Discussion: Cheating in Rogaaines and Indifferent Organizers

Cheating has always been a problem in rogaines, but it seems to be more prevalent lately. Every rogaine I do I see teams splitting up for searches, crossing of private property, and only one member of a team visiting a control. The most common practice is one member descending to the bottom (climbing to the top) of a large feature while all the other members rest, eat, rehydrate, adjust gear, etc. I have called teams on this and usually I am met with sneers. At multiple events I’ve reported to the organizers, but have always been met with indifference. At one recent event I was even chastised for being nitpicky by the organizers, this after the cheating team even admitted to their behavior—and were not penalized! It seems the organizers do not want to enforce penalties because of revenue loss – they’re afraid penalized teams may not come back for future events. I’m not quite so gung ho about rogaines anymore because of the cheating, although my overriding philosophy is still “I’m just happy to participate”, and will continue do so. With declining number of events and participation, a form of Gresham’s Law may be occurring “Bad rogainers drive out good rogainers”. A final observation: adventure racers by far outnumber orienteers in the cheating ranks.

Come to WA where no-one cheats! Then again maybe you are here already, who knows who or where you are?

Come to Europe. They'll cut your head off if you lose your fingerstick.

Maybe we can learn something from the flip-the-fishers here. They require a photo at every checkpoint with the whole team in view for each.

Where are you, sx633?

Somewhere in the US, I reckon, given the spellings of 'behavior' and 'penalize'.

I have a question about rogaine rules. If a team decides to do an out and back from a road or trail (or anything for that matter) to a control, is there anything that says you can or can't drop your packs before going in and then pick them up on the way out after getting the control? I've seen teams do it and always thought it was legal but never really checked.

Legal I would say, there is no equipment rule. But I did know of someone who had their pack stolen when they left it for just that purpose.

Do the packs have mandatory gear in them?

I've done it. Pretty sure it is legal in AUstralian rules (which should match international) as long as nothing is left after you pick your packs back up.

In Australia (well the western part anyway) we have no mandatory equipment and the rule says you have to take out what you took in - not that you have to carry it with you at all times. This was done to stop people leaving packs on the course and bolting for home rather than leaving packs for a short time and collecting them later during the event.

In my only ever rogaine, the Snowgaine, the rules said you could travel on any of a number of types of equipment, e.g. skis or snowshoes, but you had to come back to HQ if you wanted to drop one of these in exchange for another, otherwise you had to lug both.
After the race, I asked the RD about people leaving skis around while running into thicker stuff on snowshoes - he jovially explained that if you see some skis unattached to a racer (here he motioned to the four cardinal directions), one ski goes THIS way, one ski goes THAT way, one pole goes THIS way, one pole goes THAT way. hahaha

There should definitely be clarity from the get-go as to what is legal and what constitutes cheating - some people might not know. For enforcement of teammates sticking together (if the rule is clearly in effect), I like the photo idea, and in a bigger race like the Dontgetlost Raids, there have been officials stationed near certain particularly difficult peaks to make sure everyone climbed to the top and touched the flag.

I've dropped my pack often (even when we do have minimal maditory first aid in it) on one occassion to find at the end of the rogaine that somebody had placed a brick sized rock in it. Fair enough I reckon.....I could see the joke. (for those in NSW it was Bert who admitted to doing it)

IRF rule B13. No food nor equipment shall be left on the course before the event for a team’s use, and no food or equipment shall be left on the course.

It might be slightly ambiguous in the current wording, but it is clear in various books on rogaining that it is OK to temporarily leave packs while going off to visit controls. As an event organizer, I would be a lot happier if many teams didn't feel it was perfectly OK to leave their garbage at water stops to be carried out by whoever picks up the controls after the event. Better of course to have the centrally located rubbish of discarded gel packs and half-eaten sandwiches at a half dozen localized spots rather than having them randomly discarded in the woods, but pretty clearly a contravention of rule B13.

