RD ignoring certification map

That is a dilemma! On one hand, if we know a race was not run according to the certification map, we should (somehow) let the runners know. That in itself is difficult, because, unless you are the timer and have everyone's email, there is no way to contact them.

On the other hand, because you are the timer, and you know the course was short, you owe it to the runners to let them know their times are not for a certified distance.

On the one foot, though, you do owe it to your client to not make waves, even when you know they didn't set out the course properly. Or do you?

You may let your client know that, since they (presumably) advertised they were using a certified course, since they didn't use the course as it was certified, you have an obligation to the runners to let them know the course was short, as it was run.

You have your integrity as a timer to consider, also. If runners found that you knowingly gave them results for a stated distance, but it was really short, how does that impact you down the road?

Easy for me to say from afar, but I think you should let the race director know that you should tell the runners that the course was approx. 50 meters short, so they can adjust their times accordingly. Most won't care, but some will.

Good luck!

Throwing hands up in the air. I run into this too. It is especially frustrating to us who measure, who take the painstaking effort to detail these specific details for the Race Directors. Ultimately one wonders why they had the course certified only to trivialize the hard diligent work of the measurer on their behalf. It is a slap in the face. I think it comes down to a heart to heart with the Race Director. If they are going to pretend that it is certified it cheapens the sport in our eyes and the legitimacy of the advertisement of said distance. If they don't care they should be willing for that information to leak to the participants that care and ask. That would be one of the consequence of their actions.
That said. We take this stuff way more serious than 99% of the runners running and in the real world... Most will not complain about that PR--that is until they find out it was short. This is a real problem that happens a lot.

Well, they ran the race yesterday, using their own start line (the finish was moved a bit too, further shortening the course). To make matters even worse, they put down mile points in the wrong spots (although probably accurate given their moved start line)
To be fair, none of their printed or online literature states that the course is certified. Also, my own marks, smaller but in the same color, were still visible from where I painted them last week. That must have really confused the runners!
When I did the results, I based the pace calculation on the slightly shorter distance. I felt at least runners would get that piece of info accurately.

Jim I do not time races I only measure them but if it were me I would tell the race director and also tell the runners to complain to the race director that your course is certified and you didn't start and finish according to the map.
We have a good size 2 mile race on the 4th of July that is only 1.97 miles because the race director wants to start it in a certain place and it has to finish the same place as the 5 mile finishes. I told the RD that I would certify it at 1.97 but not 2 miles and she said no just to leave it as it is with not certifying the course. I tried to talk the timer into changing the distance like you did on the results but he didn't do it either but I told a number of runners that the course was only 1.97 miles.

Sometimes it's RD laziness. Other times it's RD ignorance.

A good case study would be the Semper Fi (formerly Marine Corps Aviation Association/Marine Corps League) 5K Charity Run. Usually the RD is assigned to a 2nd Lieutenant or a 1st Lieutenant, who may/may not have any running/road racing experience. It's not only the course which gets bunged up in this event (the first year I ran in it the course was 350m long), but timing, scoring, awards...Murphy's Law, meet "Murphy's Run."

I explained in 25 words-or-less last weekend why I wouldn't spend $25 to participate in the event. Darned if one of my fellow gym patrons (who knows I measure) didn't tell me yesterday: "...you need to go out and measure that Semper Fi run, it was half-a-mile short!"

It's hard to explain that once the measurement project is complete that the responsibility rests in the hands of the RD.

We do walk a thin line when we are hired to do more for our clients than certify courses. Two successful strategies I have employed: 1. I edited the header on every page of printed results to read "----ville 4.75K". Like Jim, we adjusted the mile pace column to the estimated actual distance run. Runners complained to the RD. He got the course certified. 2. I told a client "We enjoy timing and scoring this race every year. However, we have received complaints from runners and we have been ridiculed for reporting results for a course that we know is well short of the advertised distance. For next year and beyond, to support this event, we require that you get this course certified and that you make appropriate arrangements to ensure it is laid out according to the certification". They understood, apparently, because they got it certified shortly thereafter.

I often wonder when (if) this kind of nonsense will cease to become a common problem. A while back, I emailed some friends in Road Race Management suggesting that they or some respected body establish a certification/credentialing standard for race directors. One of my chief reasons was/is the indifference to course certification and to laying out courses accurately that is displayed by so many race directors. As it turns out, RRCA is working on just such a program. I have not heard of any such program from USATF.

Too frequently, the words of a good friend who has been in the timing and scoring business for 15 years echo in my mind: "There is an appalling lack of professionalism in the running industry".

Jim, reading about your 'situation' immediately reminded me of my validation of the old USATF Papa John's 10 mile course in Louisville, KY. The original measurer knew they'd moved his start up significantly, but failed to impress upon the race committee how egregious a problem they faced. Hosting a Nat Champs 10 mile race on a course you know is short is NOT something I'd want on my conscience (sadly, the 10 miles came up WAY short & the original measurer didn't explain his side until the validation info was made public at that years USATF convention). What I'm leading to is this: first, communicate to the RD the nature of the problem. Assess their reaction. If the reaction doesn't involve a correction, let the RD know you plan to share that info w/others including affected participants, etc. You need to do 'the right thing' and if the integrity of the race distance is compromised, the right thing to do is let those affected know about it. You don't mess w/basic elements of races.