Discussion: Canadian Championships

The Canadian Champs start tomorrow north-west of Toronto. First time with the new Short/Middle/Long format. I'm pretty sure there won't be live web updates:
http://www.coc2006.ca/
Jon Torrance hopefully will give a report from the local library wearing O-gear like last year (I know Jon, it was a clean kit....)

C'mon, fill us in... I can't wait!

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? I have my money on Bash posting something first.

Where's the library rat in his o-suit?

Online at my sister's place in Aurora but, on the assumption that the long won't start 2 hours late, I need to get to bed now.

Very quick post - out of necessity as well as scarcity of solid information.

By the time I left tonight the results of the sprint still weren't sorted out (should be recoverable somehow - even if we don't get an exact time, all the times relative to one another should be correct). I hadn't the chance to see the middle distance results as things were running extraordinarily late in the morning and we needed to get to the sprint....

Anyway, I believe the winners to be Mike Smith and Katarina Smith in the middle, and - as far as I could tell - Mike Smith and Katarina Smith (again) in the sprint. This could change as things get sorted out....

The middle, as alluded to by Jon, was desperately disorganized in the end, despite a lot of work by the organizers to pull it off at the last moment.

The start was delayed initially by an hour, and then this was extended further - and finally started a full two hours behind schedule. I don't know the reason - some act of God or whatever - but it is pretty bad for the Canadian Championships - supposedly our premiere event of the year - to be this far off.

In addition, on Course 8 at least, there were a minimum of 2 misplaced controls, and as many as 4 misplaced. This is by general consensus amongst several of the the top runners there. I am told the F20 course had similar problems as well.

Amazingly, nobody decided to protest (though it seems likely the protest would have been upheld as the controls were clearly not correctly placed, although most people did manage to find them anyhow).

FYI, the F20 course was 4.3 km and was won in 43 minutes (with a very bad race by Katta, as the map and course problems never really enabled her to get into any kind of flow). The M20 course was 5.2 km and was won in 40 minutes.

The sprint, despite a late start (due to the morning fiasco) and problems with the results (not sure about the cause of this) was a much more successful venture. Nick Duca set an excellent, truly excellent course, and the map was very good as well. Lots of fun there and it did a lot to make up for the morning's shameful adventure....

Anyway, there you have the early version. More results to follow - they're supposed to give out awards tomorrow somehow.

The sprint course really was fun. (Yes, the morning was a disaster... sigh...) Unfortunately, for some runners, as many as five or six SI controls were not working in the sprint. I think this affected all women aged 15-54, and the male runners with earlier starts. For some reason, the SI units were working for male runners with later start times, but I didn't talk to any women who found all SI units working. I hope there weren't any close results amongst the men, because map punching takes more time than SI punching!

Oh right. I forgot about the non-functioning SportIdent units, because by the time I started they were all activated already. But Katta (the first finisher of any course) had to manually punch 5 controls. Same for many others, especially on the F20 class, but also some on the M20 class.

For a sprint, it does make a significant difference, too - estimate about 5 seconds to punch in that situation, which is: expect a beep, don't get it, maybe punch again, still no beep, unfold map to find appropriate place to punch, locate manual punch, punch, and go. It may actually even take longer than 5 seconds for this, I'm just not sure. And some people had to stand in line to manually punch the single unit, as of couse many people didn't know quite what to do and it took them a little extra time to sort it out.

Still, it was otherwise a very nice course on a much better (modern) map than in the morning. And you have to give them credit - at least they attempted to us e-punching (and got it mostly right), which is more than can be said for some surprisingly large US A-meets this year (and I'm talking about championships - where of all places you would and should expect e-punching in this era of orienteering).

Here's hoping that today's classic can A) start on time, B) involve all controls being in the correct location, and C) have a decent map [i.e. one that gets the contours consistent and correct, has north lines that conform to usual convention, has index contours, and has an appropriate number of tag lines in the complex contour areas]. Note that none of this could be applied to yesterday morning's race which was, as Bash puts it, a disaster.

Hmm, I'd rather have the controls in the right place on a modern map with pin punches than participate in a flawed attempt to do epunching with controls... somewhere. I guess I'm just a tad old fashioned for this day and age. The suprisingly large US meets I've been to have gotten that right at least.

Oh man. Well, I hope the classic goes off ok today. How did little Mia do on the string-O?

Just back from the long distance. It started one hour late and there were apparently some more issues with map quality (not sure as I didn't race today). Elite courses were long and tough and it was humid today as well. Unofficial results follow:

Middle distance...

Men
Mike S.
Mike W.
Brent L.

Women
Katta S.
Sarah B.
Carol R.

Sprint results?
Dunno. In fact, who the hell knows.

Long

Men
Mike S.
Brent L.
Wil S.

Women
Katta S.
Emily K.
Heather S.

Emily Kemp (AP codename Kempster) is only 14 and to be 2nd (or top Canadian born) in F elite at this young age is a fantastic achievement - especially given how physical the courses were today. Emily qualified for WOC but elected not to represent Canada (just yet).

Wow way to go Kempster!

The map for the Long was clearly better than for the Middle (a map that felt very 80s: both in style and accuracy). However, there were areas in the center of the map on valid route choices that had not been fieldchecked (eg an area of white that was in fact dark green). This didn't affect course 8 as much, although we had our own twilight zone in a large open area between controls 16 and 17 where the map bore only the most approximate relationship to reality (both were vague and overgrown, although it was unclear whether the map or the terrain was more so). Oh yeah, and the control descriptions (printed from OCAD) hid a valid, possibly the fastest, route choice on leg 29-30 (although noone knows...).

There were (afaik) no issues with 'misplaced' controls today, although two controls were misdescribed. My impression was that the delayed starts both days were because not all controls were out in time, something that, if true, I find almost unbelievable. Enough said.

I personally had a terrible run, running out of energy and getting dehydrated. Of course, there was no water at control 23 by the time I got there (not that late). This may color my judgement, but to be brutally honest, I thought that the sprint was the best sprint I've run all year (and possibly the best sprint I've ever run - a great venue with tons of trails, and excellent course setting), while the other two races are possibly the worst races all around that I've ever run in 16 years of orienteering. While I recognize that this is a harsh comment and many people put a lot of work into the event, and I'm grateful to them for that, the fact remains. Some of the things I disliked are not under the control of the organizing club (southern Ontario is not a great place for running in the forest in late August, fundamentally, and they were stuck with this), but many are.

