel if exceptions are made then problems could occur.

What are your thoughts?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I believe some exceptions could be made to the ten year expiration. Calibration courses, in particular, come to mind. Using personal experience as an example, I have my pet calibration course on the road in front of my house. It is in continual use by me and others. Although it would not be a big deal to remeasure it, I can’t see why it would be necessary.

I have also measured calibration courses away from home, and know little about how they have fared. I would not be comfortable renewing them without a personal examination of the course, which I am unlikely to do.

Race courses do change, and so do race directors. I can almost – but not quite - see allowing a renewal of a race course if it is the original measurer who applies for the renewal, and if the original landmarks defining the start, finish and turnaround still exist. Sometimes a pole may be moved, and a paintmark remains. A new landmark would be needed on the map here. This can lead to error.

So, my position on this is to allow renewal of calibration courses if it is the original measurer who applies for it, and who uses it. I would suggest that it be given a new certificate and number.

I don’t presently support the idea of renewing race courses as we have done. Too many things can change. Also, there is a tendency to be a good guy and give the applicant a break. Renewal of a race course might best be done on an individual basis, with no cookie-cutter form to fill out. The certifier would have to deal directly with the original measurer, and be convinced that the course is indeed OK, and that the course map still reflects the course as it exists. Then issue a new certificate.

The past method almost begs the applicant to give the “right” answers to the questions on the application form. I have received the application form all filled out and signed, but with no course map. When I asked the applicant why he didn’t send the map he replied “I don’t have one.” So how did he check the course? I’ve also received maps from the race brochure instead of the original certification map. The present renewal system is too easy and sloppy. Any renewals we allow in future need to be backed up by more credible information.
I could almost see a procedure where something like a validation measurement is performed and if the measurement is OK, the certification is extended.

Of course, I'm not sure who is authorized to perform the measurement (original measurer? certifier? certifier or certifier's designate?) and, especially in the case of a 5K, it takes only another 20 minutes to measure the course the second time necessary for certification. You fill out the forms; you already have the map. Should be easy.

I'm not sure I totally agree with the 10 year expiration, as even in Chicago and the suburbs courses can survive at least that long. Calibration courses certainly can. But I've also experienced race directors trying to renew certifications of courses where I've had to send them the certificate.

I'd like to think we could design a loophole, but that's exactly what it would be. I fear we're going to get a lot of "it was certified, and it hasn't changed, but the certification has expired, and we didn't want to pay to get it certified again", especially in smaller races. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
Pete has a very valid point, one which should preclude the race director from getting a renewal on their own - if a landmark has been removed (or an additional, confusing landmark has been added). I believe a measurer MUST take a certification map out to the course to verify NOTHING has changed, and that all landmarks exist.

Local case-in-point: We have many courses in City Park. The city installed storm drains across one end of the park, and tore up the road, then paved a new road. Should be in the same spot. BUT, all courses must be re-certifed. An unscrupulous race director could request a renewal, and without a measurer who is aware of the repaving project checking, a course may be renewed "illegally".

I would fully support a reduced fee for renewal, but a fee should still be charged, as a measurer should go out and verify all landmarks are in place, and re-mark the pertinent locations.

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.