There is always the slight possibility, of course, that a dropped pack might get stolen while it is temporarily abandoned. I've been much more reluctant to drop a pack since the time about 5 years ago when that happened to me. It had a lot of equipment in it, including our headlamps, and we pretty much had to beat a quick retreat to a road return to the hash house, barely getting out before dark to a place we could get the rest of the way in by midnight. At the ERC in Finland a few years ago there was quite an extensive mandatory equipment list, and a lot of teams heading off as their first or second control to a mountaintop near the hash house had dropped their packs at a trail junction to be picked up on the way back, and event officials inspected teams coming up without packs and DQ'ed teams without the compulsory equipment. A little unfortunate lack of communications pre-event, because I think a number of those teams who dropped their packs had felt they were effectively carrying the safety equipment with them, as it was only a few hundred meters away on a track, not as if they were making a big loop in the wilderness without that all-important cell-phone or 12 other items on the mandatory equipment list.

I think the equipment always with you on our club's annual Snowgaine is partly a safety consideration for winter conditions, and partly to deal with areas where mountain bikes could be very effectively used on some plowed roads to get quickly between separated areas suitable only for skiing or snowshoeing--perhaps specifically related to the nature of a lot of our local venues. But this year with dense and often crusty snow, a team with the new generation of mountain bike with 100mm or so tread on the tires did make it around most of the course, and felt it was a viable transport means.

For enforcement of teammates sticking together (if the rule is clearly in effect)

For larger events like WRC where e-punching is in use, team members have to punch with 60 seconds of each other. Solves the issue of all members visiting the control together, but I realize many smaller events do not use e-punching.

If races want to prevent teams splitting up then it's very easy to make every team member have a sport ident permanently attached to their wrist and everyone has to go to the control and punch. It's what is done at the worlds and the bigger events in NZ and Australia.

Regarding dropping the pack, this seems very common in Australia where there are no rules preventing it. In NZ there is almost always mandatory gear that must be with you at all times, so it would be deemed as cheating but I don't think I've ever heard of it being enforced. I don't think it's a big deal in general, it's pretty uncommon for the most efficient route to be back through the exact same point. Plus not having access to water and food would be a pain if you left the pack for a great length of time.

I've seen team splitting up too or someone waiting while the other person goes down and gets a control. I don't think it affects the results too much as these teams never seem to be near the top of the results.

Overall the faster/more serious teams seem to follow the rules and they are the teams at the top of the results, most of the other teams are just out for a fun time and probably don't care about the results so much.

It's not that hard to take your teammates e-punch with you to the control, while he sits at the trail. E-punch doesn't solve the problem unless you have a way to prove that each person carried their own the entire time.

It does solve the problem when the e-punch is attached with a hospital band that can only be cut off and if your band is cut then you are disqualified.

The following link has some pics of what is used here, it seems to work very well and I've never seen a band break.
http://www.rogaine.org.nz/main/Resources/NavlightC...

The following link has some pics of what is used here, it seems to work very well and I've never seen a band break.

Haha, speak to AndreM about that - it's exactly what happened to him on the way to the second control at the last WRC in NZ. They raced back to the start to get it reattached in case they were DQed.

Having spent many weeks wearing hospital bands, I developed the ability to easily remove the band and then slip it back on. Never thought I would have an opportunity to reveal this skill, but now it somehow seems relevant.

IRF rule B13. No food nor equipment shall be left on the course before the event for a team’s use, and no food or equipment shall be left on the course.

This rule is very ambiguous and could easily be interpreted by a race organiser either way to mean that you can or cannot leave your pack beside a road and return for it later.

My interpretation is that it is forbidden, so I've never done such a thing and have constantly been annoyed by competitors who do. If it is allowed, where does it end? Can you leave one of your team's backpacks with a whole stash of food and come back 10 hours later?

Interesting to see that the vast majority above don't believe it should be illegal. The IRF should rewrite the rule to clarify one way or the other. It would also be interesting to hear what the original rule writers intended.