I should mention that I fully expect the North American champs will be completely different, and may well be the best event in North America this year if they live up to the hype. Nobody should not go to the GHO meet in October because of what happened this weekend - the two are unrelated.

I should also mention that I'm impressed with the people that ran way faster than me despite all the issues. I'm not giving reasons why I did badly - the conditions were essentially the same for everyone, and I'm just not fit enough - but why enjoyment of the two days was somewhat lacking.

Actually, one of the problems was that conditions *weren't* the same for everyone. There was the SI issue that affected earlier male & female runners yesterday, but not later male runners. Then today, on some - but not all - M35 maps, control 23 was printed on top of the control descriptions, i.e. they could see the circle and the lines to #23, but they couldn't see the terrain around the control. And earlier runners got water on the Long course today, but later runners did not. It was also strange that water was only offered at control #4 of 18 controls on my course. The long delays affected everyone differently too, depending on when they had eaten last, when their start time was, whether they had brought food and water along, and (in Katta's case) whether a hungry baby was waiting for them to hurry up and finish running!

For my first ever orienteering in Canada, it was a learning experience. I learned that Canadians are very calm and polite under extreme provocation. I am not Canadian, and I'm afraid I felt quite agitated by the organization.

Wow, unbelievable... there are only 2 things I can say right now:
1. I am glad I missed that event and went to the US champs instead (never thought I would actually ever say that)
2. NA's will be a totally different event that has nothing to do with the fiasco of this past weekend. As a matter of fact, I am certain that the NA's will be one of the best events of the year, if not the best.

Yup, the North American Champs are going to be awesome! And I'm not just saying that because I'm the registrar. (P.S. Oh by the way, you can sign up here.)

ciao.

thanks for all the comments related to COC weekend. thanks for the appreciative comments regarding the sprint. thanks for all other comments, were myself and others can learn, and any little details/negative comments will help improving.
thanks for comming and beside lots fo frustration ( I ws myself frustrated.. HUGE).

but NO THANKS to some people , who did not compete and point fingers .
I liked the course design for classic ( and I was really impressed by Mike S. time, however being first on the high grass on the open filed added a huge effort that drained me lots of energy and get slower at the end. too bad the end part of the race was really challenging.
I was not happy with course design for medium, but since i competed in those 2 events I did not/could not get involved.
we put another 4 races prior to this( during the week ) and I'm happy about my little group that prepared those. they went pretty much OK.
therefore if you can trust me ,( when I get involved )please come back to gators or other events in SW Ontario. maps and terrain have to be just used at it's best.
again , SORRY for everything that went wrong the past couple of days @ COC.
and "for sure" the NAOC should be a great event ( I know Mike was testing the courses last year so he is way ahead in preparing ).

Does anyone have a scanned version of this sprint?

Oh yeah, and the control descriptions (printed from OCAD) hid a valid, possibly the fastest, route choice on leg 29-30 (although noone knows...).

I went that way, running thru the control descriptions :-) That's where the elephant tracks were, and I figured it was either local knowledge, or runners on shorter courses (and hence shorter control descriptions) without that route obscured.

I will echo Nick's comments that it seemed a substantial disadvantage to start early (moreso that I recall ever seeing elsewhere), given how difficult and draining it was to run thru the rough yellow without elephant tracks. Of course, I'm only speculating that it became easier for later runners as I was not there late.

As for other suggestions to the organizers for improvement -- if the start is going to be delayed, an announcement or sign in the start area may be appropriate.

More importantly, if the start is going to be delayed anyway, delay it until it can be gotten right. An extra 5 minutes doesn't matter that much after 70 have rolled by. I started first, and an offical still had the start clock open and was tinkering with it when another official insisted that "we get this show on the road now". Not surprisingly, the time they told me I ran when I downloaded did not agree with the time on my watch.
Of course, it is possible that everyone had the same error, or they had major corrections to do anyway -- when I downloaded, my printout showed only 4 controls correctly punched -- I didn't have the time to stick around to see if I was reinstated with (or without) a correct time.

When I was out there, I was thinking to myself -- I now need 2 hands to count the number of O races I haven't enjoyed. But that was the terrain, not the organizers. On the positive side, I felt the course setting was appropriate, tho 30 controls may have been a tad high for 12K. Once I got into it more, I did derive an enjoyment from the unique challenge and the differentness of it all, and the fact that I got thru that course relatively error free.

Amazingly, nobody decided to protest (though it seems likely the protest would have been upheld as the controls were clearly not correctly placed, although most people did manage to find them anyhow).

Although the control not being in the right place is a sufficient reason in USOF Rules of Competition for a course to be voided—the Rules, in fact, require that—in practice, a very different standard applies. This standard is mostly based on the organizers' convenience.

Vlad, out of curiosity, why was the protest on control 9 at the US champs thown out? I mean, what was the official reason given to you?

"The control was in the right place."

I never said it wasn't. I said it was not possible to cleanly locate it using the map and descriptions provided, and this introduced a significant element of unfairness into the competition.

Interesting. So they didn't actually rule on the protest. Does that mean the question is still open?

The protest was denied.

The COC sprint and long maps are posted on my blog. I haven't posted my middle distance map because well, I don't have it. Couldn't keep it after the race and then I left to get ready and get food before the sprint. Asked for it yesterday but they had no idea where it was!?#%$
I should be getting a copy in the mail sometime
http://dl1.yukoncollege.yk.ca/brent

Thanks for posting the map. That does look like fun.

I had always thought that the US should implement the certification of meet directors and course setters that Canada uses. This meet kind of throws a wrench into that opinion. Did this meet have a class IV meet director?

Level 3 is all that's required for COCs.

I don't think that officials training prevents meets with problems, but it does provide a more consistent way for people to get information about how to organize an event. When I lived in the US, people learned to organize by attending events, by organizing progressively larger events, and by reading the A meet manual. Not necessarily a bad way, but I do think that the COF way provides a good opportunity to sit in front of a projection screen and discuss which possible control sites on the projected map are good and which bad, and why, and which legs are good, and what's appropriate for beginners, etc. And the COF way involves the students organizing an event under the watch of the instructor, providing lots of good opportunity for feedback.

(Another advantage here is liability and insurance ... we need to show that we had organizers who had had instruction.)

