Something better than certifying a race

Thre is actually an entire sport based on this concept- it's called "track".

The road races around here that are certified are listed on the USTAF web site. It is quite a process to get certified and listed on their site.

It's a two step process and you are ignoring the second step.

Step one is to have a qualified person measure and certify your course. This will all be documented.

Step two is for the RD to ensure that the race is actually run on the course they had certified.

If a 'certified course' is FLAT OUT WRONG, the fault likely lies with the RD, not the certification process.

You got a car? That car has an odmoeter?

Drive the route and call it good.

Oh boy. scotth, David Katz and the others are about to have field day with this one. Before you start spouting generalizations and bogus opinions, do one of the following things:

1. Purchase a Jones Counter, a bicycle, a steel tape, read the Course Measurement Procedures Manual, and go measure these SUPPOSEDLY wrong courses. No matter what the distance is, you will learn something.

2. Attend an RRTC meeting or clinic for measurers.

3. Read a couple of editions of Measurement News.

4. Shut up.

Asterix has it right. Course needs to be run as designed and measured. (Paying attention Wirefly National Half Marathon??)

UsedToBeKnowItAll wrote:

Asterix has it right. Course needs to be run as designed and measured.

Yep - and that requires good communication with the local cops, and plenty of course marshalls on race day.

Given the strong communication and interpersonal skills that New RD has demonstrated on his other thread, I'm sure neither of those will be a problem.

What a tool...

Could you give some specific examples of "I have seen a MORE than one instance where a SUPPOSEDLY certified course was FLAT OUT WRONG." The reason I ask is that I've been racing for ~25 years, have done over 700 races. A lot of these were not certified but probably 100 or so were certified. In the cases where I've ever done a certified course that I suspected was inaccurate afterwards when I went back and checked the paperwork later it appeared that either the start or finish was misplaced or there was a specific course feature (something like "runners must stay to the outside of the turn in a coned lane) that was not set up. As much as I hate when stuff like that happens it's human error so unless it happens every year at a race I'll give them a pass.

Then there's the case of a 5k I direct that is certified but a disgruntled neighbor moved our turn cones before our course monitor got in position which caused the police escort to go down the wrong street and cut 2 blocks off the course (oops!). Everybody ran pr's that day. When we figured out exactly what happened I went back and remeasured the difference and posted it on our results page along with a translation to get to 5k. It's not really a race runners will target to run their best at but at least we gave them an idea of what it would have worked out to.

Personally, I couldn't care less if a race is certified as long as it is accurate. Certification is a nice insurance policy when I'm looking to travel to a race, but a reputation for accuracy works just as well for me. Most of the races I direct I don't bother to get certification, but I do measure multiple times to make sure I believe the course is accurate. And a few times I've certified a course that I've been using for awhile and certification has always shown my course to be within 25 or so feet (+ or -) which is close enough for me.

I completely agree with you about 5k's that turn out to be 2.5 miles. Our local Parks & Rec department used to be infamous for that. I remember once running a hilly "5k" and running about 45 seconds faster than I was capable of. Went back a few years later and measured it (part of measuring another course) and it turned out it was only 2.7. What's amazing to me is they put mile markers down on the city bikepath about 5 years ago and it appears they got the distances dead-on.

As far as I can tell, we're all on the same page here. Correct distances for certified courses is the goal. I know there will be some of you blowhards that will be antagonistic against ANYTHING - letsrun is legendary for that. I was warned before I started posted here, so you don't bother me in the slightest. You guys are real tough or funny whatever.

Anyway, trust me, I know ALL about this. The tools, the meetings, the organization, the process - everything. It is good up to a point, but as others have noted above it isn't failsafe. Therefore it would be ludicrous to believe that it can't be improved. It certainly can.

If something happens like what happened to D2coach with the cones, then I guess every once in a while you have admit shit happens. But don't we want to mitigate that as much as possible? I've personally seen RDs intentionally move the start/finish so that they can be in the same place while not mentioning anything about THEIR new course no longer being certified. I've also caught a measurer's mistake in which he described the 2m mark as being 5ft from the 2nd lightpole on the west side of an intersection when he meant to say on the east side. These mistakes, intentional or not, has resulted in course discrepencies of up to 200 meters!!

Because RDs can be clueless and intentionally (or not) negligent in such matters, then I believe that since the certifyers put their name on these courses as being legit, it is up to them to follow through with 1) making sure they measured it right. By the way, that step where they send it to a regional guy to oversee is such bureaucratic bullshit. And, 2) making sure RDs keep the course as it was laid out and measured.

That is why I am suggesting that the measuring organization include these additional steps to keep up with the times which is rife with aloof RDs, OR they establish some new super-duper level of certification, so people can really be sure that they are running a legit course.

Anyone know if anything's in the works to improve the process?

New RD wrote:

Because RDs can be clueless and intentionally (or not) negligent in such matters, then I believe that since the certifyers put their name on these courses as being legit, it is up to them to follow through with 1) making sure they measured it right. By the way, that step where they send it to a regional guy to oversee is such bureaucratic bullshit. And, 2) making sure RDs keep the course as it was laid out and measured.

That is why I am suggesting that the measuring organization include these additional steps to keep up with the times which is rife with aloof RDs, OR they establish some new super-duper level of certification, so people can really be sure that they are running a legit course.

Friend, do what 'jds' describes in #1 above and you're golden...in other words, do it yourself. It ain't that hard.

