Discussion: Go BAOC! (coming US Classic Champs)
in: Orienteering; General
Sep 2, 2003 8:55 AM
#
My understanding is that WRE rules no longer require that WRE runners have a separate starting group. Thus, BAOC's decision to have separate start groups for WRE runners and non-WRE runners becomes entirely arbitrary. Any runner can either pay a modest fee and run in the early (WRE) group, or they can spare their change and run later, depending on their personal preference. That's good, because some people are early birds, while others are slow to get going.
But why stop there? Some people probably run better in the afternoon than in the morning, so why not have, say, a 3pm start group as well? And then there are probably a few people in the start lists that the organizers secretly don't care for. Why create a night group and assign those folks to it? I bet night O' at Tahoe could be pretty tough, and the night runners probably wouldn't do so well.
I also understand there are no fees associated with a WRE that are due from the organizers to the IOF. It's a freebie. Of course, maybe I'm wrong about that.
But assuming there is no fee, that would mean there is no prescribed fee, so I think the organizers are missing the boat here, too. I think it would be interesting to see how much folks would pay for the privilege of running in a WRE. We *already know* a good number of folks will pay $5 so why not go for a higher figure? I wonder how much you could charge? $10? Probably. $25? $50? Would anyone pay as much as $100? Surely it's not too late to make some retroactive fee changes, and it would be fun to see if anyone would pay $100 just to say they got to run in the WRE part of the field!
C'mon BAOC, show some imagination! Go BAOC!
--Swampfox
But why stop there? Some people probably run better in the afternoon than in the morning, so why not have, say, a 3pm start group as well? And then there are probably a few people in the start lists that the organizers secretly don't care for. Why create a night group and assign those folks to it? I bet night O' at Tahoe could be pretty tough, and the night runners probably wouldn't do so well.
I also understand there are no fees associated with a WRE that are due from the organizers to the IOF. It's a freebie. Of course, maybe I'm wrong about that.
But assuming there is no fee, that would mean there is no prescribed fee, so I think the organizers are missing the boat here, too. I think it would be interesting to see how much folks would pay for the privilege of running in a WRE. We *already know* a good number of folks will pay $5 so why not go for a higher figure? I wonder how much you could charge? $10? Probably. $25? $50? Would anyone pay as much as $100? Surely it's not too late to make some retroactive fee changes, and it would be fun to see if anyone would pay $100 just to say they got to run in the WRE part of the field!
C'mon BAOC, show some imagination! Go BAOC!
--Swampfox
Sep 2, 2003 5:45 PM
#
Swampfox couldn't have been more timely with this post. This morning, something marked "double urgent" arrived from Helsinki, and here's what was inside among other things:
SANCTION FEES RELATED TO IOF EVENTS IN 2005 - 2009
(As decided on at the IOF Council meeting No. 124 in August 2003, currency EUR)
Payment of the sanction fee gives the organiser the right to organise the competition and to use the official event title.
Still a WRE is a bargain compared to the WOC—you'd have to shell out €48 k for that.
Again, I believe Swampfox is right and there haven't been fees to pay for a WRE until 2005. But seeing how popular those have become (well, except for this particular province), the IOF could not neglect a potential revenue stream. ~30
federations × 3 WREs × €250 = pays for the delinquent Grzhjhykistan membership
SANCTION FEES RELATED TO IOF EVENTS IN 2005 - 2009
(As decided on at the IOF Council meeting No. 124 in August 2003, currency EUR)
Payment of the sanction fee gives the organiser the right to organise the competition and to use the official event title.
WRE 2005 (Organising rights incl. full sponsorship rights) 150
WRE 2006 and 2007 (Organising rights incl. full sponsorship rights) 200
WRE 2008 and 2009 (Organising rights incl. full sponsorship rights) 250
Still a WRE is a bargain compared to the WOC—you'd have to shell out €48 k for that.
Again, I believe Swampfox is right and there haven't been fees to pay for a WRE until 2005. But seeing how popular those have become (well, except for this particular province), the IOF could not neglect a potential revenue stream. ~30
federations × 3 WREs × €250 = pays for the delinquent Grzhjhykistan membership
Sep 2, 2003 5:52 PM
#
Knowing Evan and BAOC, I don't think that either the early start group, nor the $5 fee were arbitrary.
It's obviously harder for the organizers to have the early start group, so they are not going to do it without reason. I thought there was some requirement that WRE competitors weren't "interfered" with by non WRE competitors. I'd guess that the early start block is just needed to fit a WRE and a non-WRE onto the same map/day, without violating the interference 'rule.' Maybe that's an old WRE rule that doesn't apply any more???
And as far as picking start times, you probably aren't going to DVOA's WaterGap, or you'd see you may effectively select your start time within 10 minutes... Does that violate some USOF rule or is start time assignment up to the organizer? (I prefer seeded times, or in lieu of that effort random times, with reverse order on day 2 vs day 1.)
I know little about the $5 fee though...
- Wyatt
ps I've invited Evan to reply... :)
It's obviously harder for the organizers to have the early start group, so they are not going to do it without reason. I thought there was some requirement that WRE competitors weren't "interfered" with by non WRE competitors. I'd guess that the early start block is just needed to fit a WRE and a non-WRE onto the same map/day, without violating the interference 'rule.' Maybe that's an old WRE rule that doesn't apply any more???
And as far as picking start times, you probably aren't going to DVOA's WaterGap, or you'd see you may effectively select your start time within 10 minutes... Does that violate some USOF rule or is start time assignment up to the organizer? (I prefer seeded times, or in lieu of that effort random times, with reverse order on day 2 vs day 1.)
I know little about the $5 fee though...
