Should we take off the certificate “Track”. We are not in the business of certifying Tracks.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
You are correct. Then why have it on the certificate?
Comment from Jeff John:
This question has always perplexed me. I've heard emotional responses that suggest a problem that does not exist! Nobody ever asked me to bring my total station and transit and do a complete licensed surveyor mapping of a track at a cost of $10,000 or more. That's not what we do. But, we do measure the length of road courses that may utilize part or all of a track. Some road races are entirely on the track. We can, we do, and we should continue to verify a track's length when needed since that IS what we do. The licensed surveyor is NOT going to do that. Leave it on.
This question has always perplexed me. I've heard emotional responses that suggest a problem that does not exist! Nobody ever asked me to bring my total station and transit and do a complete licensed surveyor mapping of a track at a cost of $10,000 or more. That's not what we do. But, we do measure the length of road courses that may utilize part or all of a track. Some road races are entirely on the track. We can, we do, and we should continue to verify a track's length when needed since that IS what we do. The licensed surveyor is NOT going to do that. Leave it on.
Yes, but does one know when to add 20cm or 30cm to the diameter.
If a track is part of a road course that is being measured, we should measure that part the way that we always do.
But if someone asks us to do a stand-alone measurement of a track for certification, I don't think we should do that. Tracks are certified to a higher level of accuracy than our methods can measure. We are always free to measure and tell them we think it's accurate, but I don't think we should certify.
But if someone asks us to do a stand-alone measurement of a track for certification, I don't think we should do that. Tracks are certified to a higher level of accuracy than our methods can measure. We are always free to measure and tell them we think it's accurate, but I don't think we should certify.
Tracks with curbs are measured 30 cm from the outside edge of the curb.
Tracks measured and marked not to have a curb are measured 20 cm from the outer edge of the white line.
Cones can not be used to replace a curb for the entire track - only for short sections as with the high jump and javelin without making adjustments for the starting line(s)
We should not be certifying tracks. We do certify a course that uses part of a track. We do not have jurisdiction with events that are completely run on a track.
Tracks measured and marked not to have a curb are measured 20 cm from the outer edge of the white line.
Cones can not be used to replace a curb for the entire track - only for short sections as with the high jump and javelin without making adjustments for the starting line(s)
We should not be certifying tracks. We do certify a course that uses part of a track. We do not have jurisdiction with events that are completely run on a track.
good points
Jeff posted in another Agenda thread that some road races are run entirely on a track. Hmmm. Then it is not really a 'road race'.
If it is run entirely on a track, we could measure a 'course'. We would certify the course, but not certify the track. Ideally, though, you would just do the math based on the length of the shortest lane you are allowed to use.
If it is run entirely on a track, we could measure a 'course'. We would certify the course, but not certify the track. Ideally, though, you would just do the math based on the length of the shortest lane you are allowed to use.
I think it's a bit rash to throw out the track language. I've certified quite a few over the years--for the purpose of long distance races on the track. (I think someone mentioned that this could apply to races of at least 3000 meters?).
We probably need to make it clear that we are NOT talking about confirming all the lines on the track, just the overall length. Also, if the track owner/operator can locate the original certificate from the surveyors who laid it out, that would be the best documentation.
We probably need to make it clear that we are NOT talking about confirming all the lines on the track, just the overall length. Also, if the track owner/operator can locate the original certificate from the surveyors who laid it out, that would be the best documentation.
Bob, I don't know how you make that clear. If someone sees that the USATF has certified a track, they will think everything about the track is correct.
I think it can be clearly and prominently stated. But also I don't think we should throw out the possibility of checking on a course to be used in, say, a one hour run, just because some folks are going to misinterpret it.
I know measurers have done this for decades (check the overall distance of a track-- i.e. lane one). I'm not clear at what point, or why, folks seem to be stating that "we don't certify tracks".
I know measurers have done this for decades (check the overall distance of a track-- i.e. lane one). I'm not clear at what point, or why, folks seem to be stating that "we don't certify tracks".
I will repeat, we (RRTC) do not have the authority to say that a running track is USATF Certified. In fact, there is no such thing as a USATF Certified Track. The term "certified tracks" is used by two groups: 1. Track builders who states that a track they built is certified by them. This is required by the institution that hire the builder for legal purposes. Some sports federations, NCAA and high school also recognize this certification. 2. The other is IAAF Certification - which is required for performances to be recognized for qualifying for Olympic Games, World Championships, and World Records. Both types of Certification requires measurement techniques beyond the capabilities of most road course measurers.