So, no silver bullet for perfect meets, but a useful program depending on what your expectations are. Some clubs even extend it and organize their own unofficial "Level 0" clinics for very beginner organizers, about to organize their first low key city park event. At the least, asking for a copy of the materials and organizing a session in your club might prove useful, and make prospective organizers feel more confident.

no silver bullet for perfect meets

Yes there is. Outsourcing of cohesive event tasks (e.g. mapping; <separate from> course setting; <separate from> results; <separate from> social) to for-profit entities. The way it's done for large events in other endurance sports.
Poor product—>organizing club doesn't pay the for-profit. It should be fairly clear from the overall efficiency standpoint that educating every amateur to do everything well can lead to shortfalls, no matter how strong a certification program there is in place.

Ever wonder why O-clubs are busy putting on events, and say triathlon clubs, putting on training 7 days a week? I think Eric Bone had an excellent take on this question in this post (Item 8).

I realize this is blasphemy, so maybe time for a separate thread.

Hopefully it's not considered blasphemy anymore, as I agree. Of course, I'm used to being considered blasphemous in other aspects of life.

I don't see any reason why large O events shouldn't be done this way, as long as there's a for-profit entity to hire...

I have now included a little write up along with the maps at
http://dl1.yukoncollege.yk.ca/brent

I notice that at the middle distance race the Controler and Meet Director were the same person. I suspect that that might have contributed to the problems.

One aspect that should be noted is that the organizers only adopted the short/middle/long format (rather than the 2 day total time classic format) very late last year as a result of extensive lobbying by a large number of people. They therefore did not have that long to prepare for the event.

Weren't there nearly 20 hours between the end of the Middle and the start of the Long for control hanging?

I would think that a Sprint/Middle/Long is less effort to put on than a 2-day Classic. True, there is an extra race but the Sprint should be much less manpower-intensive than the other two days, and a Middle is less work than a Classic. Not half the work but close to.

And regardless, one would think that even a few months would be enough lead time to switch from two classic-distance races to one middle and one long. The sprint requires a new (ISSOM) map compared to the other two events and does need enough lead time to get the map completed if one does not already exist....

For controls, we would typically be hanging the controls days in advance of the race, not on the morning of the race (except for the controls on trails or areas vulnerable to theft). Yes, putting out the SI units on the day of the event seems reasonable given the cost incurred if one is lost. But that should be fast for people who have visited the control sites multiple times previously - and the control and stand should ideally be there already.

One problem that was encountered during the races (not the sprint) was finding a ribbon in the correct location, but no control - the control might be some distance away, or in another depression, or too far up the reentrant, or.... That would also be avoidable if not left to the last minute; this should be reconciled between the course setter, controller, and/or vetter BEFORE people are started on the course.

From an outsiders perspective it looked as if there were just too few people involved in running the week.

In the UK major champs are organised by regions, not clubs... would that not make sense here?

Rumour has that the organising club was offered help from other clubs but turned it down. But that's just a rumour...

As I recall, at the AGM where the Sprint/Middle/Long format was adopted for the COCs (and in a separate agenda item for the North Americans), it was asked whether to start this year or next. The 2006 organizers indicated that they were ready for S/M/L, and to go ahead immediately. Perhaps someone else who was at the AGM can clarify.

Yes, regions make sense. (Big events in Alberta are often organized by the whole province, and with controllers from elsewhere.)

I'm just curious why no one protested the middle distance, since it sounds like there was more than ample reason. Is protesting uncool up north? Was some sort of (bogus) results thought to be better than no results at all? Should the fact that it is a national championship make one more willing to protest (hold them to a high standard) or less willing to protest (can't void it, wouldn't look good)? Was there peer pressure one way or the other?

I remember an A meet in Louisiana a couple of decades ago where a couple of controls each day on the Blue course were wrong (but not by more than 200 meters....). Not a hint of a protest, rather a sort of smug feeling, well, we're running the Blue course, we can find them no matter where you put them. But it wasn't a championship.

Back more to the present -- one of the (unspoken) arguments for the US 2-day "classic" champs has been that if one day got thrown out, you still hopefully had one valid day. With one-day champs, will protesting be severely frowned upon, even when totally justified?

I'm totally calling Vlad on this one. How do you figure a middle is less work than a classic (almost half of it) and a sprint, middle, long less work than two classics?

Paying organizers was discussed extensively (and intensely) here in Alberta a few years ago, including a special committee for discussing the task. I can't say whether it would make events flawless, but I can say that there are people with strong emotions about the subject.

PG wrote:
>Is protesting uncool up north?

Yes it appears so. This was not the first time a short/middle distance course could/should have been thrown out at the COC's since the one day short/middle started about 10 years ago. I count 4 of the races that I have run in the 10 years that had problems worthy of protest (misplaced controls, poor map in vicinity of control, etc.) - but this year was definately the worst.


WS wrote:
>One problem that was encountered during the races (not the sprint) was finding a ribbon in the correct location, but no control"

Yes, this affected a member of UKR. He saw the ribbon at #7 looked side to side, saw no control and went on. He was DSQ. That reminds me of the most bizarre race I was in regarding a misplaced control. It was an AR event a few years ago. One checkpoint was over a km in the wrong spot. Several top teams got to the correct spot together and decided it wasn't there and went on. Then some middle of the pack team apparently stumbled on the misplaced checkpoint and yelled "over here" and lots of the middle and bottom of the pack teams found the checkpoint. So the organizers gave all the top teams a time penalty since they did not find the control because since 70% of the teams found it - it must have been OK.

So by that rationale there were no problems at this year's middle distance race. ;-)

1993 Canadian Champs in New Brunswick. I was a junior in 17-20 and my clubmate Neil Evans protested Day 1 of Canadian Champs over the map in the area of a control. The jury more or less said he was right, but that they wouldn't throw it out since Day 2 used the same map and, I think, the same area for other courses. Neil dropped the sport about a year after, focusing on track instead.

There's a COC 2006 progress report in last summer's COF newsletter from the 2005 AGM.

Wow total flashback - Neil Evans! Wow he was hot, too bad we lost him to track ;-)

I think one of the reasons there are less protests in Canada is that we don't have a ranking system like the USA does. We have ranking for the Elite, but it doesn't mean much other than a bit of personal pride. At the moment, it is not used for any purposes other than fun. Also, unlike the US, nobody else other than M20 and F20 gets ranked, so who cares whether the course gets thrown or not, it doesn't change the fact that looking for a misplaced control is frustrating. So there really is no incentive to throw a course in Canada other than to try to punish and ashame the organisers, which really, is not the best way to ensure quality at future events!