- Wyatt
ps I've invited Evan to reply... :)
Sep 2, 2003 6:16 PM
#
How about cutting the $3500 reward money down to $3250 and letting everyone run in the WRE without the $5 fee? Or better still, make the prize money $1500, and give the other $1500 to the team. Now yer talkin'!
Sep 2, 2003 6:50 PM
#
The award money reallocates a portion of Team funding on a merit basis.
Sep 2, 2003 7:33 PM
#
I asked the IOF Controller for the event, Scott Donald, about assigning start times, since the IOF has revoked the rule that WRE competitors be in the forest by themselves. Here is his reply:
"The WRE rules no longer require a separate start time from the rest of the
competitors, so next time that hassle can be avoided, if desired. In my
opinion, WRE competitors should still be at the top of the start list to
keep consistent the distraction other competitors might cause."
Thus, although not required by the IOF Controller, he still thinks they should be at the top of the start list. Accordingly, we have changed the first start of the WRE from 8:30 to 9:30, and the rest of the competition will start at 11:00.
As far as the $5 extra fee to enter the WRE, it was an attempt to partially pay for the awards. Scarborough Orienteering and BAOC are splitting the costs of the plaques that we will be awarded to the top 3 finishers in both the male and female divisions. The total cost of these plaques is about $300. Obviously, if I knew there was such strong resistance to the $5 entry fee, I would not have instituted it and not provided any kind of award.
As far as the $3500 cash awards for the US Champs to the top 3 finishers in M21 and F21, that was a minor attempt to make competitive orienteering in the US somewhat more in line with other sports in the US. It was hard to get the BAOC board to adopt these cash awards, and obviously, we should not do it in the future, since some people don't think it worthwhile. In the past BAOC has been a strong supporter to the US team, providing grants not only to its members, but also to the team. I think BAOC as a club has contributed more money to the team and its members than any other club in the US. If I recall correctly (and I may be wrong since I don't have the budget figures right at my hand), BAOC gave $2000 to team members or the team this year.
Evan
"The WRE rules no longer require a separate start time from the rest of the
competitors, so next time that hassle can be avoided, if desired. In my
opinion, WRE competitors should still be at the top of the start list to
keep consistent the distraction other competitors might cause."
Thus, although not required by the IOF Controller, he still thinks they should be at the top of the start list. Accordingly, we have changed the first start of the WRE from 8:30 to 9:30, and the rest of the competition will start at 11:00.
As far as the $5 extra fee to enter the WRE, it was an attempt to partially pay for the awards. Scarborough Orienteering and BAOC are splitting the costs of the plaques that we will be awarded to the top 3 finishers in both the male and female divisions. The total cost of these plaques is about $300. Obviously, if I knew there was such strong resistance to the $5 entry fee, I would not have instituted it and not provided any kind of award.
As far as the $3500 cash awards for the US Champs to the top 3 finishers in M21 and F21, that was a minor attempt to make competitive orienteering in the US somewhat more in line with other sports in the US. It was hard to get the BAOC board to adopt these cash awards, and obviously, we should not do it in the future, since some people don't think it worthwhile. In the past BAOC has been a strong supporter to the US team, providing grants not only to its members, but also to the team. I think BAOC as a club has contributed more money to the team and its members than any other club in the US. If I recall correctly (and I may be wrong since I don't have the budget figures right at my hand), BAOC gave $2000 to team members or the team this year.
Evan
Sep 2, 2003 7:36 PM
#
According to Vlad, the old rule requiring WRE and non-WRE runners to be segregated has been scrapped. Vlad ran in several WRE races in Europe this year--where runners weren't segregated at all--and seems to be as up as anybody on current WRE rules and goings-ons. Apparently the old rule was very unpopular with race organizers over in Europe, for obvious reasons.
I still thing that as long as BAOC is going to have different start groups, they still ought to have a night start group, to punish trouble makers and malcontents. And, boy, do I ever hope I don't get put there! If Fallen Leaf is at all like Burton Creek, it would probably take 2 or 3 years at least to finish even an easy night course.
I've been joking about this of course, but quite seriously if the rules don't require segregated start groups, then there shouldn't be different start groups. It introduces an unnecessary element which could skew the competition in an unfair way.
I hope the organizers will give this some thought and perhaps even take action.
I still thing that as long as BAOC is going to have different start groups, they still ought to have a night start group, to punish trouble makers and malcontents. And, boy, do I ever hope I don't get put there! If Fallen Leaf is at all like Burton Creek, it would probably take 2 or 3 years at least to finish even an easy night course.
I've been joking about this of course, but quite seriously if the rules don't require segregated start groups, then there shouldn't be different start groups. It introduces an unnecessary element which could skew the competition in an unfair way.
I hope the organizers will give this some thought and perhaps even take action.
Sep 2, 2003 7:43 PM
#
A post script: Evan's note was posted while I was writing my previous post, and I hadn't seen his message. Reading over Evan's post, I will still wonder one other thing, which is this: why should WRE considerations take primacy at our National Championship? This is just one of many (hundreds?) of WRE races while this is our only US Classic Championship. Runners should be seeded/started with *that* in mind so that we have the fairest possible national championship, and not the fairest possible--and essentially meaningless--WRE race.
Sep 2, 2003 8:57 PM
#
Sure! And bomb that UN headquarters while the fuse's still lit. America first, goddammit. All the rest of the world can go stuff it. (This was a bad joke.)
I'm only disagreeing with Swampfox in the "essentially meaningless" assessment part, I second his comments otherwise. The WRE scheme is around for several reasons, the main of which as I see it is to allow performances under completely different sets of conditions to be compared. The IOF (read BOF) spent many years perfecting the system (which is somewhat complex). Initially it didn't work that well (while runners were continuously added to the database) but now the system seems to have stabilized to a point that performances that earn comparable points are, in fact, comparable. For example, I know that if BorisGr has a good (but not stellar) run and I have a good (but not stellar) run, Boris comes out a few tens of seconds ahead. In August, we got the same points +/−2 for two good but not stellar races. Boris's was the Sprint in Switzerland, at 33 C, in front of 10,000 spectators in a city, at 5.9 min/km, 29% behind the winner. Mine was a Classic in Russia, pouring cold rain, 6.7 min/km, 33% behind the (much slower) winner.
