Something better than certifying a race

I'd like to back up what Scott and some of the other measurers have said. There is actually a multi-level approval process in RRTC. The state certifier has to review the application, including all the measurment data, maps, etc. If it all looks kosher (and yes, someone COULD fabricate everything, but to do so would take almost as much time as measuring it for real) they sign off on it and it goes to one of the regional vice-chairs, who do a second review (they look for obvious errors in the map or descriptions, stuff that might be confusing).

The bottom line is, I think the percentage of certified courses that come out "inaccurate" is WAY less than 5%, and out of that, I'd lay the blame on the race organizers most of the time. An inexperienced measurer might screw up, or even an experienced one on a complex course - that's how anything involving human beings goes. But based on the precentage of courses that pass validation, I think we've got an enviable system in place.

My advice to NewRD: get your course certified, advertise it as such, then make sure you run the race the way it was measured. If you want to put everyone's mind at ease, post the course certification maps all over on race day - then the runners themselves can see whether it's been set up right. If some other measurer or RD messes up, that's their problem. Just like running, you can only control your own actions, not those of others.

Thank you, Scott, for reading my posts. JimG, you evidently did not. I am not worried in the least about my course being accurate. I am stickler amongst sticklers. I do take hefty exception to the notion that if other certified courses get screwed up that is their problem. NO, it is ALL of our problem!! Every time a “certified” course gets hosed like the Papa John’s 10m which was a championship race – what crow on all of our faces – it diminishes the credibility of all of our races! If I need to post maps and suggest participants re-measure if they want to verify for themselves, then the RRTC is failing. The point of RRTC is so that when people see that a course is “certified” they instantly believe that it is legit and HAVE GOOD REASON TO THINK SO. Therefore it is not just a case of me worrying about my race. That is why I am looking for something a little better than the basic certification as it satnds today.

We can do one of two things. We can improve the current process and provide a media blitz that the certification is new and improved, or we can establish a new level of super-certification. Believe U me, I AGREE that most of the errors occur with the race management. Race Directors by and large just can not be trusted to do their part adequately. Therefore, a big breakdown in the process occurs between the certification and the actual running of the race. Since we need the RDs to do their job, we need to have the certifiers there on race day to ensure that the race is run as measured. If not, the RRTC needs levy a fee that is agreed upon beforehand for the measurer to remeasure the altered course. Then the RRTC needs to do all they can to notify as many people as possible as humanly expediently as possible about these mismanaged races! Doing this would regain a little trust and credibility for the RRTC. Don’t we want that?

What do you guy’s think about RunningArt2004’s comment, “There's no problem with an RD making a decision to alter the certified course providing they make up the changed distance somewhere.” Do you guys concur with this buuullllshit?

RRTC was brought about because there was a need to verify course accuracy. The need is here again, folks, to take it to the next level or else be irrelevant.

BTW, Scott, why would you be negative towards Lawrence Welk? Its target audience may not be the younger generation, but that is a great program. American Idol thinks they’re new - Whatever.

New RD wrote: We can improve the current process and provide a media blitz that the certification is new and improved, or we can establish a new level of super-certification.

... we need to have the certifiers there on race day to ensure that the race is run as measured. If not, the RRTC needs levy a fee that is agreed upon beforehand for the measurer to remeasure the altered course.

I hope you (meaning a generic "you," implying all race directors out there) will be paying the cost of your new approach out of their own pockets. Race fees are too high as it is. Inaccurate courses irritate me, but not to the point I think we need to create (and fund) a new course measurement gestapo.

New RD wrote:

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.

Uhhh, they already do include to steps to do that. What isn't happening is people aren't following them. Read the course measurement handbook, the USATF guide, etc, they all have plenty of advise and process.

The only possible better step would be to have the actual course paid out by the original measurer and rechecked immediately before the race. I'm sure Scott and I would be thrilled to show up at 4:00 am for the Joe Bumf**k 5K just so you could say it's "super certified".

Or, more practically, YOU COULD READ THE INSTRUCTIONS!

I'm a little confused. If you are so smart and can figure out that these other courses are short, why don't you just read the Procedures Manual, get the equipment, and go measure the course yourself. That way, you can't blame the accuracy on anyone but yourself.

1-Divide the distance by 6 1/8 inches

2-Remember that number or better yet write it down

3-Go to bank get that many 20 dollar bills

4-Starting at the proposed finish line lay them end to end

5-When you run out of bills that is your start

6- retrace steps picking up bills

7- mail bills to me- address given at mywillieliesunderthebrooklynbridge.con

New RD wrote:

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.

Only a very dull pencil would say something so idiotic.

