Discussion: Björn Kjellström Cup

So, the actual scoring system and therefore the above scores are in dispute. Many would argue that the scores posted above are incorrect.

Notably, for some reason our neighbors to the south feel that it is somehow reasonable that they get to include visiting students in their results, but that Canadians cannot.

They was I see it, there are two (or possibly three) sets of valid scores for the Bjorn Kjellstrom Cup. These are based on whether or not visiting students can be included, and if so, whether or not both countries are allowed to include visiting students (yes, it does seem that some in the US are dogmatically claiming that it is reasonable and sensible that they be allowed to include students but that Canada would not be allowed to do the same...).

Results set #1: (USA gets to include visiting students, but Canada does not)

USA (middle + long)
USA men (63 + 48)
USA women (54 + 54)
USA total (117 + 102) = 219

CAN (middle + long)
CAN men (42 + 56)
CAN women (50 + 51)
CAN total (92 + 107) = 199


Results set #2 (neither country includes visiting students - just permanent residents and citizens)

USA (middle + long)
USA men (53 + 48)
USA women (54 + 54)
USA total (107 + 102) = 209

CAN (middle + long)
CAN men (51 + 60)
CAN women (50 + 51)
CAN total (101 + 111) = 212


Results set #3 (if you are so insistent on including visiting students, then Canada agrees and does the same, and thereby gets to include Thomas Nipen in our score)

USA (middle + long)
USA men (60 + 39)
USA women (54 + 54)
USA total (114 + 93) = 207

CAN (middle + long)
CAN men (45 + 66)
CAN women (50 + 51)
CAN total (95 + 117) = 212


So, by any fair and reasonable system, it would appear that Canada are actually ahead after two days, thanks to a very strong showing in the tough long distance terrain.

You can debate this all you like, but do you really think that the spirit of the Bjorn Kjellstrom Cup was meant to include visiting Scandinavian students in the Canada/USA competition? And if so, do you really think the spirit of the competition intended that only one country would include students as they see fit, while the other country played by a different set of rules?

I don't think so.

Let's have the competition, but let's have it on fair and even terms.

Yes, it is shameful that the US has not won this cup since 1982. But it would be no less shameful to try to win it on the grounds of leveraging a loophole in the rules that is patently unfair.

Go ahead and try to take the trophy if you like. But if you choose to do so based on uneven grounds and in unfair circumstances, then don't forget to take it with bowed heads and more than a little bit of shame.

Honestly, we would be happy for you to win the cup. But if that day ever materializes, we would expect that it be done under fair and even circumstances. Anything less would be an embarrassment.

My $0.02.

OK, I think we should have a rumble for all the marbles after the sprint.

Go USA!!!

Wil ...ouch, snap!

I promise to remove this (but, only after Wil gets a bit more riled up).

The only solution I can see is that the Canadians crush the Americans in the sprint, rendering the whole eligibility issue moot.

Easy.

Can we get a live webcast of this? Forget the World Cup, the real action this weekend is in BC.

*Scratches his head, reaches into his memory*

brilliant, j-man!

Go Sweden!!!

The cup is now safely in the hands of the Americans! What a great 4th of July treat!

How about some cliff notes?

Sam, Sandra and Louise O were 1-2-3 in the sprint; Patrick G, Jonas Kjall (BAOC), Wil Smith for the men. I think Eric B was 2nd best US tied for 6th overall.

The cup is now safely in the hands of the Americans! What a great 4th of July treat!

So ... did the US win "for real" or "on a technicality"? I certainly hope the former as it was a great weekend of racing with a really good battle between the two countries. If the US really did win, then it is a great result after all these years of Canadian BK domination.

And the cup is now safely in the hands of President Clare Durand, headed south across the border....

Sam, Sandra and Louise O were 1-2-3 in the sprint; Patrick G, Jonas Kjall (BAOC), Wil Smith for the men. I think Eric B was 2nd best US tied for 6th overall.

That would be Mike Smith in 2nd (not Wil).

Apologies to Mike. :-)

So is that the top of Jonas' head in the team photo? I can't tell. Woot Sweden!!!

Regarding Wil's complaint. Sure the current system makes no sense, other than it's what we have always done (each country uses its own eligibility rules). So it's what we have.

It's also clear that we could change it pretty easily. I bet we could do it in a week. Why not just do it, so we're not having this same discussion 2 years from now?

The least bogus way, in my opinion, of equalizing things is to leave out the student rule the USA has. Citizens and permanent residents, that's it.

