Policy of the RRTC concerning Validations

This has been a recent hot topic with many emails going around.

My personal position is that we should continue doing validations and prevalidations with no change. What we do works, and causes no significant problems for anyone.

When one does a Pre Validation and finds the course longer than the advertised distance plus the SCPF, why not take that distance off.
For example, a 10k is 10000 meters plus 10 meters and if the Pre Validations comes out to be 10012 meters then maybe 2 meters should come off. I really don't feel this way, but I put this out there for comments.

RRTC has been doing a good job, but changes are not always a bad thing. I need comments to our couurent policy.

Thanks,

Gene Newman

Gene:
Something similar to your example happened recently in real life in which a validator without my knowledge shortened the course just before the race.
However, a guiding principle in RRTC is that one goes with the ride that produces the longest course. If a validator found 10,012 m then one of the original certifier's rides would be the one producing the longest course.

Neville hits it on the head.

quote:

A guiding principle in RRTC is that one goes with the ride that produces the longest course. If a validator found 10,012 m then one of the original certifier's rides would be the one producing the longest course.

If a validator found 10,012 then it is possible that a validator did not ride his bike as well as the original. Maybe he did not take the turns as close to the curb, maybe he wiggles too much. The original rides were quite probably better, as shown by the math.

Neville's post brings up another idea. If the 10 should validate out 10,005 meters it is because the validator had a better measurement than did the original measurer. The 10,005 should be considered as the best measurement, and the course lengthened by 5 meters. Only this policy - the present one - assures that the course is accurate beyond question.

Also, this policy is in accordance with practice used by AIMS and IAAF.

If a validator on a 10-km course finds 10,005 meters, for simplicity and to be on the safe side we have to assume that his is the best ride and add 5 meters. However, the assumption might not be true with the traditional measurement method unless the validator is able to wait to do his measurements until a time when temperature is steady or changing steadily. Validation is best done with the pressure-monitoring method which eliminates the affect of temperature on the measurement.

It is astonishing that decades after its introduction and after a lot of recent discussion on the Bulletin Board that the SCPF continues to confuse even the most experienced measurers right up to the current validations of the two courses of the Olympic Trials.

Whenever something is measured many times it is perfectly normal for some values to lie below that of the true value even with a competent measurer. Lack of appreciation of this fact and an abhorrence to recognize any record set on a course that validates at less than the advertised distance must have led to the introduction of the trick of the 0.1%. SCPF. Ironically, there was later some acceptance of courses validated at less then the advertised distance and an extra allowance of 0.05% was tacked on. We are now pretending that a 10,010-meter course is only 10,000 meters and for validation making a shortage allowance of 15 meters or 0.15%.

It would be much more logical and all the current confusion would go away if we scrapped the SCPF and measured courses to what they are supposed to be. These true courses would be regarded as passing validation if they were say less than 0.1% short.

I realize however that the SCPF is too firmly entrenched in USATF and IAAF to leave much hope of a change, and we will probably have to live with it. However, the 0.05% shortage allowance is a different matter and probably can be scrapped quite painlessly because most measurers are unaware of it. Apparently, this was added to allow for the normal error inherent in any measurement process quite oblivious to the fact that we already had an allowance for this in the 0.1% SCPF. Elimination of the 0.05% shortage would have the following advantages:

1. Simplification of the validation process and make it a bit more intuitive.
2. Bring USATF in line with IAAF.
3. Please measurers such as Gene Newman and Mike Wickiser.
4. Allow Records to retain the prerogative to allow records set on courses failing validation by a small amount.