Can you leave one of your team's backpacks with a whole stash of food and come back 10 hours later?

Just out of curiosity, how is this functionally different from leaving it at the HH?

It only ever seemed relevant in WA in the one rogaine I did where farmland OOB left no option but to loop back through a control (also a water drop) if you wanted to access the northern part of the course. I think I was packless for the best part of 2hrs.

Ditto. Locally it's been interpreted as "dump what you want - but it must come back to the HH during race time". As Fletch says, OoB fields sometimes leave an isolated section that - for runners - can be done without carrying a pack / waist pack. No issues (ever) with theft in our sparsely populated areas!

If hospital bands aren't cheat proof maybe rogainers could be chipped, like pets.

Chip implants i say, if it's good enough for livestock, it's good enough for us.

At least one team at this years Aus champs was DQ'ed after a team members navlight tag was lost when the hospital band broke.

Don't let Wil drop his pack because he always leaves the control card in it and then needs to run back to get it.

Electric dog collars modified with a proximity sensor. If the two team members exceed N meters separation, each gets a shock.

I do not wish to be implanted by Chip

1) What's the call on leaving the map?
Possible e.g., the MJ category winners at WRC this year (possibly as not sure what the arrows mean on their drawn route, perhaps they mean they were on the inside of the road).
MJ route WRC 2013
But in any event, if a team were to leave the map briefly (accidental or planned)?

2) and how about crossing a water feature marked with solid line as "uncrossable" or "impassable body of water, forbidden to cross" in orienteering terms?
e.g. the winners at WRC2013 from point 91 to 53 on the northern part of the map under the date?
Winners WRC 2013

Re. hospital band - also managed to snap a band at a Euro Champs, SI chip fastened under my wrist got caught whilst scrambling...

Nobody has shot down the camera idea yet...

In rogaines, is a body of water with a solid line around it forbidden to be crossed? I get the sense that the interpretation of these types of situations differ from ISSOM to ISOM and from country to country, so I'm wondering if in fact these features are considered forbidden to be crossed in rogaines, or not.

Perhaps a more interesting issue on the MJ route is that it was explicitly stated in advance of the event that use of the M20 or its borders (the road it would appear, from the drawn-in arrow symbols, that the junior team either crossed or traveled along) was strictly out of bounds. I can't say that I ever remember seeing a rule saying that one couldn't go off the map. It's always a bit or a risky gamble, however!
And in the US anyway, there tend to be private property issues if one goes off roads.

Private property issues as in:

It was only after I'd read the sign that I started noticing the tree stands...

We have a couple of venues with constant shooting even off-season. Kind of warns you off, but then sometimes helps with navigation as well.

Yep, there were plenty of chills navigating up my back ;-)

Crossing the double-lined waterbodies is perfectly fine in rogaining unless stated otherwise by the organizers. Going off the map is probably fine, too.

I'm pretty sure the MJ winners intended to say they were on the inside of the highway.

We've been thru this before. Orienteers don't cheat. Modern economic theory asserts that a material sub-population of any group will cheat when they believe that they are not being observed, but modern economic theory does not apply to orienteering, of course. (As an aside, its nice to live in la la land, where's my bus ticket?).

The upshot, live with it. Orienteers don't cheat. They don't believe their peers have the capacity to cheat either, despite replete evidence. And, they certainly ain't gonna lift a finger to fix a documented problem that conflicts with their worldview.

How about a 24 hr 3 legged race?

@bigE: I would not expect to encounter such a sign in your homeland...

Rogaines are such a lottery anyway.

Not well-set ones.

Don't be naive. Just ask an exclusive rogainer what makes a well set course. The rogaine I once set using four stitched orienteering maps revealed some very different opinions of event quality. The orienteers thought it was well set. Many rogainers commented that the accurate tracks took the fun out of the event. The navigation was 'too easy' because the map was too good. One prominent adventure racer thought it was poorly set because he couldn't see all the control kites once he was within 50 metres proximity. My own rogaining aha moment came after bashing through scrub for 20 minutes to reach a control only to find it was within a short distance from an unmapped track. An experienced exclusive rogainer told me afterwards that I should have deduced there was a track nearby because no course setter would go to that much effort to place a control without a track for the approach. He was probably correct, but it also revealed how different were his and my concepts of a well set course.