I agree with David: We are repeating this issue. And I must concur with the mantra: We do not "certify tracks!"
But, it is also a fact that we can certify a course run entirely on a track and we are effectively the only ones who can and will do that. It is a valuable service and it would be a shame if the world were to lose that service due to unfounded fear of someone else's potential misunderstanding or intentional fraud.
Unless legal asserts that the liability risk is too great then we should try to come to an understanding on this issue.
I do not have any great qualms about removing the "track" check box on the cert. My preference is to keep it. Storing this information makes is easier, for example, for new measurers to locate track measurement examples and study how track measurements can and have been made.
What I must strongly disagree with is effectively ordering our measurers to refuse a track measurement.
My Vice Chair, Justin Kuo, is wary of track measures too. He offered a good solution last year. When I needed to certify a track course he required a bold disclaimer on the map to make very clear what we were doing and what we were not doing. That's a good idea.
Here's an example: http://www.usatf.org/events/co...p?courseID=NY15029JJ
Its not perfect, but you get the idea. Make it very clear, in a prominent spot, what we are and are not doing.
My rationale for keeping the track check box: We are not "certifying the track" any more than we are "certifying the road" when we check the "road" check box. This is valuable information -- let's not lose or hide it.
After all... We're not in the business of certifying roads either!
JJ
But, it is also a fact that we can certify a course run entirely on a track and we are effectively the only ones who can and will do that. It is a valuable service and it would be a shame if the world were to lose that service due to unfounded fear of someone else's potential misunderstanding or intentional fraud.
Unless legal asserts that the liability risk is too great then we should try to come to an understanding on this issue.
I do not have any great qualms about removing the "track" check box on the cert. My preference is to keep it. Storing this information makes is easier, for example, for new measurers to locate track measurement examples and study how track measurements can and have been made.
What I must strongly disagree with is effectively ordering our measurers to refuse a track measurement.
My Vice Chair, Justin Kuo, is wary of track measures too. He offered a good solution last year. When I needed to certify a track course he required a bold disclaimer on the map to make very clear what we were doing and what we were not doing. That's a good idea.
Here's an example: http://www.usatf.org/events/co...p?courseID=NY15029JJ
Its not perfect, but you get the idea. Make it very clear, in a prominent spot, what we are and are not doing.
My rationale for keeping the track check box: We are not "certifying the track" any more than we are "certifying the road" when we check the "road" check box. This is valuable information -- let's not lose or hide it.
After all... We're not in the business of certifying roads either!
JJ
No, we can not certify a course that is run entirely on a track - that is a "track" race. We certify "road" races.
I just got off the phone with Duffy Mahoney.
Duffy for those of you that don't know is one of the most respected administrators of USATF. he is the Director of High Performance as well as a private consultant for track planning and construction. He confirmed that USATF only recognizes the two entities I previously mentioned that can "certify" the distance of a track for a track event (not road race) - the certificate from the builder/stripper and the IAAF.
I just got off the phone with Duffy Mahoney.
Duffy for those of you that don't know is one of the most respected administrators of USATF. he is the Director of High Performance as well as a private consultant for track planning and construction. He confirmed that USATF only recognizes the two entities I previously mentioned that can "certify" the distance of a track for a track event (not road race) - the certificate from the builder/stripper and the IAAF.
Let me add that a licensed surveyor using a "total station" can also certify a track as long as he follows the measurement requirements.
The bike method is not acceptable for track certification...period!
The bike method is not acceptable for track certification...period!
I like Jeff's example and the disclaimer language. And I agree that we are the most likely folks to actually agree to check track distance for distance running purposes.
I don't understand David's bicycle comment as I didn't think anyone would try using a bike to measure a track. Well maybe there are some who would.
David, since we have been doing these measurements for decades (see old discussions in Measurement News, Bob Baumel's paper on how to measure a track, etc), are you saying we were wrong to do that? Or that it was incorrect to "certify" the tracks as we did? Or is this a recent rule that you are speaking of?
I don't understand David's bicycle comment as I didn't think anyone would try using a bike to measure a track. Well maybe there are some who would.
David, since we have been doing these measurements for decades (see old discussions in Measurement News, Bob Baumel's paper on how to measure a track, etc), are you saying we were wrong to do that? Or that it was incorrect to "certify" the tracks as we did? Or is this a recent rule that you are speaking of?