For this year though, it's a done deal. But I have recalculated the numbers based on the above no-students criteria (i.e. Jonas Kjall doesn't coun)t, and you get the following.

The women don't change. The score for them is still --

After two days:
USA 22+19+13 = 54 + 54 yesterday = 108 for two days
Canada 25+16+10 = 51 + 50 yesterday = 101 for two days

Today's sprint (order was Sam, Sandra, Louise, Carol, Kat, Nikki Rehn)
USA 25+22+13 = 60 + 108 = 168 final score
CAN 19+16+10 = 45 + 101 = 146 final score

The men:
Middle (Ross, Mike, Eric, Nick, Patrick, Wil, Boris)
USA 25+19+9 = 53
CAN 22+16+13 = 51

Long (Mike, Patrick, Ross, Eric, Boris, Nick)
USA 19+16+13 = 48 + 53 for middle = 101 for two days
CAN 25+22+10 = 57 + 51 for middle = 108 for two days

Sprint (Patrick, Mike, Eric, Boris, Ross, Brian)
USA 19+16+13 = 48 + 101 = 149 final score
CAN 25+22+10 = 57 + 108 = 165 final score

And the grand total --
USA 168 (women) + 149 (men) = 317
CAN 146 (women) + 165 (men) = 311

And the cup still goes south. :-)

But let's fix it for next time.

It is worth noting that the excitement of the three events was, first of all, generated by the brilliant performances of the Canadian and American elite competitors, yet was made possible by the terrific staging of the events by the organizers and the revved up commentary by Vlad and Greg. Each of these events allowed for great spectating. The Middle was like a stage set with competitors running across the hillside into and out of the spectator control, with spectators viewing from the finish line at the bottom. The radio control info built excitement about who would pop up over the crest of a spur next. We even got to see some real navigation (and errors in real time) on this leg. After the final loop in the forest up the monster hill, it was all downhill in open meadow toward the finish, making for great viewing of terrific athleticism.

The Long Distance warning control and finish were in a broad open valley where competitors entered from the woods above. Greg and Vlad would announce their impending arrival and then you'd get glimpses of them as they found their way down the hill through the spotty forest. Into the warning control and then up the hill on the other side, you could see who was tired, who was still strong, and then they disappeared into the forest again for the final short loop. One highlight was to see Ross and Patrick run up the hill together, within feet of each other and then anticipate who would come out first. It was Ross, by about 200 m. The finish chute was level and the spectators got to view it from the amphitheater created by the hillside. It was Great!

Ditto for the Sprint today. The start and finish were on the track at the College of the Rockies. (Google Earth it.) Spectators could view from the bleachers or from the infield for those who wanted a close-up view of the action. Again, the commentators kept the whole race alive. You couldn't see much of the course, but you could see them come through the spectator control at the far end of the field outside the track. When they hit the last control, it was awesome to see them race on the track to the finish right in front of the stands.

Hats off to the Kootenay Orienteers and all the Canadian clubs that helped with this event. It was stellar. I'm so glad we got to be here to see this great series of events. Congratulations to the Americans for their terrific performances and for giving us hope for the future, and to the Canadians for being such great sports. You are a great group of athletes.

P.S. And Thanks to Christina Luis who would have been here but who is leading the team of juniors in Denmark this week at the JWOC.

I second everything Mary Jo said -- it was just a great weekend! And I was just thrilled to see the US finally win the Kjellstrom cup; for the generations of us who couldn't do it, and thought we may never see the day, it was a fantastic way to celebrate the 4th!

I second Peter's thoughts. There is no reason why the North American Champs eligibility has to be the same as U.S. Champs eligibility. The two Federations can agree on a uniform set of rules (*) to apply to the Regional Champs, and Orienteering USA can keep the student exception for U.S. Champs, ostensibly introduced in 2003 so that non-U.S. students at U.S. colleges and high schools wouldn't be felt left out of the action.

(*) Uniform to a point. We'd most certainly want to keep the permanent residents (**) and not just limit the eligibility to citizens. But permanent residency for Canada is based on an entirely different set of rules and is arguably far easier to obtain than the U.S. green card, at least for college-educated workers. At least the two nations have somewhat comparable institutions of permanent residency. But North America is not limited to the U.S. and Canada. Orienteering is also practiced in Puerto Rico (IOF Member), Costa Rica, Cuba (IOF Member), and Greenland, for all I know. These nations may not have permanent residency that is at all similar to the U.S. or Canadian notion (Puerto Rico and Greenland don't even have citizenship; Greenland is ostensibly trying to get national sports organizations established). As time goes, hopefully there will be more nations attending the Championships, perhaps Mexico, either Virgin Islands, etc. So, writing "or permanent resident" will punt the can of worms down the road. Perhaps it's the wisest solution for now.