I enjoy the challenges of both, more so in rogaines and ARs where the CPs are fairly and correctly located. The art and experience of inferring what's not shown on a poor map or old map is just another skill. Poor setting can create a lottery, but good setting can make these types fair too. AR teams I've had fun with would perform far less well if the maps were accurate!

Does that mean you've not had fun on an AR that I've done with you :-(

We've always had fun in ARs tRickster... Being slower but more accurate = fun when the others fiddle-faddle around.

I think I read that incorrectly.

@Guy You're right. I was at a training camp in the US.

So presumably since the original poster hasn't returned to this thread to respond to any accusations or posted anywhere else on the site, he, she or it just stuck up this post to cause controversy and bring out potential trolls. Nice job.

Pinksocks? The camera idea wouldn't work. Most of the ladies would break the 5m rule by not wanting to get within camera range. "I look a fright" or "Wait! Just let me fix my hair"

Thankyou RLShadow. There is another thread that morphed into a discussion on why orienteering and rogaining should hold joint events. You've just given me the perfect response to that absurd idea. If rogaining ever heads down the path of getting it's knickers in a twist about ISSOM, then rogaining would be doomed like orienteering is in WA.

The camera idea would be hilarious. I can just imagine tRicky and Shane clearing a course and in every photo tRicky would look *exactly* the same. Arms crossed and possibly thinking 'Tell me to *smile* one more time buddy and I'll...push you into a rabbit hole'.

Mr R RU channelling Tony Abbott?

At the Tierra Viva 6-day expedition adventure race, cameras were mandatory gear as there was no other way to prove visits to control flags. Each team was advised to carry two cameras in case one got lost or was broken. We also had to take two photos on each camera in front of each control (numbered sign) unless we could get all team members + the sign into one photo. It would be a little time consuming for a race with as many controls as a rogaine but it's one of the few races I've done where cheating was impossible.

Photos might be a little time consuming for any given team, but a lot time consuming for the check-in at a big rogaine. Imagine 400 teams x 40 controls/team x 2 pictures per control, and wanting to have the results posted within an hour after finish! I think the SI card on a snug wrist-band for each competitor is a lot more satisfactory, though it would certainly be nicer if the wrist bands were just a little tougher and didn't seem to cause a problem of breakage for one or two people on a significant percentage of events.

Get Lost!! will utilize wristbands starting with our next 24-hour rogaine in September of 2014. We already require one SI card per participant, but do not offer or mandate wristbands. It was obvious from looking at the raw SI records of our 2011 event that some teams indeed handed all cards to a single person (however, not a single team failed to punch all cards at each CP they visited). We're reluctant to enforce wristbands at our events shorter than 24 hours, but will do so if there is evidence of top placings being decided through noncompliance.

Mr R and his bloody map talk again. At least O maps are accurate and are sometimes updated.

Deja vu.

It's all about practicallity when it comes to maps. How many O maps would be made to the standard they are now if the area mapped was 5 or 10 times the size and used once very 2 or 3 years (if that)?

That's right. Orienteers have just learned to have a very high (overly?) high expectation of the level of detail. Adventure Racers and Rogainers (those who don't come from an O background) love their sport and the maps, despite the mapping inaccuracies and inconsistencies - it's mostly o-types (and the more myopic ones at that) who really get irritated by the 'other' sports not having to deal with the increasing O expectation for high detail.

Damned Tooms, nearly every time I read a post of yours I have to look up a word in the dictionary. Myopic. Eish. I think it would be 'nice' to have trails marked on maps, or large boulders, or large areas of rock surfaces. Because if you're short sighted like me, having these things mapped would be bliss!