I think protests have become rare in Canada because of the experience of those that have submitted protests, even when they have obviously been justified and have been successful. At a COC pre-meet (Western Champs) which was a National Team selection race to go to WOC in Manitoba a few years back I protested a control that was no where near where it should have been - I never found it and gave up. I won the protest, but got lots of flak from other runners whose results had been thrown out. Then the next COF newsletter came out with a long article by someone I didn't know lambasting me for protesting. Apparently it's bad form to criticize volunteers' efforts.

As Hammer indicated, this is not the first Middle Distance COC that could have been thrown out. The last time it happened I would have been the one to protest, as I -probably- lost a medal. There were several reasons why I didn't protest, but Peter's point about 1 day championships was part of it - how can you protest a one day championship? In Europe the organizers would in many cases have a backup plan and could throw together a 2nd race, but we don't have that kind of depth. So the choice for the would-be protester is to throw the Championship out entirely or simply take on the chin.

It seems to me that even a valid protest isn't nearly as useful as trying to figure out what or who went wrong and finding a way to fix it in future events.

I am not aware of any protest at USA meets being satisfied (ex. course(s) voided due to the missed or misplaced control). It just does not make sense to make one anymore as result is known beforehand.

USOF directorate must inforce its rules in this regard and make voiding course(s) automatic upon such protest and determination by the jury that control(s) was(were), indeed, misplaced or missed. The role of the jury in this case is to determine the fact not the outcome!

Mandatory sentencing, huh? Three strikes and you're out? Hmmm.

I am not aware of any protest at USA meets being satisfied.

I've had a protest upheld. I was granted an SPW, as that is what I requested. I'm not sure the rules allow that remedy (or any remedy on request), tho. It seems like a decent compromise -- I don't care enough about my ranking to nuke the course to protect it, but do care enough about my day-of placing to want it removed if the race was unfair.

I am aware of courses being voided due to protest, so it does happen. I think it is rare, and I think juries go out of their way to not do it.


USOF directorate must inforce its rules in this regard and make voiding course(s) automatic upon such protest and determination by the jury


Well, that's my job, but no one has ever asked me to do it (and, like, what would I actually do?), and the sanctioning budget is too low to have meet police. But, this looks like it has excellent potential for outsourcing ...

The rules are a lot more clear cut in Canada. In the case of the middle distance on Saturday at the COC there is no question that a protest would have been upheld on any of the misplaced controls etc. And the rules are clear that if a protest is upheld then the course is thrown out.

Here it's seen more as a question of politeness and good sportsmanship vs.... (See the much earlier comment that "that Canadians are very calm and polite under extreme provocation")

>that Canadians are very calm and polite under extreme provocation

Until we drop the gloves.

Having tourble keeping up today, as the same discussion seems to be going on in 5 different threads.

Anyways, I'm soooo glad Peter posed this question, because I've been thinking about it all week. The COCs were icing on the cake, as a similar situation was in play at the US Champs the weekend before. This is definately not something endemic to the north, its continental, and there are many examples to be had.

Policing in the US for course issues is handled by the grievance comittee (j-j's chair), and the usual process at meets when a protest is filed is to form a jury of 3 people. These 3 people must be USOF members and have one other qualification....being willing to hang around until the end of the day in case there are protests, but thats about as far as the qualifications go. So juries vary widely in experience and expertise, just like juries of peers in any judicial system, however they are being asked to make judgements on very technical issues. The jury takes the issue under consideration and make a ruling - whether to uphold the sumbitted protest, or reject it, and then decide what to do as a result. If its rejected, nothing happens and everything stands as if nothing happened. Often the jury will go out and visit the location in question if its an issue with a specific control or the mapping.

In Vlad's case from last week (#9 on day 1 of the US champs) there was no need to go into the terrain, as it was clear from the map alone that the description was inadequate. I suspect visiting the site would only strengthen the issue, although I wasn't there and can't say myself. I've been told that the jury did visit the location and ruled that "the control was in the correct location." This of course did not answer the issue posed by the protest, which I gather stated that the ambiguous control description was not unique enough to define the feature in the circle, thus resulting in some competitors losing time and others perhaps not loosing time if they were lucky. This would lead to a large uncertainty in the times of fthe competitors and the race results almost certainly should have been voided. This would mean one day of the 3-day champs would have been thrown out, and the other two races used to decide the champs. Which is fine...as Peter said, thats one of the arguments for having 3 races combined to decide a champ.

But in many cases the jury takes more into consideration than the protested item iself. They consider that many competitors (who didn't lose time at that control) may have had a good run and would be upset if it was thrown out. They also consider that its the US champs - an important race - and would look bad from the outside if one of the courses had a mistake resulting in a course being voided. And there is also the consideration of the feelings of the course setter and not wanting to piss-off the volunteer labor force. This goes both ways, as I myself know, since one of my A-meet courses was voided once for (in my opinion) a lesser control description ambiguity than at the US champs this year. The control was also correctly placed in that situation, but a number of factors - including the entire jury "missing" the control on their first attempt to find it when they went out to look at it. Still, that was their ruling, a single course on a single day was voided and the rest of the races stood. Obvously I wasn't happy about it, but I still set courses to this day.

My point is that the jury should rule only on the terms of the protest itself...not on the outside social factors of who it might hurt or how the ruling may look. If a control is misplaced or incorrectly described, nearly everyone would agree that the result is corrupted, very likely meaningless, and the best thing to do is throw it out so it doesn't affect the rankings. Period. Thats the only fair way to handle it.

From what I've been hearing about the COCs, at least one and probably 2 of the 3 days of competition - at least the M/F20+ courses should have been thrown out. Some might argue that they weren't thrown out because its the CAN champs and you *have* to name someone the champ. I don't see it that way. In this case, you may as well take the top 10 finishers and have them throw dice to see who gets which medal. In my opinion it would be better to not name a champ and either designate some future races as "re-scheduled" championships, or just not have a named champ on that course "due to voided courses." I think thats better than having an asterisk next to the results, or worse - no indication whatsoever that there was a problem with the courses.

There's also the matter of a protest being filed in the first place. Again, I think both US and CAN competitors react in the same way, sometimes not wanting to protest because they feel they look like complainers or that maybe they were the only one affected and would rather just "suck it up and play nice with the other kids." As we can see from the COCs last week, the nice-guy attitude can lead to long-held regret about the outcome of a race.