Friend, I feel like I'm replying to a helping of refried refried beans. Onto number....

1. Okay, you take hefty exception to certified courses going bad on raceday. Point noted.

2. The Papa John's 10 mile is a prime example of race officials doing bad things to good courses. There were human errors made on several levels, none of which I feel like elaborating on as they won't serve this discussion. The human errors are NOT all our problems. Human error occurs at races every weekend in all 50 states. Shit happens.

3. RRTC doesn't suggest participants measure course they've just run (altho it'd be cool to do so on an uncertified course...but you didn't hear that here). When a participant sees that a course is certified they have good reason to think the thing is accurate...based on previous experience.

4. You make my point about human error in paragraph 4. Thanks. What's this about a media blitz? Tell me more!

5. You see a need to have a certifier at every race held on a certified course. We have a problem here. A LOT of money might ease some of the problem but, here's the thing, there are multiple scenarios I can forsee where having a certifier on site raceday won't prevent Shit (from) Happening. It is NOT RRTC's job to notify the public if a race is mucked up. RRTC's job is to handle the accuracy of course length & validate the length in case of a record. The credibility of what RRTC does is on solid ground.

6. You fail to provide evidence how RRTC is slipping into irrelevance.

7. If the Lawrence Welk treatment doesn't work for you, how about forcing a measuring cheat to listen to Roseanne Barr & Carl Lewis 'sing' the national anthem on repeat for 6 hours?

scotth wrote:

Friend, I feel like I'm replying to a helping of refried refried beans.

Well, we all know what happens after some refried beans and a good beer. ;-)

But, I think thing what New RD wants is we register the GPS waypoints for every race and force the lead bike to attach a device that doesn't allow them to turn off course, even if there is a 4 Ton truck in the way.

Participants could also carry devices that could download the waypoints that would scream "STOP! GO BACK! YOU'RE RUNNING A SHORT COURSE! "

Race entry fees would only be about $399 per event, but it would be "super-certified".

RD, I did read all your posts. I think your concern (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that too many certified courses come up short, for whatever reason - organizer incompetence/malfeasance, volunteer/police SNAFU, bad intial measurement. And my contention is you're way overstating the problem. When something bad happens, whether it's Papa John's or tainted pet food, it garners a ton of publicity. But there is a thousand times more safe dog food eaten and accurate courses run, you just never hear about it, because when things go right, as they do 99% of the time, it's just not newsworthy. In short, it's a matter of perception.

I appolgize for not reading all the post here - so this may have already been said...but here is one idea (in case your concern is that the Women's race will be less competitve) and is a fair way to do things:

don't give money out on place or place alone/ give it based on quality of times

this way if a number of good women show up, they get paid

if a number of good men show up they gets paid, if no one good shows up - you don't get stuck paying big bucks for low quality performances.

as a runner I have always liked these kind of incentives - see Grandma's marathon for an example.

jerrry wrote:

I appolgize for not reading all the post here -

Did you read ANY of the posts here? I think you are way off course and should look into becoming super-certified in the future.

I think you should figure out a way so that the women run a longer distance than the men so they can't possibly win any prize money, performance-based or otherwise. After all, what are they doing out of the kitchen anyways?

Something even better than certifying a course would be making it flat and fast. For some unknown reason too many course designers think its good to have lots of challenging hills on a course. If you want to attract and keep a good crowd every year make it a PR course.

I concur with what Scotth and other experienced course measurers have stated on this thread. The main reason for "certified" courses being inaccurate is carelessness or incompetence or whatever, by the RD.

One thing that I - as a course measurer - try to do, is to attend any race that I have measured to:

a)verify that the course that I measured is followed and

b)if practicable, volunteer to set out the mile markers, so that I can be sure they are laid out in the correct location. On the one occasion in the past year when I did not volunteer this way (because I was racing in the event and did not wish to disrupt my preparations), every mile marker, bar one, was incorrectly placed by the RD, despite detailed descriptions and sketches provided by myself.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one doing this, but I fully understand that not all measurers will able to follow this practice, due to time constraints etc. However, it would be nice to encourage them to do so, whereever possible.

Here's another example of RD incompetence: I recently attended a half marathon and 5km event put on by a nationally-known race promoter. I was simply there as a spectator. I was not responsible for the course measurement, but I did download the certified course maps beforehand, so that I could follow the race route more easily. Much to my surprise, the 5km did not start at the certified point, which made the distance significantly longer than 5km. When I spoke to one of the assistant RD's about this, he was well aware that they were not following the correct route, but he said it would have been inconvenient to start at the proper place, because it was at a different point than the half-marathon start. He also said that entrants were made well aware that it was a "fun run" (despite the fact that they were charging $35 entry for the "5km"). What really ticked me off was when I got home and checked the race website. Far from making it clear that the 5km was just a fun run, they actually claimed that it was certified and provided a link to the USATF site where the course map could be found ! I subsequently emailed the race management to complain about this and received a reply that they did not know they were following an incorrect route and they would try to do better next time. Total BS.