USOF point scheme would have failed in this case.
The rest of the world sees our international results and our WRE points, but they may or may not see the results of the US Champs, or even know that they were held (unless someone like Evan sends a prompt message to some place like O-Sport). WRE results are all there on the IOF page, they provide a quick, fairly accurate, and thoroughly complete picture of who's who in competitive orienteering.
But why should we care? We're already the best, right?
I'm only disagreeing with Swampfox in the "essentially meaningless" assessment part, I second his comments otherwise. The WRE scheme is around for several reasons, the main of which as I see it is to allow performances under completely different sets of conditions to be compared. The IOF (read BOF) spent many years perfecting the system (which is somewhat complex). Initially it didn't work that well (while runners were continuously added to the database) but now the system seems to have stabilized to a point that performances that earn comparable points are, in fact, comparable. For example, I know that if BorisGr has a good (but not stellar) run and I have a good (but not stellar) run, Boris comes out a few tens of seconds ahead. In August, we got the same points +/−2 for two good but not stellar races. Boris's was the Sprint in Switzerland, at 33 C, in front of 10,000 spectators in a city, at 5.9 min/km, 29% behind the winner. Mine was a Classic in Russia, pouring cold rain, 6.7 min/km, 33% behind the (much slower) winner.
USOF point scheme would have failed in this case.
The rest of the world sees our international results and our WRE points, but they may or may not see the results of the US Champs, or even know that they were held (unless someone like Evan sends a prompt message to some place like O-Sport). WRE results are all there on the IOF page, they provide a quick, fairly accurate, and thoroughly complete picture of who's who in competitive orienteering.
But why should we care? We're already the best, right?
Sep 2, 2003 9:11 PM
#
bmay:
I agree with those who don't see the point of the segregated starts. The seperation of those in and out of the WRE will be quite arbitrary (perhaps even dictated by the presence or absence of $5 in one's bank account - though this fee seems pretty trivial compared to all other costs involved!). The separation seems to have no advantage (given that IOF doesn't require it). It has the distinct disadvantage of splitting the field competing for the US Championship. This could certainly affect the outcome.
As a concrete example, consider that I won the US Champs in 2001 out of the non-Trials start group. While eligible for the US team, I had decided not to compete at WOC, so I didn't register for the trials. It was a little weird to win a US Champs, when it felt like I was racing a different event than the other top Americans.
As a concrete example, consider that I won the US Champs in 2001 out of the non-Trials start group. While eligible for the US team, I had decided not to compete at WOC, so I didn't register for the trials. It was a little weird to win a US Champs, when it felt like I was racing a different event than the other top Americans.
Sep 2, 2003 9:43 PM
#
As I told Swampfox in other correspondence, in no WRE events that I ran this year did they make an attempt to separate the WRE and non-WRE runners. That is, if you entered M/F 21 E/A, you were in the WRE automatically at no extra fee. The only reason to not want to be in a WRE is to not want the world to know how much you suck. The only option for such people was to run a category down (i.e. A instead of E) on the day of the WRE.
At an event in the US, people who do not want their points be known but still want to compete on the top Blue/Red course should start in a separate window (so that they do not affect the points competition)—in a perfect world. In reality I don't see that big of a deal just crossing out names on the results list sent to the IOF. Perhaps the entry form should have a checkbox saying "I really do not want my points (×)".
At an event in the US, people who do not want their points be known but still want to compete on the top Blue/Red course should start in a separate window (so that they do not affect the points competition)—in a perfect world. In reality I don't see that big of a deal just crossing out names on the results list sent to the IOF. Perhaps the entry form should have a checkbox saying "I really do not want my points (×)".
Sep 2, 2003 9:51 PM
#
$5 is trivial, I agree, but the principle of paying $5 for the privelege of getting points in the WRE system while running the *exact same* course as everyone else is what bothers me. Either its a WRE or it isn't. If you need to charge $5 more for that course, fine - charge everybody.
In regard to BAOC money I know that they are VERY strong team supporters and I didn't mean to seem negative that way. Award money will fund the team on a merit basis, assuming some Swede doesn't fly over, win the pot and pay for his trip, in which case the team gets nothing. Nor does the status of O in the US get bumped towards par with pro golf and football, etc. simply because money changed hands. One can argue that luring good orienteers from Europe to compete here helps raise the level of O competition in the US, and I'd agree with that.
I have always been opposed to prize money in O, but I think I am a minority in this opinion. BAOC is running the meet and they can do whatever they want - prize money or prizes or whatever. It just seems like prize money is not the best investment.
In regard to BAOC money I know that they are VERY strong team supporters and I didn't mean to seem negative that way. Award money will fund the team on a merit basis, assuming some Swede doesn't fly over, win the pot and pay for his trip, in which case the team gets nothing. Nor does the status of O in the US get bumped towards par with pro golf and football, etc. simply because money changed hands. One can argue that luring good orienteers from Europe to compete here helps raise the level of O competition in the US, and I'd agree with that.
I have always been opposed to prize money in O, but I think I am a minority in this opinion. BAOC is running the meet and they can do whatever they want - prize money or prizes or whatever. It just seems like prize money is not the best investment.
Sep 2, 2003 10:04 PM
#
Dollar prizes are limited to US Champs-eligible placers. Of course, some Swede would always be welcome to fly over but there's no cash waiting for his case.