I am not speaking for David, but I agree, as I stated above - if an event is run entirely on a track, it is a track event, and not a road race. Each lane of a track is a known length (even if you have to pull a tape and do math). No need to ride a bike on the track.
If an event uses the track for a small portion of the event, then yes, measure with a bike (much faster than a tape). This would qualify as a road race, as the majority of the course is on roads.
If an event uses the track for a small portion of the event, then yes, measure with a bike (much faster than a tape). This would qualify as a road race, as the majority of the course is on roads.
Duane, I agree. This means there is a simple solution.
We take off track on the certificate!!!!
We take off track on the certificate!!!!
I don't like that. Can we get the history understood first? (Why "track" is on the form, etc)
Don't know what. Maybe Bob Baumel or David Katz could answer that.
However, my guess would be someone(probably Bob)devise a way to measure a track. The point is we shouldn't issue track certificates. Hence, I say the method we have online is good and it should be for a road race period..
However, my guess would be someone(probably Bob)devise a way to measure a track. The point is we shouldn't issue track certificates. Hence, I say the method we have online is good and it should be for a road race period..
To reply to Bob, in the past few years both USATF and the IAAF have become more stringent in accepting performance for athletic events where athletes are trying to qualify for the World Championships, Olympic Games and setting World Records. There have been many bogus performances from questionable facilities. The focus has not been on road races but more on tracks(and field).
I have not doubt that some of measurers are very capable of determining the total length of a track using the proper techniques and equipment but there is a great deal more that falls under the "Certification" of a track. Track certification by the two entities mentioned in a previous post not only requires the distance of the oval, but all of the starting lines, the lanes widths, break lines, relay zones, etc. It also has requirements for the inclination of the track - inwards and overall! And all of the field event venues have their own requirements as well. Are we prepared to do this?
If the RRTC issued a "USATF Certificate" for a track it would be misleading.
I have not doubt that some of measurers are very capable of determining the total length of a track using the proper techniques and equipment but there is a great deal more that falls under the "Certification" of a track. Track certification by the two entities mentioned in a previous post not only requires the distance of the oval, but all of the starting lines, the lanes widths, break lines, relay zones, etc. It also has requirements for the inclination of the track - inwards and overall! And all of the field event venues have their own requirements as well. Are we prepared to do this?
If the RRTC issued a "USATF Certificate" for a track it would be misleading.
Having mot measured a track, but having measured sections of tracks as part of a road race, I feel qualified to chime in. It seems that there are about a dozen USATF certified track courses, some very recent. Clearly the certifiers are not standard in their requirements. That is one thing that could be fixed.
Another is the name of the category on the certificate. "Track" could be changed to "Track Course" or the like. David's point is valid that there is much more to "certifying" a track than almost all measurers are capable of.
Since there are races held entirely on tracks that are not part of track meets, there should be some way the RRTC can accommodate these courses.
I guess that means I vote for changing the name of the "Track" category to something that indicates the track measurement to road measurement standards (Track Course) and requiring a standard method of measurement and disclaimer. The Vice Chairs and Registrar can certainly check and enforce the method of measurement and disclaimer if the certifiers can't. Ignoring or prohibiting the measurement of courses on tracks doesn't seem to be a good approach.
Another is the name of the category on the certificate. "Track" could be changed to "Track Course" or the like. David's point is valid that there is much more to "certifying" a track than almost all measurers are capable of.
Since there are races held entirely on tracks that are not part of track meets, there should be some way the RRTC can accommodate these courses.
I guess that means I vote for changing the name of the "Track" category to something that indicates the track measurement to road measurement standards (Track Course) and requiring a standard method of measurement and disclaimer. The Vice Chairs and Registrar can certainly check and enforce the method of measurement and disclaimer if the certifiers can't. Ignoring or prohibiting the measurement of courses on tracks doesn't seem to be a good approach.
Tracks present another difficult issue that Gene touched on briefly. Do we assume there will be a curb or not? You might think this is a trivial difference, but it is not. The difference in length between using 20cm or 30cm is 0.628 meters, which is 0.157% of the length. That's 1.57xSCPF, or more than twice the allowable tolerance between two measurements. If we do decide to continue to provide a track checkbox, should we say there are two possible distances? 400m if there is a curb and 399.372m if not?
Also, the method we have accepted for measuring tracks assumes that the turns are both circular, and both with the same radius. As I've said before, if we are going to assume that, we might as well just assume the track is 400m long.
I understand the need that some RDs have for making sure a track they are using for a mile race, or a 1-hour run, is actually a 400m track (and not a 440y track?). But I think that can be done by a measurer who tells them their measurement came out very close to 400m, and the track is PROBABLY a certified 400m track. Leave the USATF out of it.
