It's official - we have confirmation from IAAF - 2013 world xc courses were short - they weren't 6k, 8k or 12k

Stop the presses!

It's XC so place over time, so who cares.

that still makes Hagos Geb's performance pretty impressive that is still worth between 21:30-21:40 only 170 meters short...

I know it's XC and times don't have the same meaning but it doesn't look good to have the highest level of competition be inaccurate.

Why even list approximate distances then?

Or how about announcing the actual distances before the event instead of after?

A fast time gets a buzz even on a XC course.

So just lay it out correctly.

Not surprised by this. The times did seem a little too good to be true, especially on that course.

I think it's even shorter than what they've listed. A lot shorter. Look at the times by the American kids in the Junior race, for example. If the course was really 7830 meters, then kids like Matt McClintock and Craig Nowak were on pace for 23:20-23:30 8ks. These kids can't even come close to those times on fast, American, grass xc courses, let alone on the hills and sloppy mud of Bydgoszcz.

This was discussed on the main thread already. This XC courses are approximate is not news but the actually distance off from the target lengths might be. I think someone actually posted the IAAF guidelines.

Notice it still says "approximately" 11,670 meters. Probably more like 11,300.

To those saying it is stupid to try to compare XC times to track - yes, most of us get that. The point was that ventolin was trying to do just that and when it was pointed out to him that the course was blatantly obviously short (eg people ran times on a tough, snowy course that were nearly the same "pace" as a WR track run), he refused to accept it.

I think it's even shorter than what they've listed. A lot shorter. ... If the course was really 7830 meters, then kids like Matt McClintock and Craig Nowak were on pace for 23:20-23:30 8ks. These kids can't even come close to those times on fast, American, grass xc courses, let alone on the hills and sloppy mud of Bydgoszcz.

QFE. Those guys were in the low to mid 24s for much, much faster courses in the fall. They'd be lucky to run 24:30 on their absolute dead-level best day at Worlds if the course was a full 8k. That puts the "8k" course at about 1:30 short at their pace, assuming they could run in the 24:30 range on it, which is doubtful given their fall results. That "8k" course is almost certainly less than 7,500.

Notice it still says "approximately" 11,670 meters. Probably more like 11,300.

Yep, no way it's any farther than that. Any way to measure the loop using some kind of Google Earth system? Odds are that loop isn't even 1,850 meters.

Like 99% of those in this country who actually run or have some interest in this sport, you guys continue to ruin it by bast@Rdiz18g it. It is cross country. Leave the slow death of the sport to the the high school and college coaches who have so adeptly planned it's demise up to this point.

So lets just call it a triathlon type course and

be done with it

Geez they time the freekin thing to the hundredth of a second and measure to the nearest hectometer. Ya gotta applaud technology well applied.

Next up - IAAF measures track for 1993 Chinese National Championships

Track coaches need full time employment. Unless they get temp work as grounds keepers, cross lives. Track athletes "forced" into cross in the fall are at risk the following year in track. They should know better than to screw themselves each fall by running all out.

The point should be - that while times aren't all that meaningfull to most they are to some. It is not difficult to measure a XC course to at least a few metres of accuracy per loop or don't publish the length of a loop. This was so obviously short of listed measurements as to create the perception that some degree of incompetency existed. Are we sure the times are correct also?, did people follow the course correctly or was a lapped runner (there were a few) missed and so ran short? While it is doubtful that these scenarios happened, when measurements are so far off, doubt will certainly arise as to other elements of measure (time and distance are both measurements).

This was a diffcult course, made moreso by the conditions. Fast times shouldn't be even part of the discussion because of this, and yet they were - even by the IAAF!