When is a 5K not a 5K?

Rather than make an ironclad rule about this, why not use the 5 Mile in the race name, but certify it at the correct distance?

If the certified distance is added to the course map, those runners who download it will know what's what.

How about this scenario:

I map out a 3.5-mile loop on USATF's Running Routes and send the map in along with my application to certify my race with a distance of 5k. I'll then call my race the "Downtown 3.5 miler" and put on the flyer that it's USATF certified.

Sorry, I can't resist playing devil's advocate.

I think the only real issue is misleading runners as to the true distance being run. You couldn't name a 5K race the Hypothetical 10K, for instance.

Matt's example, where the course is long by a few hundred feet, merely ensures that a record will not be set on that course. The alternative would be to certify it as a 5.05k race.

Mark's example merely shows how unscrupulous the devil can be. While the course would be certified, it would be certified at 5k, not 3.5 miles. For that matter, you could put on a marathon and only measure and certify the first 5k, if you really wanted to cheat.

My example is even worse than that Stu. I didn't have to measure anything, at least not with my bike. And I'm able to put "USATF Certified" on my race flyer without breaking any rules. Anyone who doesn't check the map (almost no one does) will think it's a certified 3.5 miler.

Take it one step further:

I'm the race director of the Hypothetical Marathon, and the most unscrupulous RD in the known universe. My buddy across town puts on the Podunk 5K, and raves about how great it is to have USATF certification. So I ask him a few questions and find out that Bicycle Bob did the 5K for $50. I can swing that to promote my race, so I call Bicycle Bob, but he wants a couple hundred to do a whole marathon. So how much for a 5K? Fifty? Sold. When I get the course map, I go to the finish line of the 5K, get in my car, and drive 22.7 miles as indicated on the trip odometer, paint the road where the marathon finish will be, and use the USATF certification number for the 5K to promote my marathon.

Of course it all goes to hell when a couple Kenyans show up to train and end up setting a world record. Guess I should have changed out that donut spare before I laid out the course. But by then I'm on the plane to Rio anyway.

The fact that Joe Race Director could measure a 3.5 mile loop with Google Earth or with his car and get it certified by the USATF as a 5k is just wrong, and opens up all kinds of scenarios of abuse.

You might say that a certifier would never actually let this happen, but I would argue that under the current rules he has no right to refuse certification in such a situation.

Matt's example, where the course is long by a few hundred feet, merely ensures that a record will not be set on that course. The alternative would be to certify it as a 5.05k race.

If anybody looks into the details, it also ensures that the credibility of USATF certification will take a hit. The alternative is to so NO, it won't be certified as 5k if it is more than x% long. I'm not sure what the argument is for not having such a rule.

I've not understood what either Mark or Stu has had to say but per Pete's point; yes, certifying it at the distance actually measured is one thing & a an inquisitive soul might look up the cert via our website and learn the course was really 5000+m.

However, in the interim, I see the RD claiming certification of their course for 5000m (not 5000+m) & holding their race. Depending on the times (how slow), a curious runner might quiz the RD about the course length and/or go to our website...learn the course was certified at 5000+m and raise a stink. RRTC might come under the gun for not 'requiring' the RD to state the exact certified distance on their app.

Perhaps it's time, as Mark notes, to pass some rule about how to deal w/courses 'too long' of the distance being advertised as certified?

How about this:

The Podunk 5 mile actually measures 5.32 miles. They want to call it the Podunk 5 Mile.

On the certificate, put Name of Race as "Podunk 5 Mile (5.32 miles)", and for Distance call it 5.32 miles. The addition of the parentheses will assure that the listed name of the race will also contain the correct distance where it differs from the nominal length.

The correct certified length should also appear on the map.

When the course is listed on the web site, its length will appear as 5.32 miles. Thus people searching for a 5 mile EXACTLY will not see it. They will have to specify a range of distance. They will still find it if they search for all races in Podunk.

How the USATF course search engine works is open for anybody to discuss. It does take a bit of learning, but it's worth the effort.

Here in New England we have plenty of odd-distance "almost" courses. Many were measured before the calibrated bike method came about (usually by a car odo or surveyor's wheel) at what the RD thought was an even distance. When the courses were finally measured accurately, the history and records accrued over the years were deemed more important than having the "right" distance. The Manchester (CT) Thanksgiving Day race, the second oldest in New England, is a perfect example. The organizers clearly bill the distance as 4.748 miles, and everyone is satisfied with that. All but one of the 10 Westport Summer Series races (the third oldest races in CT) are that way as well.

I've got my own Great Train Race that runs from the RR station in New Canaan to the one in Wilton. I bill the distance as 6.816 miles, although I'm sure 6.8 would suffice on the race app. But it's hilly as hell, so why depress runners even more when they go to figure out their pace?

There's nothing wrong with certifying a race at an odd distance as long as no suggestion is made that it is anything other than that odd distance.

There IS something wrong with certifying a course that is known to be significantly longer than 5k as a 5k. Or certifying a course at 3.3 miles and allowing the name of the race on the certificate and on the website to include "5k."

This subject seems suitable for dialogue between measurer and certifier. Once the problem is recognized it ought to be able to be worked out.