Suspect Measurement Numbers

As a measurer - I've had my numbers challenged. I've told the certifier that I would re-ride the course *one more time* in order to allay his concerns. Painful? Yes. However, as I've ridden more courses and become smarter on the process (where errors can occur) the possibility of doctoring was made moot.

Matthew,

It's possible that the data haven't been doctored, but the measurer didn't understand our instructions to take counter readings during the 2nd ride at the same points they marked during the first ride. Instead, they may have inadvertently done two layout rides (i.e., the old-fashioned "two sets of marks" method), in which case the difference between measurements will have been unreported. Given this possibility: Instead of challenging the measurer and suggesting their data were doctored, you might simply ask if they did a two-sets-of-marks measurement. If so, the measurement can probably be rescued, and proper adjustment determined, if they measure the distance on the ground between the ending marks from their two rides.

From Measurement News #3, February 1983

Dishonest Measurement Data

I had a chance to review the measurement "data" for a marathon course that was run last fall. It had been measured by a guy who measures courses for pay, and promises a “certified” course. Advertised as such, a bunch of people ran it and naturally a bunch of them qualified for Boston. However, certification had not been applied for. When I originally got the data I found that the guy had made a miscalculation on his original calibration, but when the fina1 calibration was done, the course came out to exactly 26M 385Y with no final adjustment required. He even remembered to use the 1.001 and to use the measurement that made the course the longest, even though be measured last fa11 before those things were required. I ask my measurers to take temperatures, and he even did this, in spite of the fact that I’d not instituted that requirement until Januarv. His "observed” temperatures were 15 degrees colder than those recorded at the airport 8 miles away for the some day.

Believing that his calibration sheet was a pack of lies I called the guy and came to the conclusion that he really did know how to measure, and did a fairly decent job. Because I have no real proof that he fiddled his data, I approved the course for 1982 only, out of pity for those Boston-bound people. No age records were set at the race.

Have any of you had to deal with this kind or baloney? How did you handle it? I told the guy straight out that thought his data was fishy, and I hope that he will not try to do it again. I don't want to discourage him from measuring, because, after all, he knew how to manipulate those numbers.

He managed to measure the whole marathon twice in one day, and was only 8 feet apart at the end, and was never more than 5 feet apart at any intermediate point. Fantastic. I just wish I could believe it.

Any of us could go out and measure a course in a car and still fudge up some data that would make it look just fine. I didn't want to ruin the guy's course-measurement reputation in his area, so I gave him a break this time, but if I catch him at it again I'll have to be tougher. I'm still not sure whether I was tough enough, but I felt sorry for those poor people who entered thinking the course was certified when it wasn't.

From now on, in Ohio, I will not certify any course that has not had its data submitted by race day. These after-the-fact certifications put a lot of pressure on the measurer to come up right, especially when they’ve been paid to deliver a certified course. If he finds that he didn't do some crucial step, what’s he going to do? Say "Sorry, guys, but you can’t go to Boston after all" or just “adjust” his data a little. It does happen. Let's hear some of your war stories.

I measured a 5k this past summer where I got the exact same counts on the two rides. It was, of course, pure dumb luck, and needless to say, the counts at the intermediate points were not exactly the same.

Has anybody else every gotten the same counts for two rides of a course?

Yes, happened to me once and it made me go back and recheck all my data - I figured it was impossible to be that accurate. In the end, I attributed it to dumb luck.

Like Jim, this has happened a couple times. Also like Jim, I attributed it to luck.

It has happened to me too. I attributed it to superlative adherence to the SPR.

Well, I'm obviously not as lucky as the rest of you, except on calibration rides of course. The most luck I've ever had was within 4 counts for a 5k. Even then, none of my mile splits were identifical for first and second rides. Thanks Bob for reminding me about the possibility that the the "two sets of marks" method might have inadvertently been used.

I had numbers that close (I think 5 in my case) for a 5K. It's one of those things that made me start thinking that I might have done something horribly wrong.