USATF club XC debacle

I'm not how it's an overreaction? It sounds like they came out the day before and told the directors that they were shutting it down. The directors then fought back and said the race must go on. They allowed it and then the actual scenario they were worried about did happen. If no one was hurt by the tree, they are lucky. That would be a huge lawsuit I am sure.

I remember sitting on the plane in SFO 2014 flying out to Nats in Bethlehem. Sheets of water and crazy wind. I thought about having Nats here during those conditions. I know some say "It's XC and it's supposed be foul weather"... However, for something at the national level where there are so many moving parts and people from out of town, probably best to find a place to hold the event where the likelihood of having the event canceled for whatever reason is very low. There is enough drama staying healthy and getting to the race.

If it's true they wanted to cancel the race the night before, I'd actually be annoyed.

They could've moved the race to the horse track and held ALL races in the afternoon. Would've been a much better way to get to the same result.

It would be interesting to know when they decided on the new course and why they did not already have pre-determined plans ahead of time for possible bad weather, trees down etc.

Plan for the worst.

Alan

They literally determined the course right before the men's 40+ race. They were going to cancel completely but one of the athletes (also a director of a major marathon) suggested the solution to officials, who then got the blessing of the parks department.

Having a contingency plan is always a good idea in these cases. At DIII nationals one year we essentially ran a road race when the main course was unusable due to weather.

In some ways, I agree with this. San Francisco can be a good spot, but the elements aren't always predictable in December. In 2006 it was so bad for Club Nats SF it is called Mudstock. In defense of the current system, I like that various communities around the country get a chance to host. Of all of the events I've participated in over the years, it seems like none of them are perfect. I really wanted to do well in Tallahassee, but the temps and humidity rocked me and many others. Sure, an annual meet in Tallahassee might not be cancelled, but is it a good fair site? People I know have been throwing out San Diego as a permanent yearly site. I personally just run better in the cold cloudy conditions of more "Midwest" environments.

Bring it to Ames, Iowa! Iowa State has a great course that's hosted D1 NCAA's in the past, only about 40 minutes from Des Moines

I have run Club Cross Country six or seven times, including Saturday. Weather is often a big factor for these events. Tallahassee has a boring course and I'd hate to have to go there every year. Part of the fun is dealing with the elements. According to locals weather in SF last weekend was worse than it has been there in several years, we just got a bad draw. Track has weather delays all the time, and I have had road races halted and restarted due to lightning. You deal with it. Can't believe the level of complaining on this thread. If you don't like to do a time trial at home on your treadmill.

sorry for the double post!

I agree that the cross-country course that the open races, both men and women, were drastically simplified and made much faster by putting those two races on only the partly-paved, dirt-covered oval track around the Polo Fields in Golden Gate Park. Much riskier, scarier and much more true to CROSS COUNTRY, in comparison, was the original course contested by us, the Masters women, of which I was one, running that rainstorm-battered day in San francisco, a couple hours before the open races. We Masters women were the ones who had to run that 6k Cross Country course in all its brutality, and it was very dangerous and very difficult. Deep mud, loose rocks, wet dirt, exposed roots, flying branches, slippery leaves and bark debris, hidden potholes in puddles 12 inches deep, steep hills, sharp valleys, wood chips, gargantuan slopes and grassy swamps, waterlogged and cold and windy, and in a rain so strong, one's vision got compromised. Tough gals, each and every one of us, but if we had to run it, why not the Open women, for their 6k? If we Masters women were given the chance to run solely (and safely) on the oval track, our times would each have been faster by at least two or three minutes!

Fiona, times don't matter in different races so no need to compare women's masters vs. open (the latter ran less than 6K). And note, 250 senior men also ran 8K in the same conditions as the masters women. So it wasn't only "we Masters women" who ran on the originally planned course.

No one got seriously hurt, although it could have been a disaster, so for everyone involved be thankful for that. The circumstances were not good for anyone out there, we be should be glad we had a day to run in the rain.

The amount of finger pointing and chest pounding on this thread is somewhat surprising and disappointing.

Run in peace all.

Total tangent here-I remember when this happened at the 2019 Northeast Regional in Buffalo. Xc became a road course and a scramble ensued to get the magical Alpha/vapor (can’t remember which was the hit one in the beginning) that had been the rage. One running store actually drove their shipment hours to sell them their I believe. Curiously, a few runners made Nationals that zero people would have picked before hand because of that.

Man, you all complain a lot and about the wrong stuff.