Also, the method we have accepted for measuring tracks assumes that the turns are both circular, and both with the same radius. As I've said before, if we are going to assume that, we might as well just assume the track is 400m long.
I understand the need that some RDs have for making sure a track they are using for a mile race, or a 1-hour run, is actually a 400m track (and not a 440y track?). But I think that can be done by a measurer who tells them their measurement came out very close to 400m, and the track is PROBABLY a certified 400m track. Leave the USATF out of it.
If an American age-group record for the 1-hour run is set on a track we have certified, will USATF accept it? That would certainly be the expectation of an RD who has a piece of paper in his hand that says the track is USATF certified.
Mark brings up another important point - not all tracks have a uniform radius. Many have a double radius which prohibits the use of the simple measurement technique previously outlined.
If we decide not to issue certificates for tracks, which I feel should be the case. Then what do we do with all those already issued?
I measured a course where the first and last 300+ meters were on a track. Since most schools don't like wheeled vehicles on their track, I taped from the 300m mark to a point off the track surface, then rode the portion on the roads.
Jim, this is not what we are talking about. I believe we are referring to races run entirely on a track.
For LDR TRACK records to be processed and ratified I do not need a measurement certificate from RRTC. What is required is a certificate from the contractor stating the surveyor measured the track correct when it was constructed. No course/track validation/verification is required for a USATF LDR record to be ratified.
Good luck with this, Andy. How many track owners/operators out there actually have such a certificate from the construction surveyor? I guess you must have *some* in your database.
I measured a track with an associate using Baumel's methodology a few years ago. The client wanted to establish how many laps would constitute a 2 mile run. We did a lot of steel tape work and careful calculations to show the client exactly where to start and finish, and how many laps and how far on the partial lap to get to exactly 2 miles. I have total confidence that this measurement is well within the limits of accuracy we rely on.
We did not think of ourselves as "certifying a track". We thought of ourselves as meticulously measuring a course, including the SCPF, which was to be run on a track. We included the 20 cm consideration and the proviso that the measured course was valid only if participants were restricted to the measured path - no different than a road course. So, in a sense, it mattered little or not at all what the actual measurement of the track itself might be. We did not use bikes, just tapes. We did not steel tape measure around the track multiple laps. Yet, given a very careful and exacting measurement of multiple parts of the track, including both curved portions, we feel certain that the course we detailed and mapped is every bit as accurate for a 2-mile race as any ever done on the road.
I measured a track with an associate using Baumel's methodology a few years ago. The client wanted to establish how many laps would constitute a 2 mile run. We did a lot of steel tape work and careful calculations to show the client exactly where to start and finish, and how many laps and how far on the partial lap to get to exactly 2 miles. I have total confidence that this measurement is well within the limits of accuracy we rely on.
We did not think of ourselves as "certifying a track". We thought of ourselves as meticulously measuring a course, including the SCPF, which was to be run on a track. We included the 20 cm consideration and the proviso that the measured course was valid only if participants were restricted to the measured path - no different than a road course. So, in a sense, it mattered little or not at all what the actual measurement of the track itself might be. We did not use bikes, just tapes. We did not steel tape measure around the track multiple laps. Yet, given a very careful and exacting measurement of multiple parts of the track, including both curved portions, we feel certain that the course we detailed and mapped is every bit as accurate for a 2-mile race as any ever done on the road.
Lyman, yes we might have done it correctly. However, we don't certify tracks as Katz has stated. There is more to it than just the distance as Katz has stated.
We only measure Road Races!
We only measure Road Races!
If it were feasible to perform "licensed surveyor mapping" of many tracks, I am guessing that some non-trivial percentage of them would prove to be short or long by a non-trivial quantity. This difference would of course then be magnified, commensurate with the distance of the race conducted on the track.
Therefore, to convey a valid imprimatur of a particular race's accuracy, the RD would have to perform the necessary arithmetic to adjust for the difference based on the total advertised distance, and then make the concomitant adjustment to the Start and Finish lines.
Is this what actually happens for track events for which records are kept?
I am tempted to think that, for track races of, say 5000 meters and longer, riding a bike or using a calibrated wheel with a Counter for the full distance would probably yield a total course just as accurate as a survey/adjustment combination - at least in practice, if not in theory.
Thoughts?