And while I was not at the COCs this year, I can say that the last A-meet I attended hosted by one of the clubs hosting this years COCs also had starts delayed by over an hour on the last day. I just *can't* see how that can happen more than once. To have it happen again - twice in a two day period - just a year later is beyond me. Its no longer a fluke. I can only think of a handfull at most of A-meets that had delayed starts in all of my 10 years of orienteering, and 3 of them are from one club within the past 1 year of history.

I don't know how sanctioning works in COF, but I know that if this had been the US and this club had bid for the US champs a year following a "late start" issue at a prior A-meet, that point would have been a major discussion point on the sanctioninig committee. At the very least there would have been a requirement to address the issue specifically and demonstrate application of enough resources to ensure it didn;t happen again. Thats at the very *least*. At best, having this club host the National Champs would probably have been called into question and a request to reject the champs bid may have been made - perhaps allowing sanctioning as a vanilla A-meet instead so a demonstration of the problem solution could be made. I know this because I'm on the US sanctioning committee. However it is a democratic body and a majority vote would have been made on the bid, which can go either way. It should be known that this committee does indeed take into consideration past history of the bidding entity and past history and experience of the named course setters and vetters. Sometimes they are called into question. Very few bids are rejected, and in some cases things that are proposed in the bids are not followed as-proposed during the event itself.

Just to clarify, Canada actually has a rule book for sanctioned A meets, which does specify procedures to follow in the event of a protest. This doesn't always help though - I can think of at least one occasion in which a runner (not me this time!) protested that a control was in the wrong place, and had it disallowed because the jury decided the control was in the right place, it was just that the map was wrong....

At the other end of the competitive spectrum, all of the M/F-12s seemed to also be good sports about the apparent flaw in course 1 for the Middle - no one protested the leg that went along a mapped trail that did not seem to exist in the terrain. I think none of the little ones DNF'd although I think most of them spent over 40 minutes on this ~300m "trail" leg.

Yes, certainly this applies to all courses, not just the M/F20. Just used that as an example since it covers alot of the dicussion here.

>From what I've been hearing about the COCs, at least one
>and probably 2 of the 3 days of competition - at least the
>M/F20+ courses should have been thrown out.

Agreed.

>Some might argue that they weren't thrown out because its
>the CAN champs and you *have* to name someone the
>champ.

That's also probably what some people said.

>I don't see it that way. In this case, you may as well take
>the top 10 finishers and have them throw dice to see who
>gets which medal. In my opinion it would be better to not
>name a champ and either designate some future races as
>"re-scheduled" championships, or just not have a named
>champ on that course "due to voided courses." I think thats
>better than having an asterisk next to the results, or worse -
>no indication whatsoever that there was a problem with the
>courses.

While throwing dice might be a bit more random (for example, I do think Mike Smith was likely to win regardless of the course, being the fittest and most stable runner in attendance), I do agree that probably having no named champion is better and more realistic overall than naming someone the champion in a bogus competition. This is, after all, the National Championships - and we deserve better.

Putting an asterix next to the result is a (distant) second best in my mind. Having no indication whatsoever that there was a problem is, to me, an even bigger problem in the long run.

But for a whole huge number of reasons, nobody protested - so having no indication whatsoever is what will likely stand officially. But not in my (or many other runners') memory. And yes, I do have mixed feelings and possibly some regrets about not protesting. But it's a complex scenario - compounded by the fact that nobody really wanted to organize COCs this year, and it was apparently quite tough to find a club willing to step up and take responsibility....

Yeah, there are several 2007 champs still open for bids in the US and its getting late. My feeling is that if no one bids on it then it just doesn't happen that year. Or you designate (ahead of time) some other event to serve as both - like say the NA champs...could pull a CAN national champs or even a US one from the same event if desired. Or US and CAN could combine champs with both attending the same venue. Sometimes event bidders try to leverage their bid in sanctioning by saying (effectively) "if you don't approve our bid there will not be a US _____ Champs this year." That really irks me.

A few words about protests:

I once filed a protest at a meet in Canada (APOC relay). I was astounded at how difficult it was to do so. I wrote up the protest, went to the meet director with my $5 (required in Canada, refunded if the protest is upheld), and couldn't get anyone to accept it. I was met with requests to not file the protest, then I was handed off to someone else who just cried, and then to someone who explained that if I insisted on filing the protest, then I would likely be branded a troublemaker, and in the future my entry forms would likely be turned down. I'm not making any of this up. After dogged insistence on my part, the protest was accepted, ruled on, and upheld, with the outcome that an adjustment was made to the results, as I requested. All this time, it was completely clear that the control in question was misplaced, and that it was due in part to forces beyond the control of the organizers (around here, I think these forces would be known as "sub-morons").

It's easy to say that a meet jury should simply rule on the facts, but life isn't so black and white. Is the control misplaced? Description says "reentrant, lower part", but is it low enough? Description says "boulder, N side", but the control is on the S side... or the E side... or the NE side... when is it wrong "enough"? Or there are two boulders in the circle, but the description doesn't specify which one. Is that wrong enough? What if the other boulder is unmapped? What if there are three? Or seven, plus two unmapped boulders? But then, what if the one with the control is three times as big as any of the others? The jury has to make a ruling on the specific situation, and you can't make a general specification for "correctness" that will cover all circumstances. Although the above does bear some resemblance to the protest that Vlad filed, I'm not intending to give an opinion one way or the other about what I think would have been the "right" answer to that particular question. Having been to the control, I have my own opinion, but it's not relevant. The decision of the jury is what stands right now.

The USOF Grievance Committee (of which I am chair), is not directly connected to policing of course issues. Protests are handled by meet juries, which have the ability to examine situations directly (as by looking at the maps in question, visiting control sites, etc.). Grievances are at another level. If someone files a grievance that is essentially an appeal of a protest that didn't turn out in their favor, it will typically be declined, because the Grievance Committee doesn't feel that it can outguess a jury that has had a chance to examine the facts directly. Grievances are more along the lines of... well, other things that you might be unhappy about. Jury included the mother of the person who filed the protest. Team selection committee ignored the results of a particular race without telling anyone. Regional BoD rep elected under shady circumstances. Meet director won't accept someone's entry because he's been branded a troublemaker. That sort of thing. Those are all made-up examples, but they give you an idea. You can actually file a grievance on anything you like, but that doesn't mean that the committee will agree to make a ruling on it. Or better yet, you can not file a grievance at all -- we haven't had any in almost two years, I believe, and that's absolutely fine with us.

