A question for race directors: How can a RD screw up the measurement of a 5k?

Well two NCAA races I have done, have been long. At least 800 meters for each. I ran 2005 NCAA DII south regional, which was a 10k, which had to have turned out to be more like 10.8k. I ran 2006 DII prenats, which also turned out to be about 10.8k. The kenyans were walking around saying "This is bullshit, no way I ran a 6 min last mile!"

maybe the RD was the same guy who counted laps at the Paris IAAF steeplechase last week?

as far as costs go, I have finally realized that by paying money, some people somehow gain some "meaning" or value.

here in Boulder we have perfectly accurate 5k and 3k track races in the summer. splits are perfect also. cost: $2.00

field size ~ 15 people

we also have a downtown short roadrace series in summer. cost:~$25 per race (1 mile, 3k and 2k distances, a different one each month).

field size ~ 200-1000 people (they go off in waves).

the track race has no sponsor and zero overhead costs.

the road races have lots of sponsors including the city. i'm not sure if they pay anything for police duty. where does the money go?

fortunately the races are measured and timed accurately here by Benji Durden, so at least you get what you pay for!

Duh uh duh 3.1 miles duh wrote:

That's it, thanks for the explanation.

Now, who is responsible for that?

Well, normally I'd say the race director is responsible but in reality the race director can't do everything.

Another person already mentioned the measurement vs setup. The measurement itself is double checked because you do it twice. The course measurer could have measured it perfectly but the person (or people) that set it up didn't follow the map or the course measurer didn't draw the map accurately or detailed enough (the latter is normally flagged by the course certifier).

The most likely is it wasn't run as measured and as the saying goes s**t happens. Possibly someone not as familiar with the course as the should have been marked it. Maybe they were lazy, or maybe something totally out of thir control happened.

I'll give an example. A few years back I was working a race where the course that was habitually laid out wrong. I was determined to make sure that didn't happen on my watch so I got out there early, verified all the markings to the map, and put the cones in place personally. I saw the leaders come in under 14 on a 5K and it was pretty darn clear something was wrong. I questioned the lead runners and found they had not turned around as the correct place. It later found out after I had laid out the course someone else removed the cones and placed them in a new location to make directing cars to the parking area easier, cutting about 1.4 mile off the course.

So, if I were you I'd express your displeasure to the RD so it's clear they know you're concerned about accurate courses but temper that with the knowledge that the only way you're ever going to get a course that's guaranteed to be accurate it to have to closed to anything but running (i.e. a track).

I think most RD's really try to do the right thing. There are the ones that have no clue or don't give a s**t. If the RD in questions says "well blow me" then don't go back to the race and tell 10 friends. If they say "we're sorry, but xxx happened that we didn't anticipate" then say thank you and tell 10 friends and you all can make up your mind if you want to go back.

I was in an out and back 5K in Syracuse, NY many years ago. At the start, the starter said that we turn around at a certain point. A guy standing near him disagreed- the starter just looked at him.

We started, I used to run about 16:00 at the time. My first mile was fine, my second mile was about 1 minute slower than what it should have been.

My time was way off.

I said something and almost got lynched for suggesting that the course was long (you gotta know Syracuse people). Later they found out the turnaround was marked at the far end of a bridge instead of the near end- it was a 150+ meter bridge! I would have had a pr!

I'm here to spread heartening news but first, there's a lot of truth in what Keith has to say: some race directors care about course accuracy, most don't.

Now for the heartening news: probably 75% of all courses are short, maybe more. I know this because in the process of certifying hundreds of courses, maybe a handful were long enough in the initial layout. And, among those that are accurate...every weekend there's a race in the USA, a good course goes bad w/varying reasons all around. Whether a course is correct or not, big races & small, bad things happen. All the time. And this isn't going to end next year or in 25 years. There...that ought to offer some peace of mind.

I have stories...

scotth wrote:

I'm here to spread heartening news but first, there's a lot of truth in what Keith has to say: some race directors care about course accuracy, most don't.