Therefore, to convey a valid imprimatur of a particular race's accuracy, the RD would have to perform the necessary arithmetic to adjust for the difference based on the total advertised distance, and then make the concomitant adjustment to the Start and Finish lines.
Is this what actually happens for track events for which records are kept?
I am tempted to think that, for track races of, say 5000 meters and longer, riding a bike or using a calibrated wheel with a Counter for the full distance would probably yield a total course just as accurate as a survey/adjustment combination - at least in practice, if not in theory.
Thoughts?
I don't understand what you want. Our certificate should not have track on it in my opinion.
I doubt what you say is true. The bike in my view will not be the best way to measure a track.
Andy Carr and David have a explained this well. Read it.
I doubt what you say is true. The bike in my view will not be the best way to measure a track.
Andy Carr and David have a explained this well. Read it.
In my entire measurement career I've only had occasion to measure a track course one time. It was a freebee for the local running clubs - and they really did appreciate it. They had created a road mile series and put one of the races on the track to add some spice.
I used the geometry technique we call the Baumel Method, but would have preferred to have also had an actual lap measure too. Like Jim Gerweck, I didn't want to offend too many people by bringing a bicycle onto the popular track.
We did eventually acquire the striper's documentation and my confidence was boosted by the remarkably good agreement in our lap lengths. But I do worry about the possibility of a track geometry anomaly possibly skewing the Baumel Method result.
Pete Riegel measured a track in 2010 primarily using a device called a Rolatape. I'd like to know about his methodology in that exercise -- I think he measured the full lap twice with the Rolatape and steel taped the straight-aways. He produced a very valuable document for the local running community based on that effort. In it he has provided calculated lengths for all eight running lanes. You can see it here:
http://www.usatf.org/events/co...p?courseID=OH10005PR
I used the geometry technique we call the Baumel Method, but would have preferred to have also had an actual lap measure too. Like Jim Gerweck, I didn't want to offend too many people by bringing a bicycle onto the popular track.
We did eventually acquire the striper's documentation and my confidence was boosted by the remarkably good agreement in our lap lengths. But I do worry about the possibility of a track geometry anomaly possibly skewing the Baumel Method result.
Pete Riegel measured a track in 2010 primarily using a device called a Rolatape. I'd like to know about his methodology in that exercise -- I think he measured the full lap twice with the Rolatape and steel taped the straight-aways. He produced a very valuable document for the local running community based on that effort. In it he has provided calculated lengths for all eight running lanes. You can see it here:
http://www.usatf.org/events/co...p?courseID=OH10005PR
Track measuring is very complicated.
Please check out the measurement report required by the IAAF. Click on the link and scroll down to the "Measurement Report"
https://www.iaaf.org/about-iaa...certification-system
I along with many of you don't like some of the policies of the IAAF (only requiring one measurement) but the requirements for track certification is very exacting.
Please check out the form.
Please check out the measurement report required by the IAAF. Click on the link and scroll down to the "Measurement Report"
https://www.iaaf.org/about-iaa...certification-system
I along with many of you don't like some of the policies of the IAAF (only requiring one measurement) but the requirements for track certification is very exacting.
Please check out the form.
I apologize... this is going a little off topic, but I believe Lyman has a very interesting point. Road Running is a subset of Track & Field and we do care about and are involved in the sport.
I am not entirely comfortable with a for profit commercial entity assuring me that he did a good job of building or striping the track with no independent validation -- ever. Is that we have?
It is clear, and I appreciate Andy's polite statement that he "does not need" a certificate from RRTC. But what if a track, even though it can provide the engineer's, or surveyor's, or striper's certificate, is off. These guys are real good, they're professionals, they've signed an integrity oath, they're licensed, but they are also human. Humans make mistakes (I prove that every day!) How will we know?
This may be an area where RRTC can provide a clue that there may be a problem with a track that warrants a closer look by a qualified independent entity such as the PE or licensed land surveyor using IAAF methodology. I vehemently agree with David. We don't do that.
David Katz, and a few others, have proffered wonderful, logical, valid, persuasive arguments proving that the RRTC does not certify the track & field stadium. Unfortunately, the argument is almost pointless since that was never the question. I trust we all agree we don't do that, we don't want to do that, and we can't do that. Drop it! We are only offering to measure one parameter -- course distance, and our methodologies are known to be not sufficient for track record purposes.
And I think David is right... if you run a race on a track you're running a track race! As proof, I expect that we can not ratify a road race run on a track as the track confers some advantages over the road.
But that does not mean our service has no value to Track & Field.