Oh, sorry. Is it the grievance committee that actually forms the juries though? And I do remember all the issues with the APOC protests. There was another attempted submission on that same relay for a different reason that was strongly refused to even be accepted.

I believe the meet director selects the jury.

I think the lines of responsibility on these things blur, as I was on a jury tasked with hearing an eligibility protest about an hour before the awards, at the meet site. This seemed like an odd thing for an on-site jury to be deciding; rather, it seems it should have been handled by experts before the meet when the start list/rosters were posted.

therock wrote:
"this is not the first Middle Distance COC that could have been thrown out. The last time it happened I would have been the one to protest, as I -probably- lost a medal."

therock is being modest. He would have been Canadian Champion.

Here is the middle distance course from Saturday.
http://www.dontgetlost.ca/ghocanadagho/terra.jpg

My comments on the map are (5th comment down) here:

http://www.attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/me...

The asterisk for #7 is where the control was. My route to #1 had extra climb and out of the way because of the extra reentrant in the terrain but not on the map only 50m from the start. I had to play it safe.

Thats what I was afraid of. Doesn't the meet director have a vested interest in the successful outcome of the meet? Not that this has played any role in the selection of a jury before...usually its hard just to scratch up warm bodies for the job, but it seems like this should be a USOF-level thing.

How do you figure a middle is less work than a classic (almost half of it)

Most of the work I put in as a course setter is ensuring that the map is up to date, and making so if not. Area goes as length squared, so for a course of ~0.6 length, the area is only 36%. Of course, the number of controls sites to double-check for the Middle can be about the same as for the Long, so no time savings there.

Does that apply even if you outsource the map?

Actually, this is a somewhat specious comparison, anyway. Your math is right, but the notion that you have to check the fieldchecking the square of the distance is not.

Probable or even possible routes for middle or classic can be anticipated and checked along with control locations. For both courses, I think that the linear, rather than the squared, measurement is closer to the actual area necessary to be checked.

Grievance does not select juries, the meet director does. (The only connection between Grievance and juries is that GC members are prohibited from serving on them.) I suppose it's possible that a meet director could stack a jury so as to not find fault with the meet -- if you think that's a likely problem, perhaps suggest to Rules that 17.1 be changed so that somebody else (VP Admin, or Sanctioning) selects the jury. Or require the names of the jury members be submitted to Sanctioning in advance for approval. I know that the jury is often selected in advance, at least for championship meets that I've been involved with, although the Rules don't appear to require this.

I think that the linear, rather than the squared, measurement is closer to the actual area necessary to be checked.

It would be linear if the course were a line, or a giant circle. A well-planned course has better use for the mapped area. For such, I think the fractal dimension may indeed be under 2.0 but not by much.

For both courses, I think that the linear, rather than the squared, measurement is closer to the actual area necessary to be checked.

One could argue that the area that needs to be checked on a single leg increases as the square of the length of the leg.

Isn't that what Vlad argued?

I am willing to concede that the limit of the area is the distance squared, but practically it is clearly less. Of course, I don't have any idea what a "fractal dimension" is, what the Poincaré conjecture entails, etc... I guess I'm just a simple unfrozen caveman lawyer (save the lawyer part?)

Vlad and I posted simultaneously.

Next time you see me, Clem, I'll explain it (easier to do if I can make sketches).

I thought fractals were those little muppets that live under a rock.

One MAJOR think this discussion has neglected to touch on or clarify is the fact that in Canada, according to the COF rules - specifically 10.6.14 - "An entire course shall be cancelled for:
a) control hung at the wrong location;
b) incorrect flag code on a control;
c) missing control."

Two points - that's SHALL, not may; and nothing about this cancellation needing to be triggered by a protest - i.e. it is supposed to be automatic, and I think part of the reason for that may actually be so that no competitor needs to worry about being branded a whiner by protesting. I had one of the controls in the wrong location (M35 in the middle) and brought it to the attention of the finish officials as I was downloading. In theory - as soon as they had heard the same thing from a few people they should have checked it out, confirmed it to be a fact and cancelled the course - end of story. I was also the recipient in the long of one of the maps with the course going into the description area (with no map info showing through) but fortunately I noticed it as I was trying to find teh start triangle and they were able to find a corrected map. I had started at 07; I know there was at least one earlier starter who had not noticed until I pointed it out to him as we happened to be punching in at # 10 together. On the same course I had at least 2 reentrants identified in the description as spurs.

I think it has been mentioned before but anyone contemplating the NAOC can rest assured it will be of the highest quality in all respects. Please do not let this COC flavor your decision about coming in October.

So who makes the call on rule 10.6.14?

That is rule 10.6.15 -- The alleged facts involved under 10.6.13 or 10.6.14 shall be verified by all members of the jury.
(10.6.13 deals with scenarios for which a course MAY be cancelled - poor printing of the course on maps; incorrect control description sheet; inaccurate map around the control location; and missing punch.)

I'm just curious why no one protested the middle distance

According to the program, the fee to do so was "twice the entrance fee", or $50. The way the loonie has been flying, that certainly would have discouraged me, even if I knew I was right. In fact, I don't even carry that much cash to races.

I think if you are going to charge such fees to file protests, you need to risk the same in case the protest is upheld. But I don't think even entry fees are refunded on an upheld protest. (I certainly wasn't offered such elsewhere). And I didn't realise frivolous protests were such an issue that needed to be prevented in the first place.

The program also says "Race protests must be submitted [...] within 30 minutes of the final results being posted". So I guess there is still time for some races :-)

What was this "program?" For the COCs specifically, or is there always a fee of some kind ffor filing a protest? Seems like you should only lose 1 timeout for a declined protest.

Seriously though, was a jury named for the COC and did they look into the misplaced controls as-per rule 10.6.13?

It was in the COC program. I do not know if that is COF policy, or just for the week of races covered by the program.

all of these ideas should be good for further determination of what went wrong , and when. therefore awarding a bid should not be generalized as "that club " but those events put up by that club( again out of seven events we got very negative comments for 2 of them ) ...anyway , dirty clothes we'll wash them internally, but for sure gators or parts of gators we'll host good events in the future ( we showed during the week). all is a matter of coin in preparing those.. and again I hope they you'll come to gators events again .

it will be too easy for me just to attend events and point fingers. we ALL must put events and strive for good quality ( I have a loooooooong list and it's including quite a vast area )
from entry fee too high, for what you are offered to map quality bits here and there, you name it. but patience maybe is too high up north of the border..