Now for the heartening news: probably 75% of all courses are short, maybe more. I know this because in the process of certifying hundreds of courses, maybe a handful were long enough in the initial layout. And, among those that are accurate...every weekend there's a race in the USA, a good course goes bad w/varying reasons all around. Whether a course is correct or not, big races & small, bad things happen. All the time. And this isn't going to end next year or in 25 years. There...that ought to offer some peace of mind.

I have stories...

How can they be short when we add a short course factor into the equation.. 1.001?

Ah, somebody beat me to posting this question. Thanks for checking in Keith, I was hoping you'd be around today. I ran the race yesterday and it was a real irritation on a great night to run. Mile 2 was a real beaut. You ran past it and said "Oh, here we go".

They still haven't posted any results and it was a chip timed race. I won't be running any races that organization is involved with.

metre fan wrote:

How can they be short when we add a short course factor into the equation.. 1.001?

Fair question...but you failed to read what I said carefully enough. I did NOT say certified courses are short; I said 75% of all courses are short. Race officials hire me to measure their courses for certification and in 98% of all cases, their layout is short by degrees small and very large.

Certified courses make up probably less than 10% of all courses available- probably closer to 5%. That means 90-95% of all courses are measured by means other than a calibrated bike. In some cases, you don't want to know how they were measured (car, GPS, bike computer, guess, etc).

I thought I overheard the winner running under 14 minutes, sorry about that.

scotth wrote:

Now for the heartening news: probably 75% of all courses are short, maybe more. I know this because in the process of certifying hundreds of courses, maybe a handful were long enough in the initial layout.

And since I saw the inevitable follow up questions..

Scott speaks truth about the initial layout. I'd bet the percentage is higher since I've had a total of ONE of many many courses I've measured be the correct distance BEFORE I did the measurement.

The important point is BEFORE. If an RD doesn't have the course certified then BEFORE is the final number. I had a guy try really hard to get the right distance. He walked the center line of the entire course with a wheel. It must have been hell, since 2/3's of the course was on a curvy busy road. Another course was GUARENTEED accurate because he got the EXACT measurement from the county's GIS computer system. He even knew a 5K wasn't 3.1 miles. A couple guys, trying real hard to get the right distance one who must have spent half a day walking the damn course. Neither was within 200 meters and only got the courses certified because people were getting (or exceeding) state records and wanted to submit results. Both were a tad bummed with the outcome.

I can think of maybe one or two races that were short where the fault was with the measurement. 9 times out of 10 the course was measured right but they misplaced a cone or took a wrong turn on race day. Shit happens. Move on. Also, why would you complain about the distance of an XC course? It's XC. With so much difference between course conditions times don't mean shit anyway. I'd rather they have XC races of off distance. "4 times around the field, something like 5 miles". XC is a pure racers race.

Alan

The measuring wheel isn't always right either. I ran a Turkey Trot last fall in which they measured the course along a very simple path. Instead of being 5km, it turned out to be close to four miles.

The race directors (who ironically are fitness trainers) were genuinely surprised when some of us suggested that the course was too long.

"You think so? No, it can't be. We measured it just the other day."

Hmmmmm, if the previous years' winning times were all in the 17 and 18 minute range, then doesn't a 24 min winning time this year sound a little strange?

agapius mackwamba wrote:

...

Having said that mistakes happen, they seem to happen more often at events run by Special Events Management (formerly Chicago Special Events Management, formerly part of CARA when CARA put on races). Short courses, non-existent awards, a general feeling that who cares about a problem "We're just going to have another race next week".

...

But Special Events Management is not a favorite, so I don't participate. Period. If you want races to improve, sometimes voting with your feet works best.

This is exactly why I haven't run a race put on by Special Events Management for over two years. The last straw was the 7.1 mile Start Early 10k I did in 2005. I used to really like the Bastille Day race. It was easily the best race that SEM put on. Now they screwed it up too.

scotth wrote:

metre fan wrote:

How can they be short when we add a short course factor into the equation.. 1.001?