Just for fun, I opened our database to see if Jordan was right. The very first track in the list of track courses measured by our people jumped out. It's a beautiful indoor track facility in Anchorage Alaska. Its advertised and used as a 6-lane 400 meter track. I presume that for record purposes it will have to be considered an outdoor track, but its in a dome. High School records have been set on it.
But, RRTC measurers Lee Barrett and Fred Wilson measured it and found the lane 1 length at 20cm from the inner edge to be 413.6 meters. Wow! That's a huge variance. Something is wrong. If the variance had been in the opposite direction then I think Andy would want to know about it if a record had been set on a track that was potentially 13 meters short, despite the striper's assurance. Who's gonna alert him?
I'd hate for Track & Field to lose this skill set that RRTC could continue to provide if not for the as yet unsupported fear that some unidentified 3rd party will misunderstand the very real limitations of our work.
JJ
I am not entirely comfortable with a for profit commercial entity assuring me that he did a good job of building or striping the track with no independent validation -- ever. Is that we have?
It is clear, and I appreciate Andy's polite statement that he "does not need" a certificate from RRTC. But what if a track, even though it can provide the engineer's, or surveyor's, or striper's certificate, is off. These guys are real good, they're professionals, they've signed an integrity oath, they're licensed, but they are also human. Humans make mistakes (I prove that every day!) How will we know?
This may be an area where RRTC can provide a clue that there may be a problem with a track that warrants a closer look by a qualified independent entity such as the PE or licensed land surveyor using IAAF methodology. I vehemently agree with David. We don't do that.
David Katz, and a few others, have proffered wonderful, logical, valid, persuasive arguments proving that the RRTC does not certify the track & field stadium. Unfortunately, the argument is almost pointless since that was never the question. I trust we all agree we don't do that, we don't want to do that, and we can't do that. Drop it! We are only offering to measure one parameter -- course distance, and our methodologies are known to be not sufficient for track record purposes.
And I think David is right... if you run a race on a track you're running a track race! As proof, I expect that we can not ratify a road race run on a track as the track confers some advantages over the road.
But that does not mean our service has no value to Track & Field.
Just for fun, I opened our database to see if Jordan was right. The very first track in the list of track courses measured by our people jumped out. It's a beautiful indoor track facility in Anchorage Alaska. Its advertised and used as a 6-lane 400 meter track. I presume that for record purposes it will have to be considered an outdoor track, but its in a dome. High School records have been set on it.
But, RRTC measurers Lee Barrett and Fred Wilson measured it and found the lane 1 length at 20cm from the inner edge to be 413.6 meters. Wow! That's a huge variance. Something is wrong. If the variance had been in the opposite direction then I think Andy would want to know about it if a record had been set on a track that was potentially 13 meters short, despite the striper's assurance. Who's gonna alert him?
I'd hate for Track & Field to lose this skill set that RRTC could continue to provide if not for the as yet unsupported fear that some unidentified 3rd party will misunderstand the very real limitations of our work.
JJ
Yes that is a huge difference. However, who is to say the semi-circles are exactly the same at each. These guys may have assumed exactly that.
I trust the surveyor more than using our method Bob explained in the manual for measuring a track. I feel as David we don't certify tracks. There will be more to follow as to how we will handle this by the end of the week.
I trust the surveyor more than using our method Bob explained in the manual for measuring a track. I feel as David we don't certify tracks. There will be more to follow as to how we will handle this by the end of the week.
FYI: Here's an interesting followup on the Anchorage indoor track mentioned above. Justin knew about it and shared some more of the story as to why our guys had to measure and why it was so far off the nominal 400 m distance.
Its expensive to operate a bubble dome facility and soccer is their bread and butter. The facility operators decided to sacrifice a chunk of the inner lane(s) to expand the infield for soccer. Ugh!
JJ
Its expensive to operate a bubble dome facility and soccer is their bread and butter. The facility operators decided to sacrifice a chunk of the inner lane(s) to expand the infield for soccer. Ugh!
JJ
Hey, Gene - do we certify tracks? 
Lyman,
In the past we did have a procedure that you followed to certify a track. However, it has come to light according to the IAAF we can't certify a track. This is done by a surveyor. We certify Road Races.
The simple simple answer is NO! By the middle of next week there will be a statement about this.
In the past we did have a procedure that you followed to certify a track. However, it has come to light according to the IAAF we can't certify a track. This is done by a surveyor. We certify Road Races.
The simple simple answer is NO! By the middle of next week there will be a statement about this.