(**) There are very strong arguments against making the North Americans a citizens-only competition. There is already a competition only open to passport-holding citizens, and it's called the WOC. But more importantly, there are people who have been living in the U.S. or Canada for many years or decades, yet aren't citizens simply because naturalization takes years or decades. Some of these people are quite productive citizens of the O-society, and to give them the equivalent of "go back wherever you came from to compete" is simply rude.

Congrats Team!

I hope we take advantage of the opportunity for some publicity for our sport. Glen, Clare how about some press releases to national media and certainly the hometown media of every team member. Let's get the word out about O'

Peter, I agree with all that you stated and I'm hoping that in two years that we can also have a USA ~ Canada Junior competition with some kind of cup, trophy, plague, something to pass back and forth between the teams. The US and Canadian Juniors have been training together at the last couple of JWOC's and I'm sure that they would like to compete head to head for the bragging right as well. I truly hope that the next NAOC will not be at the same time as JWOC as it was this year.

Congratulations to the USA, 'twas exciting to watch the BK trophy unfold even for us outsiders.

orienteeringmom - I hope that is a typo! You can't really want plagues being passed back & forth between the juniors (can you?) ;-)

See AP Splits here.

Thomass splits are Long

Thomass splits are Short

Splits are also available on WinSplits by Courses and Classes.

Thank you to the NAOC personnel (Barry and Jim) for making these available to Sandy and me for posting.

typo yes, sorry.

haha AZ you're on it! too funny!

Clam, I laughed out loud opening this thread and hearing the American anthem. Good humour! loved it!

I agree with Tundra/Desert's comments that North America is not just limited to US, and was in fact a little surprised to find when registering, that the only two choices (as I recall) for eligibility were being a USOF or COF member...
It made me think, "what about Mexico?" and wondering whether we needed to be a little more inclusive, and perhaps even offering a
MexicO-Friendly map of how to get to Cranbrook.

I think we can wait to address that until after we find a North American orienteer to invite who comes from anywhere but the USA and Canada. Has anybody spotted one yet?

Actually, themost likely case might be if someone shows up from France, claiming North-Amercanness by way of St. Pierre and Miquelon.

Yeah but St. Pierre doesn't have sports federations, it's a far longer shot than Greenland. I'd say you'll see Danish people next by way of Greenland.

I didn’t know about the existence of the BK cup when I registered for NAOC and would have done things a little bit different if I did. From the information I found online I wasn’t sure whether I was eligible for individual NAOC competition so I emailed the orgainsers in early April before I signed up for the event:

“I'm planning to register for the NAOC. It looks like it will be some great orienteering with interesting and challenging courses! I just have one quick question regarding the eligibilty for the NAOC. According to your webpage "be either a citizen or permanent resident of Canada or the United States" it doesn't look like I'm elegible, but in USOF rules http://www.us.orienteering.org/binder/rules.html "To be eligible for championship competition, a competitor must be a member of an IOF federation in the North American region" it looks like I'm (I'm elegible and have participated in a US championship).

I'm a swedish citizen, in the USA on a student visa (F-1) 2007-2012, competing for BAOC and a USOF member.

I just wanted to check this in advance to avoid any confusion later."

After a couple of days and a meeting of some people/jury(?), not completely sure who was involved, I got the reply:

“We are looking at the eligibility as being: If you are eligible for the national championships in your North American country of membership then you would be eligible for the NAOC's. If you are a member of the USOF and they consider you eligible for the US Championships then you'll be eligible for the NAOC race."

So I registered as elegible and I think it was up on the NAOC “who’s coming page” for at least a month before the event. When I saw the information about the BK cup in the NAOC bulletin a few days before I went up to NAOC, I realised this might also be a problem (still wasn’t sure though if the BK cup had the same elegibilty as the individual competition or if it was between the national teams). Decided, that it now was to late to try to do anything from here and that I should talk to my friends on team Canada and team USA directly when I got up to figure out how it had been handled in the past and trying to get a feeling about how they felt about me running. Got up pretty late on Thursday and didn’t have to much time to talk and wasn’t really sure about how I should appoach it…. Found out that the rules for Canada was different, Thomas was not allowed to compete, which sounded very unfair to me. I really wanted to help USA if I could, but decided to talk to my very good friend and Canadian team coach Magnus Johansson on Friday morning to see what he thought about it (including the possibility for me to take back my elegibility (don’t know if that had been possible…)) Unfortunatley he didn’t want to talk about this at all with me (guess he had a lot of things to take care of during the event). Now it was really to late to come up with a “plan B”, so I decided to focus on the races and do as well as I could for me, BAOC, Cal and USA, thinking that it hopefully wouldn’t change anything in the end (and if it did take the discussion afterwards). Was staying at the campsite and didn’t look on internet until I got home late yesterday and saw this discussion…

