Old Subject-New Cert Number

The policy supports what the race director wants to do. If he wants a map with his course name on it, it must be re-measured and treated as a new course. It gets its own cert number. That the courses are identical is irrelevant.

This supports my desire to stop using names on courses, and just use certificate numbers. Yes, the RD that paid to have the course originally certified may feel a bit slighted, but we are certifying COURSES, not races. Why we don't encourage races to simply state "using USATF-certified course # OH11023PR" is puzzling.

Times are changing. More races are being run, and more courses are being certified. Back in the beginning, when there were few races, it made some sense to name a course after a race. Now, however, with so many races, it is common for multiple events to use the same course. While I like the business, I don't see a compelling reason to continue to further the impression that we are certifying a race, instead of a course.

With so many courses being certified, and more every year, we need to evaluate why we do what we do, and see if we need to modify the process. It is no longer a periodic occurrence to have a certification request. I am sure Gene spends much more time as Registrar than was spent on that position 10 years ago. Should we be doing things the same way forever? Just a thought.

I guess I don't see the need for this kind of a change. I assume removing race names is not a simple matter of leaving a column off the online listing. In almost 25-years of measuring, we've had only one request to obtain certification of an already certified course and one request for a race to use a course certified for a different race. We, the measuring community understand the difference between course certification and race certification, but the race directors and general public don't. There are many more of them that would need to be educated and have their behavior changed. This seems like a formidable job

In this case I will talk to both race directors and if there are no objections, I will give the new race a copy of the existing certified course map with a new race name on the header (easy to do since I have the map electronically). If the old race director objects or the new race director really wants a re-measurement, re-certification and new map, what's the harm in providing that?

If the course is remeasured, and a new map and certificate issued, it will not be identical to the existing course. Barring a miracle, the measurements will not be exactly the same. Close, yes. Identical, no.

The exercise is a waste of time. It's about race publicity, not course accuracy. But, the customer is always right.

I had this come up earlier this summer. Two organizations wanted to have the same course measured for races about six months apart on the annual calendar. I tried to explain to them that one certificate would be OK for both events, but they wanted certificates for both events. So I measured the course, drew two copies of the same map, prepared two certificates- one with the name of each event- and charged them an extra certifier's fee.

I had the same question come up a couple of years ago on a different course but the two organizations agreed to give the course a generic name and only one certificate was issued.

The posting of the certificates to the USATF website turns the course map on the back of the certificate into a bit of a marketing instrument and I can understand why race directors want a course map with the name of their event posted on the website as opposed to one with only a nine character course certification code.

Given that I've certified around 400 courses over the past three years and this has come up twice, unless other certifiers' experinces are different than mine I don't think we have a major issue here. I'd almost rather issue redundant certificates than field the "can we use somebody else's certified course?" calls.