Sep 2, 2003 10:21 PM
#
Is that true? Its not stated exactly that way on the website. It says:
"There will be cash awards for the top three M21 and F21 finishers for the 2-Day A meet. First place winners will receive $1,000.00, second place finishers will receive $500.00, and third place finishers $250.00. Non-cash awards will be available for the top 3 finishers in all other classes. To be eligible for the awards of US Champion, you must be a member of USOF in good standing and meet one of the following criteria: "
(etc...)
Could be taken either way I suppose. The first sentence simply says cash awards for top 3 finishers. Last sentence states criterion for US Champion.
"There will be cash awards for the top three M21 and F21 finishers for the 2-Day A meet. First place winners will receive $1,000.00, second place finishers will receive $500.00, and third place finishers $250.00. Non-cash awards will be available for the top 3 finishers in all other classes. To be eligible for the awards of US Champion, you must be a member of USOF in good standing and meet one of the following criteria: "
(etc...)
Could be taken either way I suppose. The first sentence simply says cash awards for top 3 finishers. Last sentence states criterion for US Champion.
Sep 2, 2003 11:09 PM
#
Bad wording. Someone should have caught this; as far as I know the intention has always been to limit the awards to Champs-eligible people. Note that this still does not guarantee that the $ is going to go to WOC participants, as people may win it and not go to the WOC (e.g. Swampfox could potentially be one such person) or not be WOC-eligible (e.g. Sergei Z could be one).
Sep 3, 2003 12:08 AM
#
I really don't understand these negative attitudes. Here we have just about the best example of funding for elites that I've ever seen in the US (and yes, I'm sure the money is for US Champs eligibles), and through quibbling with the organizers instead of lauding them, we've pretty much ensured that it won't happen again. Good f*ing job! This team needs to learn how to treat its supporters, if it wants to have any.
There is no conspiracy, and nobody is against us until we make them that way through this kind of BS. If you want to criticize here, I suggest it be directed toward the Team instead of externally. This is a public forum, and nothing written here should be assumed to be hidden from anybody.
I'm starting to agree with the "F* the Team, I'll just run" attitude that some long-time members seem to share.
There is no conspiracy, and nobody is against us until we make them that way through this kind of BS. If you want to criticize here, I suggest it be directed toward the Team instead of externally. This is a public forum, and nothing written here should be assumed to be hidden from anybody.
I'm starting to agree with the "F* the Team, I'll just run" attitude that some long-time members seem to share.
Sep 3, 2003 12:36 AM
#
FWIW, I think much of the whining seen here has been whining for whining's sake. I think I'm speaking for _most_ of the team in saying:
"Thank you BAOC for supporing the US Team!" Both via Grants to the US Team and individual US team members over the past several years and, for the first time, via awards to top US finishers at the US Champs!
Part of BAOC's decision to grant the cash awards was as an experiment, to see what happened, as cash awards do make some events (e.g. in other sports) draw larger competitive fields, and get a little more interest in the event. As an ESC member when BAOC made the decision, I think I think some of the prize money idea came out of a request to have BAOC sponsor or add to US Team Competition Grants. However, rather than do that, and understand it's various rules, direct prize money was seen as an even more obvious way to award the top finishers, and again, see what happened...
Evan, if you are still reading this thread, do you have any idea how dense the top of the M21 and/or F21 field entrants are? In 2002, I think there were only 5 US entrants in F21, in the East Coast O-Zone of QOC! Is the 2003 US Champs doing better or worse in this regard? How about M21? Of the following (top 10 ranked US eligible...) who's coming?
1 Ken Walker Jr CSU 2 101.3 74:03
2 Brian May MNOC 10 99.6 75:16
3 James Scarborough BAOC 12 99.1 75:41
4 William Hawkins CSU 13 98.8 75:53
5 Mikell Platt RMOC 10 97.8 76:40
7 Eric Bone COC 20 95.3 78:43
8 Sergei Zhyk DVOA 13 94.4 79:28
11 Joe Brautigam WCOC 2 91.8 81:39
12 Mihai Veres DVOA 9 90.1 83:16
13 Boris Granovskiy CSU 13 89.3 84:00
In 2002, the US Champs had 8 of these 10 attend, and, like on '02, I doubt we'll get either Ken Walker Jr. (inj.) or Joe B. (mostly adventure racing these days...).
"Thank you BAOC for supporing the US Team!" Both via Grants to the US Team and individual US team members over the past several years and, for the first time, via awards to top US finishers at the US Champs!
Part of BAOC's decision to grant the cash awards was as an experiment, to see what happened, as cash awards do make some events (e.g. in other sports) draw larger competitive fields, and get a little more interest in the event. As an ESC member when BAOC made the decision, I think I think some of the prize money idea came out of a request to have BAOC sponsor or add to US Team Competition Grants. However, rather than do that, and understand it's various rules, direct prize money was seen as an even more obvious way to award the top finishers, and again, see what happened...
Evan, if you are still reading this thread, do you have any idea how dense the top of the M21 and/or F21 field entrants are? In 2002, I think there were only 5 US entrants in F21, in the East Coast O-Zone of QOC! Is the 2003 US Champs doing better or worse in this regard? How about M21? Of the following (top 10 ranked US eligible...) who's coming?
1 Ken Walker Jr CSU 2 101.3 74:03
2 Brian May MNOC 10 99.6 75:16
3 James Scarborough BAOC 12 99.1 75:41
4 William Hawkins CSU 13 98.8 75:53
5 Mikell Platt RMOC 10 97.8 76:40
7 Eric Bone COC 20 95.3 78:43
8 Sergei Zhyk DVOA 13 94.4 79:28
11 Joe Brautigam WCOC 2 91.8 81:39
12 Mihai Veres DVOA 9 90.1 83:16
13 Boris Granovskiy CSU 13 89.3 84:00
In 2002, the US Champs had 8 of these 10 attend, and, like on '02, I doubt we'll get either Ken Walker Jr. (inj.) or Joe B. (mostly adventure racing these days...).