I’m very glad to see that USA would have won the cup for the first time since 1982, even if my points hadn’t counted!
Good job team USA!!!
Also team Canada put up a very good competition and it was very fun to run and be apart of such competetive races with runners from here as well as overseas in the WRE classes. Looks promising for the future (with WOC in Trondheim coming up soon)!

Also I want to thank the organisers for a world class event, everything was very professional and I enjoyed every moment up at NAOC.

Sorry Jonas, can't even remember that you tried to talk to me about it ;) The whole event is kind of a blur in my mind right now. Waking up really early every day to vet controls, setting up radio controls and computers and assisting everyone around. It was also slightly nerve wracking to have "my" event go last and not being able to place any controls until the morning of the race. But it all went well thanks to the brilliant crew that worked the event! It was thrilling to see the dreams I had about the arenas as I was doing the mapping come true in real life.

As for the BK cup rules, I really don't know what to say. The rules don't seem to make any sense, but I wasn't about to start a last minute discussion on something that you guys apparently have been using for several decades...

This has been a slow slide on a slippery slope. When I first started orienteering, cittizenship was required, and even green card holders (permanent residents) were not eligible for championships in the USA -- this was changed via a vote at the convention in (I think) 1988. Other visa categories were added later. The student thing was in response to a situation regarding the Intercollegiate Champs specifically, and I've always wondered why it was done the way it was, rather than making all students at any US college or university eligible to compete for that college irrespective of citizenship, rather than making student visas acceptable for all championships.

I've sent a suggestion to the USOF and COF presidents that once the dust has settled on NAOF that a small committee be struck to review and formalize standard eligibility guidelines for the awarding of NAOC medals and the BK trophy. Based on the excellent comments in this thread, I see no shortage of qualified people to help establish those guidelines. As an organizer, it was a bit disconcerting to discover that the eligibility wasn't clear cut and differed between countries. The guidelines should be clear enough that they would be applicable to orienteers from any NA country and should probably include a listing of those countries, as I'm now thinking of running for Barbados.

Other visa categories were added later

"Were" is incorrect. No categories were added other than the 2003 addition of full-time students (regardless of their visa category; a student can be on a student, exchange, trainee, or short-term visitor visa (latter is illegal), or illegal).

student, exchange, trainee, or short-term visitor visa

Well, that's four visa categories, so I'm sticking with my verb conjugation as is.

(It may also be that some other visa category was considered at some point (at some level), but not actually added, and that may be what I'm thinking of.)

Jonas - I'm a bit worried by your posting. I hope you don't feel anyone is questioning your actions or integrity!

It is great for orienteering in North America to have top runners living here and pushing American and Canadian elite to new heights.

As for the results being the same with or without you - well I am happy for you but I'm sad to have missed the AttackPoint thread that might have been ;-)

any US college or university eligible to compete for that college irrespective of citizenship

That's been the case for a long time—since before 1994 (my first Intercollegiates). Non-citizens/non-greencardholders have been able to compete for their college team, just weren't eligible for the individual IC Champs awards.

The 2003 eligibility expansion is something almost entirely different. It was intended to make the students eligible for all championships. It's especially peculiar because some full-time study programs can be as short as a semester/quarter; yet the wait time for a U.S. green card, from the moment of application, is somewhere between 6 months and 15+ years depending on the particular immigration category (longer for professionals). (I hear Canada doesn't have this problem.) During this wait time, the applicants are usually tied to their employer/sponsor and in some cases cannot leave the country, for example to compete elsewhere. Yet these (certainly long-term) "visitors" are banned from U.S. Champs awards.

I would argue for not counting anyone except citizens for NAOC purposes. If you can't run for a country at the WOC, then you shouldn't be able to run for it at an IOF regional championship either. I think this is particularly important since it is anecdotally much more difficult to get US than Canadian permanent residency, so allowing permanent residents skews things in favor of Canada. (I'd also argue the US should go back to only citizens for US championships - I feel like a bit of a bogus winner of several US champs - but that horse may have bolted.)