You say it's up to certifiers to make sure a course is measured right: are you referring to the person who actually measured the course or the person who reviews cert apps and signs their names on cert letters? If the latter, umm, what you ask for is never going to happen. It's time & trouble enough for the original measurer to do their thing and that much more bother for the regional certifier to check their work w/what would essentially be a validation ride.

You say having a regional guy review apps is bureaucratic bullshit? Haha. No. Simply, unequivocally, no. Not true. The alternative: everybody that measures a course for certification can issue their own letter? Not going to happen. The system works just fine. I'd guess 95+% of the country is being served in a timely, helpful manner by regional RRTC reps.

You have said nothing to better the process of accurate course measurement. Nothing. Those of us that've measured a few would love to hear about new & better ways to do things. I've been doing things the same way for 25 years and feel our method is superior to anything out there.

I'm not looking to get into a disagreement. I've had enough of that, but it seems like people are hellbent on it.

The problem with this forum is that people have in mind what they want to say and go through with it without even reading previous posts.

I am not worried about getting my course right, thank you. As I said, I know all about this. Suffice to say, a lot more than you, jds, or whoever was cited on this thread. So, please, spare me the uppityness, 'K?

I am talking about all of the certifyers collectively. Of course the one actually doing the measuring has to get it right. The organization needs to make sure the measurers are educated and follow the protocols by training and by occasionally checking in. Then, when a person is themselves a certified certifyer, then the people just need to see that they are the ones doing the measuring and not just some Joe Schmoe. The part where people reveiw the maps - as if they have a clue. If you don't think that is a waste of time, you are a complete moron that needs to leave this thread.

95% NINETY-FIVE PERCENT!! That SUCKS. Majorly man.

Again, I know my course will be right. But, since 25 year tried and true process is breaking down with more and more "certified" courses that are false, I think this issue needs to be addressed so that I can communicate that my course is undoubtedly correct and not just some run of the mill certified course that might be correct.

95% on a task as easy as measuring! Goes to show what a shitty job is being done.

If you don't think identifying a problem to help those in a position to fix it is worhtwhile, then with all due respect, screw you, Navin.

If a 5k comes up 2.5 miles it was probably measured with a car.

Any problem I've ever seen with a short course has been due to the misplacement of a turn around cone, or a changed start/finish line. Papa Johns 10 miler was short for a couple years because someone decided to move the start about a block down the road to allow for a larger start area, that problem has since been changed. A 4 miler I ran late summer was short because the turn cone was placed on the wrong spot (lots of other races and markings on the road).

There's no problem with an RD making a decision to alter the certified course providing they make up the changed distance somewhere.

Alan

New RD wrote:

The problem with this forum is that people have in mind what they want to say and go through with it without even reading previous posts.

Oh the humanity...

Maybe it's because you come across as an arrogant pr!ck

jds wrote:

... do one of the following things:

3. Read a couple of editions of Measurement News.

My god, that sound boring! Thankfully, someone is interested in this so that the rest of us can benefit.

I'd say Navin hit it pretty much on the head. I'd guess the 95% (s)he refers to is about issues like timliness to turn cert apps around, etc. & not about how well they do their VOLUNTEER job. Before I say any more, I'm deferring to you and conceding that you're much smarter than me so you can take my comments in whatever way you'd like.

I'm an RRTC regional rep, part of the bureaucratic bullshit. I can tell if a measurer is educated by reviewing their application numbers & answers. There is no such thing as a certified certifier. There are different levels of certification expertise. Explaining such would do nothing to advance this discussion...so I won't.

As Navin said, no way am I, as a regional rep, going to remeasure courses measured by others unless asked (because a record has been set; perform a validation). It'd be a waste of time and plenty of toil w/no compensation. I review maps-you'd be pleasantly surprised how well they're drawn. When I have questions, I ask. I'm pretty good at it. If you have a better method, other than the regional rep measure every course for certification, let me know.

Others have pointed out that if there's a problem w/course accuracy following certification, it's typically the fault of the race organization and not the measurer. You see problems...I see our method of certification, one that's been copied worldwide, as ample proof otherwise. I grant you once in a while a course is marked wrong by a measurer and people run long or short. However, in probably only in the rarest of instances, did the regional rep issue a letter of certification unless the cert app looked solid.

There are ways to ensure a certified course is followed properly but they make my brain hurt working up ways to deal w/all the possible scenarios.

Scotth, please take my "bureaucrattic bullshit" label with a grain of salt. I mean no discord. I believe we've made each others acquaintence. Apologies for the tone of my posts if they sound like I think my pencil is sharper than others. I am confident enough to think this is normally true, but I don't wish to come off like that. I'm sure you do a good job as the regional rep, and as an RD, I appreciate the volunteer efforts. They try hard and are often helpful!

All this being the case, I am alarmed by the trends I see. If we consider all races, both certified and not, who amongst us would disagree that there are tons of races - considerbly more than when we were younger - that are incorrect. I believe that this laissez-faire approach is subtly bleeding into the certification process and the care and thoroughness that is taken there. That's all I am saying.

I'm quite familiar with the maps that are drawn, though, Scott. They are available online. If a person knows how to draw a map, they could get a course certified without ever measuring it at all. You know this. I am not saying that happens, but it could happen.

As you conceded, mistakes can happen. And, I would like to minimize these so that when people like me saw that a course was "authorized certified", or whatever you would like to call it, they would know it's solid.

Thanks for your response. I recognize that the process we have may be best of breed, but I do not think we should sit on our laurels. However, I recognize that improvements can often take time.

get a SPONSOR or SPONSORS