Sep 3, 2003 1:56 AM
#
The answers to Wyatt's questions are, status as of 23 August:
* M21 is very dense, with 31 total and the 8 out of top 10 eligibles Wyatt is mentioning all present. Also, 7 out of top 10 overall.
* F21 is somewhat dense, with 14 total and 4 out of 10 top eligibles, 3 out of top 10 overall, and 9 total eligible women. I'd say F21 is clear progress over last year.
Great big thanks to BAOC for all the support (from me as a Team official), and great big thanks to BAOC for the lone WRE of the year (from me as an IOF official).
Dan: Everything you ever type in is public.
* M21 is very dense, with 31 total and the 8 out of top 10 eligibles Wyatt is mentioning all present. Also, 7 out of top 10 overall.
* F21 is somewhat dense, with 14 total and 4 out of 10 top eligibles, 3 out of top 10 overall, and 9 total eligible women. I'd say F21 is clear progress over last year.
Great big thanks to BAOC for all the support (from me as a Team official), and great big thanks to BAOC for the lone WRE of the year (from me as an IOF official).
Dan: Everything you ever type in is public.
Sep 3, 2003 3:26 AM
#
I am probably going to come off sounding like a peace-loving hippie, but can't we all just get along? The people who have posted on this thread are, without exception, major contributors to elite American orienteers in many different ways, from competing to putting on meets to organizing the team to looking out for our interests overseas. Very clearly, everyone here is interested in helping and seeing the team grow and develop and, hopefully, perform better in the future. Even if there is disagreement about the best ways to do that, please do not dismiss and mock the efforts of some people to improve the state of the team. It is better to have someone trying to help and support us than to have no friends, regradless of what you think of the specific efforts. This is a clear example of people chomping at the very hand that is feeding them.
BAOC should only be applauded and thanked for all the time, money and manpower it has invested in helping the team grow and in providing high quality competitions with great fequency and consistency.
Reading this thread has been rather disappointing for me, as very petty and mean things have been said by people whom I admire both as orienteers and as individuals. I really hope that this is an exception and that, in the future, we as a team will do a better job of knowing who our friends are and acting accordingly.
BAOC should only be applauded and thanked for all the time, money and manpower it has invested in helping the team grow and in providing high quality competitions with great fequency and consistency.
Reading this thread has been rather disappointing for me, as very petty and mean things have been said by people whom I admire both as orienteers and as individuals. I really hope that this is an exception and that, in the future, we as a team will do a better job of knowing who our friends are and acting accordingly.
Sep 3, 2003 3:32 AM
#
Now, on the issue of start time windows:
Yes, it does make a difference when person starts and yes, the outcome of the event may be affected by start times. In our case, I estimate that start times will stretch over a period of no more than 3 hours (from 9:30 for the first WREs to about 12:30).
This is not particularly atypical for major events worldwide - start windows of other WREs or events such as O-Ringen or any multiday often run as long as 4 or 5 hours, also influencing the outcome in some way. It is an existing issue, but one that other federations seem to have learned to live with and, honestly, not something worth complaining about.
Yes, it does make a difference when person starts and yes, the outcome of the event may be affected by start times. In our case, I estimate that start times will stretch over a period of no more than 3 hours (from 9:30 for the first WREs to about 12:30).
This is not particularly atypical for major events worldwide - start windows of other WREs or events such as O-Ringen or any multiday often run as long as 4 or 5 hours, also influencing the outcome in some way. It is an existing issue, but one that other federations seem to have learned to live with and, honestly, not something worth complaining about.
Sep 3, 2003 4:21 AM
#
I think we should ban Mikell from this board :)
Seriously speaking, the team is in great disarray since $1000 prize money create such great noise about nothing. The team should start generating money fot itself and find good corporate and club sponsors. BAOC is one of the greatest team supporters and should only receive applouse from the team members.
Speakng about fairness of the competition, I don't think that anyone should tell "It introduces an unnecessary element which could skew the competition in an unfair way." BAOC organizers are following IOF official guidelines and IOF controller recommendations.
I also don't think that people who brake rules of USOF competition should voice their oppinion regarding fairness of the competition. I would take much more seriously the problem of mappers competing oficially and receiving official ranking points (as well as USA Champs titles). As an example, this weekend I ran longest leg 4 of the USA relay champs of this year at Ponderosa park in 40 minutes. At least 10% advantage over the best time shown. As a mapper I would never allow myself to compete on the maps that I produced.
Seriously speaking, the team is in great disarray since $1000 prize money create such great noise about nothing. The team should start generating money fot itself and find good corporate and club sponsors. BAOC is one of the greatest team supporters and should only receive applouse from the team members.
Speakng about fairness of the competition, I don't think that anyone should tell "It introduces an unnecessary element which could skew the competition in an unfair way." BAOC organizers are following IOF official guidelines and IOF controller recommendations.
I also don't think that people who brake rules of USOF competition should voice their oppinion regarding fairness of the competition. I would take much more seriously the problem of mappers competing oficially and receiving official ranking points (as well as USA Champs titles). As an example, this weekend I ran longest leg 4 of the USA relay champs of this year at Ponderosa park in 40 minutes. At least 10% advantage over the best time shown. As a mapper I would never allow myself to compete on the maps that I produced.
Sep 3, 2003 9:18 AM
#
Boris--I think it's great to be a peace-loving hippie in organizational situations like these. In fact, I believe that the Team's external relationships would be greatly improved through the adoption of such an attitude. I think that it's good to have heated discussion internally, but that we would be better thought of, and get more of what we want, if we presented a unified, positive face to the outside.