I will admit to not following this stuff very closely, since my own status is so simple and I therefore don't have a personal interest, so some of the stuff I said above may not be accurate (but I think the green card addition in 1988 is right -- I remember the debate about it at the convention). Vlad is definitely a more reliable source on this than I am (and ditto for people like feet). Actually, I'm wondering if the student thing that I'm remembering might have even been about a case of Interscholastic eligibility, as opposed to Intercollegiate eligibility.

not counting anyone except citizens for NAOC purposes. If you can't run for a country at the WOC, then you shouldn't be able to run for it at an IOF regional championship either

Then you'll get quite a number of people who can't run for any country in any region (some permanently). Dramatically less now than in say 1995, but still quite a few.

And?

I agree with Feet - since the NAOCs are an IOF Regional Championship (aren't they?) they should be using the IOF eligibility.

(It seems there should be an IOF rule about that, but I have a few Barebones things to arrange and shouldn't even be spending any time on AttackPoint let alone looking up IOF rules ;-)

... and they'll get demotivated and won't contribute to be productive members of the O-society. And they'll pull their families from the sport and put the kids into something more inclusive.

Indeed the situation is a lot better now that most countries seem to serve the passport and paperwork needs of their citizens promptly so that feet's approach is a lot more realistic than it would have been 15 or 20 years ago. There are some people in the developed O-world who are permanently ineligible for a citizenship (Latvia/Estonia) but that's kinda tangential to the North American situation.

Yes the 2010 NAOC were an IOF Regional Championship. In 2006 we received regional championship status but while the 2006 event is listed on IOF's web site I believe the first "official" regional championship was this year. From this year's web site:

"The North American Regional Orienteering Championships awards the title of North American Regional Champion to the winners of M21E and W21E"

Looking at the rules for a Regional Orienteering Championship (ROC) (I've posted them below) it appears that IOF eligibility is required and as such IOF rules (see rule 2.1) trump the rules of the race.

So a big congrats to the US on their BK win because this thread coulda been very interesting if the US hadn't won with the so-called 'shameless rules' but won with the 'current rules' ;-)

Also of interest is that there is an Appendix for the European and Asian ROC (but nothing for North America).

From the IOF rule book...

1.13 The Regional Orienteering Championships (ROC) are the official events to award
the titles of Regional Champions in Orienteering for each IOF Region. They are
organised under the authority of the IOF and the appointed Federation. The IOF
Regions are Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania and South America.


2.1 These rules, together with the Appendices, shall be binding at the World Games, the
World Orienteering Championships, the World Cup in Orienteering, the Junior
World Orienteering Championships, the World Masters Orienteering Championships
and for W21 and M21 elite classes at Regional Orienteering Championships and
IOF World Ranking Events. Every rules point with no event abbreviation before its
number is valid for all these events. A rules point valid only for one or more of these events is marked with the specific abbreviation(s) in the margin beside the rules point number. Such specific rules take precedence over any general rules with which they conflict.


3.10 Regional Orienteering Championships take place every two years.

25.6 The title of Regional Champion may be awarded in the following eight separate
competitions:
• women, Sprint • men, Sprint
• women, Middle distance • men, Middle distance
• women, Long distance • men, Long distance
• women, Relay • men, Relay

Looking at the rules for a Regional Orienteering Championship (ROC) (I've posted them below) it appears that IOF eligibility is required

Citizenship is not explicitly required by IOF for ROC. See 6.2:

WOC
WCup
JWOC
WRE
6.2 Competitors who are representing a Federation shall have full passport-holding citizenship of the country of that Federation. [emphasis added]

Note there is no ROC in the margin. You can make an argument that since the events were WREs, citizenship was required in order to represent a Federation. However, the current interpretation of this Rule is that it only applies to WREs in which runners explicitly represent a Federation (e.g. the Nordics). The World Ranking competition in Cranbrook was separate from the North American competition, and for most WREs competitors are not representing a Federation, only themselves.

So, I don't see how IOF Rules require someone to be a citizen of the U.S. or Canada in order to be eligible for the North American Championship title. A similar rule is explicitly written for the EOC (Appendix 7 Chapter 4), and can be added to IOF Rules should the North American member Federations so desire and put forward a proposal for discussion to the IOF Rules Committee.

P.S. Before contacting IOF Rules regarding this addition, I think COF and Orienteering USA should first achieve consensus with the Cuban and Puerto Rican OFs, and perhaps Ilulissat Orienteering Greenland and the groups in Costa Rica and Panama. It would only be fair.

So, when are the North American Relay Champs?