OK, I'm sorry, but I really don't get this. Actually, given a certain semi-realistic assumption, I'd think that a line-shaped course would entail the greatest amount of field checking, and, conversely, any closed-form (excuse the inappropriate use of jargon) course that starts and finishes at the same spot, requires less. And, ironically, I'd think the only thing you need to reduce your field checking needs is to add controls--this ought to work in either a straight line course or a closed one. Cross-overs also reduce field checking needs for obvious reasons.

I'm taking a slightly different angle on this from Vlad. Consider in the extreme, two courses of the same length. One is the Mega from Pawtuckaway last year, the other has the same length, but only a small number of controls, let's say 20. The area that needs to be checked for the Mega is very small, maybe a 100 m wide swath through the woods, because that's the most anyone will deviate from the course. But the reasonable routes on the 20 control course could well cover the entire map.

True, but isn't the limiting case the straight-line route? I think you can prove that as you increase the number of points on a uniformly concave course with identical leg lengths, from two in the extreme (start and finish) to three, to four, etc... you begin to approximate what we experienced in the mega. For instance, as you go from three (a triangle being the shortest non-linear way to connect them) to four (a square, again assuming no linear legs (those just take you back to the previous shape) and maximization of potential area, etc., you necessarily get shorter legs, and as you suggest, it begins to look like a swath. If the course does anything more complicated, or say is shaped as a rhombus, you obviously have less area to check.

It seems like it a rough approximation of the limit of the area in my crude model is

(length^2)*pi/4(controls+1)

which does feature a squared term, obviously, but is also inversely proportional to controls.

I think any more complicated course geometries would still be bounded by this. (Actually, this is missing one condition, but I think it works on the first order.)

I am not aware (since 1991) of any COCs where the course/event controllers were not from another province. For this event the controller listed in the programme was from the same club! I'm not sure if there is a COF rule/bylaw on this, but there ought to be.

Personally, I thought that the maps/areas chosen and my M45 courses were enjoyable. There were a few instances where the circle or line should have been cut to not obscure important detail and the print quality of the fun relay map was not good and thus affected my outcome.

The banquet food was tastey, and great value.

I suspect that the organizers got behind the 8-ball some time ago and small problems compounded to make the situation worse as the event dates came and went. As for protests, ...you had to be there. The organizers had way too much to deal with to stage the next event and they were obviously too sleep deprived to handle anything new.

I think that some reasonable facsimilie of the sprint results should be published and can be reconstructed from information inside the SI boxes and from what was downloaded. If the finish boxes have a real time clock, their internal time should be able to be read by computer right now and the proper fudge factor calculated based on the official watch time used by the start chief. The results may be suspect in that the last group of starters didn't have to deal with non-beeping boxes (good reason NOT to fix a problem like that in the middle of an event). I guess though that people will like to see how they fared even with the extra 30 seconds wasted by manually punching.

Sorry to still be hung up on this, but I think that while this discussion of course geometries and areas is maybe interesting, it is kind of a red herring. My principal complaint is with the notion that "I would think that a Sprint/Middle/Long is less effort to put on than a 2-day Classic. True, there is an extra race but the Sprint should be much less manpower-intensive than the other two days, and a Middle is less work than a Classic. Not half the work but close to.

Vlad and I both agree that the respective terrain types for sprint, middle, and long are quite different. You rarely get these areas in a contiguous block, meaning that you likley need three separate maps and three separate venues/arenas. That means you need to set up your parking, registration, start, finish, results, etc... separately, get separate permissions, .... whereas in a two day classic you can often reuse the very same arena, and even if you can't, you are still generally dealing with the same piece of terrain with all the ancillary benefits that confers.

Even if the middle requires .25 the touch up field checking of the classic (I believe it is a higher percentage, but anyway) this is just one facet of the work required putting on a meet. And realistically, whether or not this is a best practice, and not to be flip, many clubs do outsource their mapping, and provided that it is done professionally, may not spend as much time as Vlad fixing things up. For them, the much more tangible "costs" are caused by the aforementioned adminstrative overhead which can't be assumed away.

I think the decision to void a course is a hard one to make. One question is whether the results list (however flawed) has more value than no results list at all, which is the usual outcome of voiding a one-day event.

When I look at a results list, the most important thing is ... who won? So, an important question is, "are Mike Smith and Katarina Smith undeserving middle-distance champions". In other words, did someone else "lose" the gold medal because of the problems. If the answer is no (as I suspect it is given their performances on other races), then the results list has some merit and Mike and Kata should be congratulated as champions (no asterisk attached).

The reluctance I would have with voiding the course is that Mike and Kata would most definitely lose something (i.e., a championship), while it's not clear who would stand to gain if the result is voided completely.

not bad, j-man, _but_

your typical well-planned course will have a leg which is 10-15% of its total distance (for example on a 15km course planners "should" try to get at least one or two legs of 1.5-2.25km, if the terrain is suitable).

Therefore (spoken as a physicist or a philosopher or some such who doesn't understand the true meaning of an implication),
according to your model there will be a minimum of
0.01 * (length²) * Pi
to field check.

So area to field check scales as the square of the distance when things get big.
Nevertheless, Vlad is wrong! ;)

Thanks Neil. I was hoping a real mathematician would weigh in on this so I would be able to retire to the sidelines of a fight where I am a bit outclassed.

I did consider the possiblity, actually the desirability of long legs like that, which make the course more interesting (as well as this problem) but I deemed it safer to try to duck that one.

Vlad is generally right. Classic/long courses require ~10km2 of mapping area while middle may require 4-5km2. Also number of controls on middle courses is generally 70-80% comparing to classic/long. Sprint is even easier to organize as it generally requires 1-2km2 map and only 3 or so courses. So I would support Vlad's observation that middle requires 1/2 to 2/3 of work comparing with classic/long and sprint ~1/4.

I'm not talking about initial mapping. Vlad said: Most of the work I put in as a course setter is ensuring that the map is up to date, and making so if not.

You don't need to re-fieldcheck the entire mapped area if is irrelevant to the courses.

8 or more good designed courses would require re-checking almost entire map. Pronto!

I'm really confused by all of this. Why is field re-checking and map updates along the route corridors required for course setting? The map should be quality to begin with. If the field checking is suspect then don't use the map. All of this extra labor to make map changes certainly eats into the cost savings had by inkjet/laser printing at the last moment. Wouldn't a throrough and quality mapping job at the start followed by a high-quality, high-volume print job serve the same purpose and result in a higher quality printed product for the same or equal cost? Sure, maps change over time and some locations are unuseable, but I think its the course setter's job to design the courses so they don't use questionable locations. It is not the course setter's job to anticipate all possible routes or estimate how much area on either side of a leg needs to be re-fieldchecked.