There is no way that the RRTC can litigate for this kind of disregard and disrespect for proper procedure, unless they can enforce a withdrawal of course certification from offending RD's and make them pay for re-measurement.

My two cents worth (more like five cents)....

Dave

Pete, thanks for not being intoxicated while posting. I agree with you on the increasing race fees issue. It’s crazy. But, I can not dictate market forces. Certification as it stands today is next to worthless as evidenced by the attitudes on this thread. I think this also is demonstrated by race participation levels that are unaffected whether or not a race is certified. People already know it’s not worth paying for. Further, any monkey can go through the step by step process of measuring. Apparently, Keith Stone does it. Proof positive right there that a monkey may be overqualified. What I have simply suggested as an improvement – a vast improvement, mind you - is that a certifier show up on race day to make sure the race director sets the course up correctly. The biggest variable cost in the measurement process is how much the measurer charges for their time. A responsible junior higher could do it and charge a fraction of the cost. It would be a great for a little extra income for a student of average intelligence. I cant guarantee the price of future races. But any race that told you its price increase was due to super-certification would be lying.

Keith, your likes are not worthy of a response from me. In short, where I see opportunity for improvement, you only see obstacles and a little extra effort that your laziness chooses not to overcome. That is why I am a winner and you’re a loser.

Jacob, you must not be able to comprehend the written language well. Let me try to tell you a story and maybe you’ll understand. I know how to measure and execute. So, my race will be certified and correct. Another race may be measured fine, but because the RD wants to tweak it for their own purpose and because the measurer and RRTC don’t do what they can to see that the director sticks with the course, that course is also certified, but it is the wrong distance. Now, when people hear that a course is certified, and they’ve done the wrong course, do they feel confident that the course is legitimate? Better yet, should they? The whole point of RRTC is so that when people see that a course is certified, they know it’s right. But, because this crappy organization does not feel like doing what it should do, this problem will just get worse and worse. My issue is not correctly measuring my course! I would have that without any of the RRTC. My issue is with the label “certified” keeping its intended meaning. I would have thought that the people running this organization would care, but they clearly don’t care about anything except keeping that income stream with the least amount of work. This is the case with all organizations that eventually fail.

onenutwillie and dukerdog, are you other regional reps of the RRTC?

Scott and JimG, I’m disappointed. I thought this organization would care about accuracy. I now see as it has been made clear that the quality of work from the RRTC is following the trends set forth by road races in general. Because every bad instance is highlighted (JimG), that would seem to be MORE of a reason to get it right.

jerrry, wrong thread, but ok point. Better than most on this thread even though it doesn’t pertain.

Carpets, now that is interesting. I bet if we made a loop course, but made the women always run on the outside of the turns so that they could have their separate race, I bet they would never catch on. I’ll have to spend more time considering this. Don’t knock on the women for cooking, though. It’s very important and shouldn’t be belittled.

Dave, you are the best and brightest on here not counting myself as you see what is happening and are doing what you can to maintain accurate courses!

I hope the RRTC will support you and figure out ways to follow through on your suggestions. They are not asking too much. Don't let lesser people like Keith make you feel otherwise. Keep up the great work. You should be president of RRTC. It appears everyone else has forgetton what certification is about.

New RD wrote:

1. I am a winner and you’re a loser.

2. I know how to measure and execute. So, my race will be certified and correct.

3. But, because this crappy organization does not feel like doing what it should do, this problem will just get worse and worse. My issue is not correctly measuring my course! I would have that without any of the RRTC. My issue is with the label “certified” keeping its intended meaning. I would have thought that the people running this organization would care, but they clearly don’t care about anything except keeping that income stream with the least amount of work.

4. Scott and JimG, I’m disappointed.

1, 2 & 4. You've convinced me pal. Sorry you're disappointed. I'm sure JimG & I can agree, we'd vote you in as King of RRTC at the next convention!

3. Yep...the problem is gonna get worser & worser w/out your help. One problem w/your problem; you can't certify a course in the USA w/out RRTC. Sorry, you're stuck w/us.

I've been a regional/state rep since '86 and have yet to see a dime from USATF. No income stream there. My guess is the King of RRTC might get a modest honorarium.

For the record, here's your sign: Vapid. People that really want to make things better, don't make stupid like you have here.