The Unofficial, non-IOF sacntioned NARCs are next Monday morning in Whistler!

Three person teams. Mass-staria!
www.barebones.ca for all the info.

"Jonas - I'm a bit worried by your posting. I hope you don't feel anyone is questioning your actions or integrity!"

No no, don’t worry, I was just rambling on in my first AP post ever…

I hope and think most people (and I’m sure it is the case for those it concerns most, the runners on the national teams) know that I didn’t write the rules and that you are either elegible or inelegible according to those rules (don’t think there is an option: elegible, but don’t want to be part of X…)

In the first part I was kind of trying to make two points:
1)As hammer mentioned above, the same situation apperently happened last year and even if nothing was changed after that, someone should have been able to figure out it could happen this year after seeing the registration list for example and have started the discussion before
2)It is good if the organisers can post accurate and current elegibility criteria (for example together with registration) on there webpage well in advance (even if they are availble on OUSAs webpage for example, since there might be some who are not so familiar with all this), to avoid confusion later. (This is probably the only thing I can think about, which they could have done better. Pretty amazing for an event this size)

The second part was just that I felt a little bit left out, there was obviously a lot of discussion going on about this on NAOC and I was curios about the situation, but noone said anything to me. I guess there is no reason they should… and it was probably for the better, so I could keep my focus on the races.

A few comments ...

At the North American Champs, the eligibility rules need to be consistent amongst the competing countries (Can, US, Cub, PR, Col). If students are eligible for one country, then they should be eligible for the other too. If they are ineligible in one country, then they should be ineligible for other countries too.

This is a definite requirement for the BK Cup, as there is no way the two countries can compete fairly against eachother if they can't include the same categories of people. It is also important for individual medals. It is not fair that a Canadian student visitor is ineligible when a US student visitor is. If student visitors are to be eligible, then Thomas Nipen should have won the bronze in the Long, not Jonas.

Personally, I would prefer that student visitors be ineligible. Generally, students are more transient than other immigrants. They generally maintain closer ties with their home-country and usually return to that country (or go elsewhere) when they are finished their studies. If they do remain in the country after their studies, becoming permanent residents, then they would certainly be welcome to be eligible at that time.

Where are the rules for NAOC's? I haven't done an exhaustive search, but I certainly can't recall ever seeing them anywhere. It seems like they should exist, perhaps as appendices in the COF and USOF rules, respectively. It seems like we need an explicit single NAOC eligibility rule, rather than one that refers to different country rules.

Finally, to feet, Jonas, Thomas, et. al. I hope you don't feel uncomfortable in the midst of these discussions. We do appreciate having you as part of the North American orienteering community. You help raise the level of North American orienteering and we are all the better for it.

This discussion has been great and shows some of the issues we had to face as organizers in trying to nail down the NAOC rules and BK eligibility questions..search as we might, we were unable to find clear NAOC guidelines nor consistency between countries something I'd initially thought would be straight-forward and easy to locate. Clare has now sent this to USOF VP Competition Peter Goodwin to begin the dialogue so as to ensure we have clear rules and guidelines in place well in advance of the next NAOC event. Thanks to Jonas, for raising this question with us in the first place.

It wouldn't surprise me if nobody ever formulated eligibility rules for the NAOCs because it simply didn't occur to the Founding Parents that it would be an issue. There were Canadians and Americans, and it was obvious who was who. Or, at least, it wasn't obvious that it might not be obvious. So now is the time to define eligibility, since it has become a concern.

I think JJ is on the right track. As far as I know the NAOCs has just been happening every other year with no formal rules of its own, meaning that it has been organized under the rules (and sanctioning process) of the host country.

I can think of the following changes that have taken place over the years --

1. The NAOCs were originally set up to be a biennial competition in the years when there was no WOC, which meant the odd years early on. When WOC changed to odd years in 1979, NAOC changed to even years starting in 1980. When WOC changed to every year, NAOC just stayed with the even years.

2. At some point 10 or 15 years ago, the Canadians shifted (simplified) their age groups, most noticeably to 10-year groups for the old folks. Thereafter, we've used their class system when they organize it and the USA system when we organize it. A bit strange, but we seem to have survived.

3. In 2006 the Canadians (as host, GHO the organizing club) changed to Short-Middle-Long rather than 2-day Classic. We've stayed with that since, though, again, nothing is written down.

4. Also in 2006, along with the change to SML, we changed the scoring for the BK cup to its current version. This was actually agreed to in advance by both sides (at the peon level, me and Hammer, I think, nothing "official").

