This is going to be a convoluted story. Let me see what you think.
Seventh year of a marathon/half-marathon event.
Course version 1.0 measured and certified in 2005.
Course version 2.0 (two-loops of a certified HM course) measured and certified in 2009.
This year the race organization bowed to pressure from participants who hated doing two loops and drafted a "lollypop" with the HM loop as the "candy."
This measurer was contacted a month ago to help ride/measure/do paperwork...until RD was told it was going to cost him (50% of typical cost for a course on major roadways). The RD stated he "did not budget for that expense." (surprising? perhaps...but it's not this RD's first rodeo and not this measurer's first business encounter with the RD) The RD asked if this measurer would prepare the paperwork and map...a price was agreed upon. The RD was asked if he had a second JO/JR counter...surprised he needed a second one. He was told he'd need to order or borrow one for the second rider.
The RD does not know the location of the up-to-date calibration course, which was submitted by this measurer to replace the expired course.
So, my first guess - so far - is the RD might have ordered a JR counter and used the expired calibration course for his work. But since I haven't seen any data for paperwork I doubt that.
But when looking at the race website - 6.5 weeks out from the race date - the RD has the new map up and the course billed as a "Boston Qualifier." I'm not certain whether the RD is going to get the rides done in time...and I'm not going to lose sleep over it, since I'm only getting "a few" dollars out of it for doing his paperwork.
BUT: Is it unfair to the paying public who are planning to use this course as a potential BQ race? Does USATF, RRTC, BAA or "anyone" have a regulatory role in this sort of manner?
I've had friends ask me about the new course, and all I've been willing to say is that I'm not involved in the measurement.
Original Post