These last several messages are good examples of such a positive attitude, especially regarding external issues.
I think that it would be useful to this team to have a PR director. I imagine that one of this person's responsibilities would be to ensure that all Team supporters (defined broadly) were properly acknowledged and thanked. Perhaps another would be to write up an external newsletter to distribute to clubs regarding the work that Team members were doing for orienteering, as well as any good results achieved. I don't think that this would be much work or cost hardly anything, but it could lead to improvements in goodwill and perhaps more tangible things as well.
These last several messages are good examples of such a positive attitude, especially regarding external issues.
I think that it would be useful to this team to have a PR director. I imagine that one of this person's responsibilities would be to ensure that all Team supporters (defined broadly) were properly acknowledged and thanked. Perhaps another would be to write up an external newsletter to distribute to clubs regarding the work that Team members were doing for orienteering, as well as any good results achieved. I don't think that this would be much work or cost hardly anything, but it could lead to improvements in goodwill and perhaps more tangible things as well.
Sep 3, 2003 6:02 PM
#
I didn't think twice about the $5 fee. I seem to remember a major European event (I believe FIN5) charging an extra 5 EUR for the privilege of running M21E. It would be interesting to know where that surcharge went. But why not a surcharge for running M21/F21 at USOF A meets with the money going to the team?
According to the 2002 rankings page, there were about 868 starts on blue last year. Lets say half of that was APOC (I dunno), and you'd lose 20% of the field because of the surcharge. That leaves a surcharge of $5 generating $1736 for the team (not even counting any F21 starts). I wouldn't mind paying it. Lower the surcharge to $2 or $3 and what I think appears a trivial amount still generates some cash. I know people hate taxes, but if USOF sees people who are running elite putting up cash for the team in this manner, the public relations issue may improve.
(Of course, if there were such a surcharge, I'd be a bit more grouchy about lame course setting, field checking, and map printing at an "elite" event).
And I see the point about what appears to be paying for the privilege to start early, but I don't think it's like that. It seems the controller has decided the distraction factor has outweighed the effect of this form of seeding on the start list for the championship. I guess it is an artifact of trying to run two events with one start window on the same course, and (maybe) we can question the controller's decision (and it seems to be a moot point going forward), but I think we can have a useful discussion of the fee outside this issue.
(Perhaps its a shame the issue wasn't brought to the organizers sooner -- I'd have no problem with a solution of simply lumping every M21/F21 entrant into the WRE, so some paid the fee, and some didn't -- is it a big deal if doing this would make a fairer championship race? Of course, given the late date, it would be perfectly reasonable for the organizers to keep things as they have been advertised for the past few months).
As for prize money in general, I agree with Eddie in being against it, for the reason that in the long run, the more you raise the stakes, the more you have to be aware of the doping issue. That is not to say that there is not some incentive to dope now (there always will be in any race), but more prizes, more incentive. If USOF had a strategy for handling doping concerns (and perhaps they do), I'd be more ok with prize money.
However, that said, I applaud BAOC. There is often alot of whining about 'what is to be done'? I see this as a case of BAOC 'DOING something'. Perhaps it wouldn't be my first choice, but this positive action by BAOC now far outweighs my long term concerns about dealing with a potential doping issue.
According to the 2002 rankings page, there were about 868 starts on blue last year. Lets say half of that was APOC (I dunno), and you'd lose 20% of the field because of the surcharge. That leaves a surcharge of $5 generating $1736 for the team (not even counting any F21 starts). I wouldn't mind paying it. Lower the surcharge to $2 or $3 and what I think appears a trivial amount still generates some cash. I know people hate taxes, but if USOF sees people who are running elite putting up cash for the team in this manner, the public relations issue may improve.
(Of course, if there were such a surcharge, I'd be a bit more grouchy about lame course setting, field checking, and map printing at an "elite" event).
And I see the point about what appears to be paying for the privilege to start early, but I don't think it's like that. It seems the controller has decided the distraction factor has outweighed the effect of this form of seeding on the start list for the championship. I guess it is an artifact of trying to run two events with one start window on the same course, and (maybe) we can question the controller's decision (and it seems to be a moot point going forward), but I think we can have a useful discussion of the fee outside this issue.
(Perhaps its a shame the issue wasn't brought to the organizers sooner -- I'd have no problem with a solution of simply lumping every M21/F21 entrant into the WRE, so some paid the fee, and some didn't -- is it a big deal if doing this would make a fairer championship race? Of course, given the late date, it would be perfectly reasonable for the organizers to keep things as they have been advertised for the past few months).
As for prize money in general, I agree with Eddie in being against it, for the reason that in the long run, the more you raise the stakes, the more you have to be aware of the doping issue. That is not to say that there is not some incentive to dope now (there always will be in any race), but more prizes, more incentive. If USOF had a strategy for handling doping concerns (and perhaps they do), I'd be more ok with prize money.
However, that said, I applaud BAOC. There is often alot of whining about 'what is to be done'? I see this as a case of BAOC 'DOING something'. Perhaps it wouldn't be my first choice, but this positive action by BAOC now far outweighs my long term concerns about dealing with a potential doping issue.
Sep 3, 2003 6:16 PM
#
I also think (together with Randy) that we should take doping issue more seriously. In my oppinion people caught using doping should be banned forever to compete at the elite events. Period.
However, USOF should have established doping control system for this. At least all USA Champ elite medalists should be checked. That brings the issue of more money allocated by USOF for elite orienteering :)
However, USOF should have established doping control system for this. At least all USA Champ elite medalists should be checked. That brings the issue of more money allocated by USOF for elite orienteering :)
Sep 3, 2003 7:11 PM
#
Check this article for a technical story on doping control before and during the 2002 WOG. See a different thread for some relevant doping testing info.
