Reverse the C(o)urse

My answers would be "no" to both questions. What end would be served by the extra paperwork?

If the distance hasn't changed, the SPR is the same in each direction, and there's no trouble identifying the mile markers, the only thing that could change would be the drop, and only then if the race is point to point.

Re-measure, no. Re-certify, point to point only, and only then if there's enough drop to worry about. If it's a Kansas course it'll be zero anyway.

I don't think you need to issue a new cert becuase the distance does not change.

I don't think a new cert should be issued based on the measurements that are several years old becuase it defeats the system of course expirations. i.e. the measurements are already several years old.

If the RD desperately wants a new cert run the other way then I guess two new rides would be in order. The work would not be much, assuming that the new rides put the course as long, or longer than the old one. Worst case, you may have to tack a few feet on to the finish.

My answer is no to the first question. However, yes to the second question as the drop probably has changed.

I just had this come up.

The course was a 5K, part of a 5K/10K duo. The 5K started and finished in the same place, but the race director wanted to reverse the direction. In this case, the drop and separation didn't change.

So I measured from the start to the new 2 mile mark as part of the measurement of the affiliated 10K, which was to start and finish at the same point. Then I measured from the finish back to the 2 mile mark, turned around, and measured back to the finish.

The only issue is that the course turned out to be a little over 3 meters shorter this year than last, for reasons I have yet to fully comprehend.

Anyway, I issued a new certificate for the course with the intermediate split points in the proper locations and the start 11 feet back from where it had been the year before. Since I had actually done two measurements of the entire course and doing so extended the certification another year, it seemed like the right thing to do.

Well, there you probably should issue a new cert, since reversing a metric course changes all the mile splits (I know, Bob Baumel is about to chime in that if km splits were used there'd be no problem).

My rationale for issuing a new cert in any case is more for the perception of the general public than anything else.

Say someone goes on the search engine and finds the course map for the Mom & Pop 5 Miler, and even prints it out and goes to train on the course to get ready for the big hill at 1 mile. Come race day he finds the course will be run in the opposite direction, and now that hill comes at mile 4 - he's going to be more than a little miffed.

Tangentially related, we once put on a race called the "Freedom of Choice 5 Miler." It was an out-loop-and back layout, and at the start of the loop runners were given a choice as to which direction they could run. One way the hill was short and steep, the other, long and gradual. Being creatures of habit, 95% of them just followed the first guy, so we never ran that event again. I thought it was a cool concept, though.

Jim, I like the idea of the Freedom of Choice race. I would have run the event the following year, mostly to see if the same guy lead again, and if he reversed the course for his second running.

But, as for the initial post, I think if the Race Director wants to pay for a second certification (at whatever cost you work out with them), why not issue another cert?

Jim's previous post has the second-best argument for certifying the reversed route - if the race advertises the cert number, as they especially should in this case, the runners will be able to really know the route, instead of being surprised by the reversed direction. (The best argument for certifying the reverse route is that the race director wants it, and is willing to pay for it. Don't get caught up in "it is needless paperwork", as that is a lazy excuse. If I want to certify the same course each year, and am willing to pay for it, I should be allowed to hire the job out every year.)

That said, I don't think a re-cert should be required.