Start with a good map, well printed to begin with, design courses that the map can support and be done with it.

No, Eddie, you are really confused. We are re-checking the entire map, not route corridors. It may be an outsouring problem.

You don't need to re-fieldcheck the entire mapped area if is irrelevant to the courses.

You need to recheck the areas I end up in when I boom. :-)

(Unfortunately, they rarely do this, and it can be frustrating.)

I can't help you there. Although I know you brought this up for rhetorical effect as one could also make the point that they should fieldcheck (and, of course re-fieldcheck) the areas that they didn't because some idiot decided to leave them off the map entirely.

its the course setter's job to design the courses so they don't use questionable locations

That´s also my opinion:
* If a planned control site is doubtful, don´t use it! They do exist even on a good map - all things don´t look the same in the terrain as you think they do when you´re planning behind your desk.
* If the map is bad in some (hopefully minor) part(s), avoid using it and don´t make runners go there if possible!
* Of course - the best scenario is that the map is of good quality in the first place. Some seasonal (?) changes to the vegetation and possibly new trails etc. do occur that may have to be added to 'save' the course setter...

The hardest thing to do - as a course setter (and in other contexts) - is to "Kill your darlings!" There´s always this TRULY GREAT leg that you plan on paper that you just can´t accept is not so good out in the forest - and you desperately cling to it. This is usually the very place where the map, the terrain, the control placing appear as doubtful, but somehow all that is forgotten just because...

I hear you on that. There are some legs and routings that look great on paper, and even though the map checks out, they just don't work right when you see the flow of the terrain and the intangibles. For me getting rid of those is a challenge -- and that's why I think it is critical to have someone who you respect as a better course setter than yourself to provide feedback.

Although I spoke theoretically about the area that would "need to be checked", I'm in a different camp from Vlad in terms of the need to do so. Although I do make adjustments near controls when necessary, I certainly don't refieldcheck the area in between. Heck, I don't even test-run the courses. I still haven't run the Men's Classic from WOC-93! This mindset comes, perhaps, from the days when you didn't have a map to set courses on until it was already offset-printed. I have, however, decided that a map was not good enough, and moved the event to a different map altogether.

Given that you have tried to get the best map possible and pick good locations, I believe that you still need to walk every leg (and relevant routes) and check around the control sites as a course setter or vetter to verify the quality of the map where it is most important. If the map is good then this job is easy. Otherwise how do you know that nothing has changed? How do you know that the mapper didn't have an off day?

I totally agree with the need to check out the map at control locations and on likely routes. Both are imperative. I do test run some things, but not always. Though it doesn't mean you need to refieldcheck what you see while doing this.

Eddie wrote: Why is field re-checking and map updates along the route corridors required for course setting? The map should be quality to begin with.

I can only give my experiences here in Cincinnati, but checking likely routes is absolutely required. There are many reasons, but they include:
1. The map was checked in dry October, and it's wet April. If I don't think the map supports the leg, I change the map or the leg. For me, usually, it's a question of slopes I think are dangerous. I've put people up and down some nasty steep slopes, but I design around the ones that really scare me.
2. Vegetation changes. This is primarily open/rough open fields, but we also have problems with invasive honeysuckle. I was on a 2003 map last Sunday where a place mapped white is now first green with honeysuckle. I hate that stuff.
3. New deadfall. This mostly affects the easy courses, particularly White when a trail is blocked (and the only way around is 3rd green), but if a likely route is slowed significantly, the map needs to show it.
4. Likely attackpoints. I try to check all the likely approaches to a control to make sure (a) they're recognizable, and (2) the mapper got the relationships right.

The one thing that never fails to amaze me is the variety of route choices people take. Cristina had a course at the 1000 days where she didn't see a route until someone pointed it out. My experience is much worse: I've spent hours and hours designing a leg, and still been surprised by the routes people take. I don't recheck the map, but I do verify that the routes I expect people to use are properly mapped.

one could also make the point that they should fieldcheck (and, of course re-fieldcheck) the areas that they didn't because some idiot decided to leave them off the map entirely.

But would one make that point, as it seems obvious what the mapping standard is of an area left off the map, whereas it is not obvious what the mapping standard is of an area outside of the realm of the course setter's assumptions, or any difference between areas inside and outside that realm, or even the bounds of that realm.

(geez, I'm bored :-))

I disagree about the size of map needed. A 4 to 5 km Middle course simply cannot make use of 4-5 sq km of terrain, much less require that much. Even if you managed to make a 5 km Middle course _appear_ to use 4 sq km, there would be large areas which no competitor would ever see.

In New England, where I grew up, we used 1 sq km forests most weekends it seemed, and managed to set good 4 to 5 km courses on them. 1 to 2 sq km of good terrain well mapped is all that's needed for a Middle event. I've seen a 4 sq km area (Wells State Park, before the map was enlarged) used for a two day Classic A meet, with good courses both days. And NEOC was a big club.

The habit of using enormous areas for events is harmful I think. It leads to sloppy course setting where the same part of the terrain is used each time, and lots of good terrain is rarely or never used. Maps are expensive, and this habit wastes maps, making them seem old and familiar prematurely. (And there's only so much terrain within driving distance.) Much better to make two maps half the size, and force the course setters to be creative. (I generally find that it leads to better courses overall, not worse ones, because it makes the course setter think harder.)

I was given a map once, with the 5km course from each day of a two day event. "It's not a big area" I was told. The day one course was almost identical to the day two course, just in reverse. I took the same area, and split it into four parts. On the south part, I set a 10 km course, with some nice long route choice legs. On the northeast and northwest parts, I set two Middles. The middle part I didn't even use for my event. So much for "not a big area". The point is that all three events were on different terrain, and thus were fresher and more interesting. The old event with two days on the identical bits of terrain must have felt stale. Just by how we use terrain for courses, we can have more fresh terrain, without any more mapping.

I'd like to cast that as a challenge to course setters.

By the way, comments clearly show the quality of the meets that were or will be organized by certain individuals :)

No, Sergey, if your comment is intended to say that you cannot criticize until you have organized a better event yourself, then I completely disagree.

No, clearly Sergey is joking. I wouldn't think he'd expect us to take that comment seriously.

:) :) :)