Sep 3, 2003 11:38 PM
#
The cash prizes are for US Championship eligible competitors only.
Although the start crew chief and the EP chief are about to abandon ship if I make any more changes to the procedure for start list assignment, these are the criteria I have told him to use when assigning start times.
There will be two blocks of competitors in M21. It happens that approximately 50% have signed up for the WRE and 50% not. The WRE block will be assigned start times, with 4 minute start intervals, beginning between about 9:30-9:40 Saturday morning. With 34 competitors, this block should have finished starting about 11:00. The non-WRE block will then start around 11:00 and go until all competitors have started.
The two blocks will be switched on Sunday, with the non-WRE starting first around 9:00 and the WRE block as soon as the other group finishes, probably around 10:20 or so.
Each competitor will have 1 early start period and 1 late start period. This is being done for all classes.
I know there is some sentiment to mix all of the M21's together, but I would have made two blocks anyway, so that one group would have an earlier start and the other a later start.
I am following the suggestion of the IOF controller that the WRE's start first, although this is not an IOF rule.
The actual assignment of start times will be made by MT2003 software under its Start Time/Draw module. After the list is drawn, the second module of separating club members so that two people in the same club do not start consecutively will be done if possible.
I am unaware of any USOF rule saying that start times should be seeded. I am aware of an IOF rule that says the start times for WRE competitors should be determined randomly. That is why we are using the Start Time/Draw module for assignment of start times.
In addition to the awards, the other added expense for the WRE is having to pay for the IOF Controller's travel and lodging. We are fortunate that the controller most likely will not charge us for lodging, and although he will have made two trips here, he probably will only charge us for one round trip with the lowest airfare he can find. It still will probably amount to $300, or at least that is what is was two years ago for the O in the Oaks WRE.
Evan
Although the start crew chief and the EP chief are about to abandon ship if I make any more changes to the procedure for start list assignment, these are the criteria I have told him to use when assigning start times.
There will be two blocks of competitors in M21. It happens that approximately 50% have signed up for the WRE and 50% not. The WRE block will be assigned start times, with 4 minute start intervals, beginning between about 9:30-9:40 Saturday morning. With 34 competitors, this block should have finished starting about 11:00. The non-WRE block will then start around 11:00 and go until all competitors have started.
The two blocks will be switched on Sunday, with the non-WRE starting first around 9:00 and the WRE block as soon as the other group finishes, probably around 10:20 or so.
Each competitor will have 1 early start period and 1 late start period. This is being done for all classes.
I know there is some sentiment to mix all of the M21's together, but I would have made two blocks anyway, so that one group would have an earlier start and the other a later start.
I am following the suggestion of the IOF controller that the WRE's start first, although this is not an IOF rule.
The actual assignment of start times will be made by MT2003 software under its Start Time/Draw module. After the list is drawn, the second module of separating club members so that two people in the same club do not start consecutively will be done if possible.
I am unaware of any USOF rule saying that start times should be seeded. I am aware of an IOF rule that says the start times for WRE competitors should be determined randomly. That is why we are using the Start Time/Draw module for assignment of start times.
In addition to the awards, the other added expense for the WRE is having to pay for the IOF Controller's travel and lodging. We are fortunate that the controller most likely will not charge us for lodging, and although he will have made two trips here, he probably will only charge us for one round trip with the lowest airfare he can find. It still will probably amount to $300, or at least that is what is was two years ago for the O in the Oaks WRE.
Evan
Sep 3, 2003 11:46 PM
#
I have earlier offered to advise at any North American WRE at no cost to the club; the offer still stands. Obviously BAOC would present a conflict of interest.
Sep 4, 2003 5:01 AM
#
Is it best to have the doping control immediately after a water control, or several controls later so that the water can do the trick? :)
Sep 4, 2003 5:22 AM
#
As Boris joked during today's training practice, we don't even have money to buy a pair of sneakers not to mention the dope :))) It is quite creazy to assume that either of Americans orienteers would want to compromise his health for an opportunity to win $1000. Though in my personal opinion, monetary award isn't such a bad idea in terms of motivation, which means harder traing, and etc.
Sep 4, 2003 7:17 AM
#
The issues you are debating are similar here in Canada. For example, the idea that Brian mentioned is currently being discussed by Canadian team members. We also have the team trials vs. national champs issue. But I agree with Brian that we need to work within the system to improve orienteering. The US already has a plethora of Championship weekends which IMHO makes it easier for elites to achieve what they want within the existing system. For example, why not work together with the BOD and suggest that your short/long champs weekend be held every year in the spring and that it double as team trials? Ideally it should be terrain relevant but not necessary. In your proposal you can state that age groupers do the status quo but that the event be modified to meet the interests of elites preparing (and selecting) for WOC. Instead of the status quo the elites would race international standard short(15) and middle(30) on Saturday (almost like this spring) and long(90) on Sunday (this would be shorter than your current long winning time). Then in the autumn you have your standard US Championships where everybody runs classic (perhaps 2x60 - ie, WOC qualifying distance for men).
Referring to the different Championships as the spring and autumn US Champs would make them appear equally important.
Just a thought...
By the way, I had the chance of winning my first prize money at the Boulder Dash. My good friend Alar offerred me $5 US (a lot more in Canuckistan cash) if I could run sub 9min/km. I hit the wall (something I did in almost all my August races) and lost the big cash prize opportunity. So my career winnings remain at $0.
Referring to the different Championships as the spring and autumn US Champs would make them appear equally important.
Just a thought...