5. The eligibility rules have always been whatever was in force for each country separately, we determined ours, Canada theirs.

6. We did have an inquiry from a group in Mexico one year, but no one ever entered or showed up.

All along, I don't think anything has been written down in "rules." There was a first attempt in the USA in connection with the 2008 NAOC, but it was very minimal, and tentative, and never approved. I'm not sure about Canada.

My opinion as to where we ought to go from here --

1. Get roughly equivalent eligibility rules. I'd toss out the USA's student rule for starters. That in itself may be enough. I'm not sure how different the rules for permanent residents are in the two countries; perhaps they are not so different that we can't just leave that part as it is.

2. Deal with any other countries when they show up. Let's get the USA/Canada problem fixed first.

3. Don't get all excited about codifying rules for the event. When we host it, we do it under our rules for a major event, ditto for Canada, and in either case it is also an IOF Regional Champs and WRE, with the requirements (and recognition) that that entails. Note that under the system we've had, we actually made the change to the SML format quite painlessly. And also dealt with the age group issue quite well.

4. And see if we can get #1 done before the entry forms go out for the 2012 NAOCs (I don't think the USA has any host lined up, so that does give us a little time).

(One caveat about the above -- I've been to every NAOC since 1975, but there were couple before that I think. Perhaps Gord Hunter or some other old-timer would know if there were any other unwritten rules or agreements in the early days.)

(And one other thought -- Since it was an IOF Regional Championship this time, can someone send an appropriate press release to the IOF so there can be something on its website about the event? It would be nice to raise the awareness of it.)

PG: "I've been to every NAOC since 1975"
Have you won your age category in them all?

if Canada and the U.S. want to bring the IOF into the loop, things won't be as easy as PG and Hammer agreeing about a couple things at the peon level. Things will have to be written down, and something resembling a formal North American Regional Working Group will have to be formed. The purpose of all of this is so that things would be transparent and not half-agreed upon by unknown actors with some of the potentially interested parties missing. Things won't be needlessly onerous, nor can they remain as informal as they has been. Whether that's what is indeed desired is an open question.

As a matter of curiosity, what is the significance of the country of a runner, anyway? I can think of three points:
1) For the Kjellstrom Cup, it matters what country the top few elite runners are from.
2) For the O/NA cup (I think that's what it's called -- the one for veteran's classes), it matters what country some number of older people are from (but I don't remember the rules for this at all).
3) For individual championship medals, it matters whether someone is from a NA country, although it doesn't matter what NA country it is (so for this case, ambiguity between USA and Canada doesn't matter, but it still matters for visiting students from Europe, for example).
Does that cover it?

JJ -- The ONA cup the Berman's sponsored for a while hasn't been around for several editions of the NAOC. I think it's alternate name was the "Prime of Life" cup. :-)

Have you won your age category in them all?

Certainly not the ones in 1975 and 1977, ran M21. Started running my age group in 1980, I think I had a good streak going until 2006 when we changed to SML at Hamilton. That year I ran M21 in the sprint and middle. And I know Bob Lux got me in the sprint in 2008 (CNYO). I might have to do a little research....

PG wrote:
3. In 2006 the Canadians (as host, GHO the organizing club) changed to Short-Middle-Long rather than 2-day Classic. We've stayed with that since, though, again, nothing is written down.


Technically stuff is written down for the switch to S,M,L. A motion (Motion #4 in the minutes) by Jim Waddington (GHO) and seconded by Pippa McNeil (YOA) at the 2005 COF AGM was made to switch from 2-day classic to sprint,middle and long for the 2006 NAOC . This motion was passed unanimously.

Got this response from the IOF, regarding the WRE & Regional Championships criteria...As the W21E & M21E classes of the NAOC's, will in future also be used to determine the NA Regional Championships, it may simplify things if were to follow the IOF criteria for BK eligibility, as well.

From IOF:
"You asked me to provide you with the exact IOF criteria for determining the nationality of an athlete. Here are direct quotes from Competition Rules for IOF Foot Orienteering Events, which apply to WREs:

“6.1 A competitor may represent only one Federation during any one calendar year.”
“6.2: Competitors who are representing a Federation shall have full passport-holding citizenship of the country of that Federation.”

Basically you can follow your own rules when it comes to presenting the results of your own competition. However, when the results are presented as IOF world ranking results, athletes represent their country of nationality. Furthermore, any athletes other than Canadians or Americans will not be included in the results of NAOC as IOF’s Regional Championships."

any athletes other than Canadians or Americans will not be included in the results of NAOC as IOF’s Regional Championships

For the North Americans to be the IOF Regional Championships, both sides (the organizing Federations and the IOF) have to take a number of further steps. For the IOF to simply declare some event to be its ROC is not enough; the IOF has certain obligations, and the organizers do, too, that are not currently met.