Fair question...but you failed to read what I said carefully enough. I did NOT say certified courses are short; I said 75% of all courses are short. Race officials hire me to measure their courses for certification and in 98% of all cases, their layout is short by degrees small and very large.

Certified courses make up probably less than 10% of all courses available- probably closer to 5%. That means 90-95% of all courses are measured by means other than a calibrated bike. In some cases, you don't want to know how they were measured (car, GPS, bike computer, guess, etc).

Ah I see, that is a huge % not measured correctly! Ove here (Uk) we have a higher % that are accurately measured. I could never organise a race without the distance being BANG ON CORRECT. I think that is short changing the customer and mess's up the rankings no end etc..Thats why they call them races fun runs.. no need to measure correctly then!

Keith Stone wrote:

The most likely is it wasn't run as measured and as the saying goes s**t happens. Possibly someone not as familiar with the course as the should have been marked it. Maybe they were lazy, or maybe something totally out of thir control happened.

While that is usually the case it does not appear to be what happened this time. It appears that the certification map is incorrect. Looks like the race director followed the certification map perfectly, and the course ended up being short.

Here's the map.

http://www.usatf.org/events/courses/maps/showMap.asp?courseID=IL04081JW

Measure it with one of the online tools. I used Google Earth and got 2.88 miles. If you measure the course turning on Throop instead of Loomis, as mentioned in an earlier post, the course comes out very close to 3.1, and that's probably the way the course was measured. Looks like the map is wrong though.

i think the answer is simple, the RD does not care that much about the distance being accurate, because he thinks the runners do not care. he figures, "it really does not matter all that much b/c it's for charity."

we have an annual race here that is always short. the local running club has offered to measure it and certify it. never taken up on the offer. the organizers don't care.

2.9 is close enough.

Not sure what you wanted the RD to do. The course was certified and he followed the certified course map. This is one time it wasn't the RD's fault.

bad wheel? wrote:

The measuring wheel isn't always right either. I ran a Turkey Trot last fall in which they measured the course along a very simple path. Instead of being 5km, it turned out to be close to four miles.

The race directors (who ironically are fitness trainers) were genuinely surprised when some of us suggested that the course was too long.

"You think so? No, it can't be. We measured it just the other day."

Hmmmmm, if the previous years' winning times were all in the 17 and 18 minute range, then doesn't a 24 min winning time this year sound a little strange?

Well, I'll have to confess I've never seen a wheel measured course off by that much, but I will say a standard wheel (hard rubber "tire") is really hard to measure with over any significant distance.

I use one all the time when measuring from marker x to poles, hydrants, etc, since it's quicker than a steel tape when you're by yourself. If you're trying a whole course with one I'd rather pound my toes flat with a hammer. If they were really walking around with a survey wheel they were likely zig-zagging all over which tends to make courses short. I can't remember one done long.

Good on ya SEM boycott. As someone put it to me today at the Nike White Sox race "remember, they did the Wacky Snacky 5k too". For those here not from Chicago, it's a race in March where there were 19 women under 19:00 - most of whom have not broken 20:00 the rest of the year. No offense to the ladies intended - it's a complaint about the race itself and their organizers.

My next beef is big races which skimp on awards (today's had chip timing, a VIP area with bloody marys and mimosas (with many runners in it), but only top 3 overall male & female awards) but that would be a separate thread. And to be fair, the organizers did make this clear in the pre race info. Just peeved me to see bloodys given out without awards. But that is another thread entirely.

FYI - having been a race director in the past, I know this is a difficult and thankless job. It has multiple moving parts, not the least of which is the reliance upon well meaning volunteers - IF you can get enough volunteers. But the SINGLE best way to ensure an accurate race distance is a course certification - AND YOURSELF OR SOMEONE YOU TRUST WITH A COURSE MAP IN THE LEAD VEHICLE. No other method works anywhere near as well.