By the way, I had the chance of winning my first prize money at the Boulder Dash. My good friend Alar offerred me $5 US (a lot more in Canuckistan cash) if I could run sub 9min/km. I hit the wall (something I did in almost all my August races) and lost the big cash prize opportunity. So my career winnings remain at $0.
Sep 4, 2003 8:54 AM
#
I wonder if i am one of the 'wealthier' American orienteers in terms of prize money, as I won a total of 380 rubles over several races in 1992, competing in Russia in H12.
(At the current exchange rate, this is equivalent to about 12 USD.)
:)
(At the current exchange rate, this is equivalent to about 12 USD.)
:)
Sep 4, 2003 4:45 PM
#
For example, why not work together with the BOD and suggest that your short/long champs weekend be held every year in the spring and that it double as team trials?
This or something similar has been discussed. This would be met with similar mixed feelings as the Open Champs: clubs do not seem to like the idea of joined Short/Long Champs as some of them would rather only bid for one or the other. And, based on the outcome of the Open Champs proposal, the proposal would be voted down not because of merits but because "the Team thinks that it knows better".
This or something similar has been discussed. This would be met with similar mixed feelings as the Open Champs: clubs do not seem to like the idea of joined Short/Long Champs as some of them would rather only bid for one or the other. And, based on the outcome of the Open Champs proposal, the proposal would be voted down not because of merits but because "the Team thinks that it knows better".
Sep 4, 2003 9:06 PM
#
Also some attempt was made this year to have more A-meets (non-champs) that match the short/long format rather than the two back-to-back medium days that we currently use. When done correctly these are two very different O techniques, and match the IOF races better. They also make the blue runners race longer - closer to the IOF long format. Personally, I'd like to see more of this. Maybe even making it the USOF A-meet standard. Pawtuckaway this weekend was another good example of a multi-format event. I hadn't thought of a Short/Long champs doubling as the trials. Good idea. Maybe that came up in the discussions last year..I don't remember. But yeah, it does seem like they are usually at two different events.
Sep 5, 2003 4:16 AM
#
...clubs do not seem to like the idea of joined Short/Long Champs as some of them would rather only bid for one or the other.
2 out of the last 3 years the short and long champs have been hosted at the same event--CNYO this year and the Flying Pig 2 years ago. In fact this year, the long-O was not a mass start event making it even more suitable for a selection race.
2 out of the last 3 years the short and long champs have been hosted at the same event--CNYO this year and the Flying Pig 2 years ago. In fact this year, the long-O was not a mass start event making it even more suitable for a selection race.
Sep 5, 2003 4:56 AM
#
OK, I should have put it this way: Clubs do not like the idea of USOF Board saying "From now on, you may only bid on and hold the joined Short and Long Champs". Various proposals have been put forward in the past to join various Champs by policy, not just by reliance on OCIN or CNYO or BAOC thinking that that is a good idea. It never worked. Always some representative would stand up and say: "Club XYOC in my region has been plamning to put on the Short Champs in 2033 for 48 years now... they only have z people... and now they need z more to work the Long Champs... so their dream is ruined." Or something like that.
Sep 5, 2003 5:50 PM
#
"Something like that" may be along the lines of "our club doesn't have good terrain for both formats on the map we are making, and we don't have the money to make a second map, and don't want to reuse and old map, or we don't have one". Possibly a more valid excuse, I dunno. I think it is possible to have a map that has championship terrain for one style of race, and not so appropriate terrain for the other. One could possibly legitimatly say "too bad", but in reality, I'm not sure it would work out that way.
That is the problem I have with a mandate on format. The bigger fish to fry in USOF right now (IMHO) is course/map/event quality. It seems a mandate could have the effect to further erode quality ("yeah, map X would be really good for the longs, but if we have to, we can work the shorts in over here, then trail run them to this other semi-interersting small area over here that we weren't planning to really field check, but Joe Schmoe has a free weekend to look it over ...").
Yeah, I know, hyperbolic, but mandates I think can have that effect if you are not careful. It is probably a concern that can be handled in the bid/sanctioning process, but questionable quality has gotten thru this process before. All to often we have only one club that will bid a particular race, a mandate may further constrain the quality of what that club can do (or we end up with no race -- and then beg the question is no race better than a sub-quality one -- certainly a legitimate question).
So, all that I ask is that if these mandates are considered/proposed, that the event quality issue be examined as well.
That is the problem I have with a mandate on format. The bigger fish to fry in USOF right now (IMHO) is course/map/event quality. It seems a mandate could have the effect to further erode quality ("yeah, map X would be really good for the longs, but if we have to, we can work the shorts in over here, then trail run them to this other semi-interersting small area over here that we weren't planning to really field check, but Joe Schmoe has a free weekend to look it over ...").
Yeah, I know, hyperbolic, but mandates I think can have that effect if you are not careful. It is probably a concern that can be handled in the bid/sanctioning process, but questionable quality has gotten thru this process before. All to often we have only one club that will bid a particular race, a mandate may further constrain the quality of what that club can do (or we end up with no race -- and then beg the question is no race better than a sub-quality one -- certainly a legitimate question).
So, all that I ask is that if these mandates are considered/proposed, that the event quality issue be examined as well.
Sep 9, 2003 12:51 AM
#
I don't figure I'm in the lead, but I'm ahead of you, Boris. In 1995 (or thereabouts), the Crystal Relay at the 1000-Day had cash prizes. They were payable not to the competitors, but to the club that fielded the team. My RMOC team finished 2nd or 3rd, and we won $100 for the club. But at our next annual meeting, the club awarded the money to the runners. So I got $20.
The memorable thing about that event was the dire warnings we got from people who claimed that anyone who participated in the relay would become forever ineligible for NCAA sports.
The memorable thing about that event was the dire warnings we got from people who claimed that anyone who participated in the relay would become forever ineligible for NCAA sports.
This discussion thread is closed.