The most important step the IOF must make is to provide a Senior Event Adviser at its own expense like it does for the EOC. Typically an SEA makes at least two site visits. With all SEAs except one based in Europe or Australia/NZ, you can see how the budget-constrained IOF has not been too willing to engage into discussions with the North American organizers. All event advising that has been done so far has been the personal initiative of the Canadian organizers, Mike Minium, and myself; the 2000, 2004, and 2008 events had no IOF advising. While Mike and I, the (non-Senior) Advisers, work on behalf of the IOF, nobody at the IOF contacted us directly regarding the North Americans as the ROC, nor reimbursed any expenses. In essense, our job is to make the WRE happen; Mike/I cannot in charge of the next level, the ROC, because we don't have needed experience or certification.

On the organizing countries' side, the most important change would be the creation of a North American Workgroup, to ensure that all North American IOF member nations have a voice and not just (sometimes behind-the-scenes) people in the organizing committees. The matters for the Workgroup's consideration would be, for example, scheduling and site selection, award eligibility issues, event advising, allocation of certain shared expenses, and perhaps some of the promotion. The viability of such a Workgroup may be somewhat problematic, given the status of international relations between the U.S. and Cuba.

As to the organizing Federation of each Championships, it will have to pay a levy to the IOF that is comparable with the levy that the European Champs pay (€15k? I'm not sure of the exact number); perhaps scaled down proportionally to the number of participating nations but still a significant chunk of money. This won't be the most burdensome change, however.

At the ROC level of an IOF event, focus must be placed on presentation. A rule of thumb is that perhaps 80% of the organizers' attention, and a significant chunk of the budget, should be spent on the arena, coverage, and promotion. We saw a good start to that in Crabnrook. But for an honest effort to bring orienteering "out of the woods" and to the people, the IOF, through its SEA, will want much more. The organizers should be prepared for protracted discussions on how to manage the logistics for a large screen and camera coverage, and how to sell the event to media outlets, even for a relatively small happening on the order of 500–1000 people like we just had. However more work it may be, I think the IOF is right in shifting the focus. It is highly worth it (to The Sport in the long run) for a club that has the necessary resources to attempt a presentation on this grand a scale; how many clubs will be left in the bidding is the question.

As an aside comment, if the (mostly European and Europe-based) IOF Council/Commission members had to patiently wait in line for something like 22 years to obtain that "full passport-holding citizenship" in case they wanted to move to the North American region and be eligible for its Championships awards, perhaps they wouldn't have worded the opening quote quite the same way. Naturalization, for someone without family ties to the U.S., is practically impossible to accomplish within an athlete's "competitive elite" years. (Someone not already born in the U.S. would have to be brought by parents at an early age, someone like Jonas has no chance for timely naturalization through the employment/merit-based channel.) I feel strongly that we in the North American countries know best which eligibility criteria to apply to our Regional Championship, and should agree on a set and communicate it to the IOF through the mechanisms I mentioned, not the other way round.

And I would think Charlotte and/or Clare should forward our thoughts to David May. Again, for the listed reasons the 2010 North Americans were not an IOF ROC, and the opening statement does not apply to them.

Correction—Mike is listed as SEA. I was completely unaware this happened; sorry about that! It's one of the steps to making the above happen, but I'm sure Helsinki didn't pay for Mike's van-miles.

The viability of such a Workgroup may be somewhat problematic, given the status of international relations between the U.S. and Cuba.

Perhaps, but surely Fidel will expire soon.

Or has already.

"Soon" doesn't buy you a ticket from the U.S. to Havana. Most Americans (including non-citizen residents) currently have no realistic possibility of visiting Cuba, under Trading with the Enemy Act. Penalties for travel include up to 10 years in prison. Sports events attendees can theoretically get a license exemption; good luck to O-USA dealing with Office of Foreign Assets Control.

I can now preemptively add this to my list of committees not to get near with a 10m pole. This sounds about as much fun as being on the US's Interscholastic Rules committee.

This sounds about as much fun as being on the US's Interscholastic Rules committee.

There is no Interscholastic Rules committee within OUSA -- just the Rules Committee. Given the number of issues that get raised in this area, IMO, there should be such a committee -- or at least a subcommittee.

Now that is what you need Tom--the Interscholastic Rules subcommittee. You and me, buddy!