Well if I was really into flogging my guts out to repeatedly run 2km to a control circle quickly for 24 hours, then have to spend 10 minutes hunting for the flag because the map not only lacks detail (important things like the missing track described by Invisible Log), but is blatantly wrong and misleading because the contours are rubbish, I might like to go rogaining or do an AR now and then.

Now if all rogaining maps were like this or this instead of this I might be tempted.

Just saying you cannot compare the two sports for mapping standards but don't rubbish one sport just because it prides itself on being accurate.

Good point tRicky. The comment about O being doomed was not the smartest thing I've posted here. Keep in mind that I was keen on O for about 25 years and really did have a foot in both camps. But, I've read comments lately where the general sentiment has been "I can't understand why O and Rogaining can't combine" when the answer is quite clear. The expectations of O'ers cannot be met by the organisers of rogaines, especially here in WA. If the likes of simmo or yourself, who is down to set an event next year, is prepared to produce a rogaine map of orienteering standard, then I personally would welcome that but the majority of rogainers would be confused by the extra detail, much the same that orienteers experience when they use a rogaine map for the first time. Heck, Craig reported problems adjusting to the map on the weekend and he is one of the best navigators around.

Whilst that is not a deal breaker, if the effort went to making such a map for an event, it would be very unlikely that the same standard of mapping could be sustained for future events and that would be bad for rogaining. We saw that with GA's In Like Flynn map of the early 90"s.

Nice links Simmo. I can restrain myself no longer and so will repeat what i said in a similar thread last year. When Australia exported rogaining to the rest of the world, it lost control of the sport. Both those world championship maps prove the point. The 2012 WRC map was created by a member of the IOF map commission! I don't know enough Russian to place the mappers of the 2013 WRC, but their extensive use of IOF symbols and conventions suggests this was also created by orienteering mappers. Meanwhile in this state we run around on rogaine maps built (indirectly) from a 10 metre digital elevation model. Very soon 1 metre lidar models will be accessible. Software is available to convert this data into orienteering style maps of greater accuracy than those currently used in rogaining. Will this newly accessible accuracy reduce the role of 'map inference' that some in this thread think is a distinguishing feature of the sport? My question for Mr Rogaine and others.
Will these easily produced maps be good for your sport? If not, how do you stop the Europeans who are well down this path already? Create a mapping standard that requires innaccuracy?

WARA has used 5m contour maps for the last 15 years or more. Contour interval is not the issue for us. The issue is the fieldwork required - in terms of mappers with the skill set to do the work and having the time to do it.

I love the fact that rogaining has been exported to the rest of the world and I love the fact that in doing so, all sorts of changes will happen, some of them unimaginable now. I can't wait to see how it will develop in coming years.

If anyone thinks they own rogaining and wish to control how it develops or is run, they should think again.

In that case you can be excited about much more accurate maps in future.
http://routegadget.net/karttapullautin/
Its a slippery slope which might end you up with a IRF Mapping Commission that argues about what size dots you use for rocky ground. ;-)

In seriousness, not all the arcane definition of O mapping standards is a waste of time in a rogaining context. The attention to colour issues required to make map sports accessible to the colour blind is laudable. Its one innovation that the IRF could consider mandating.

WARA has, to a limited degree, been enforcing its own mapping standards in recent years. There are a handful of people who oversee the production of maps for events. Having key personnel available is always critical to the success of such a process. We had a very keen map maker until a few years ago, but he moved to another state and things have suffered slightly since then. Before any one starts jumping up and down, there have been some recent spectacular failures to monitor the standards. A recent 6hr event had a horrendous map.

The end result is that WARA produces map of a consistent standard. Participants get a map of a certain quality each time (usually) and that makes it easier for them to develop a methodology for interpretting the map and making sense of it on the ground.

Attention is paid to the basics - contour interval, basic colours to use, what to include on the map etc. The mapping standards are not documented regimentally like they are in orienteering and no one is hung, drawn and quartered for failing to meet the standards.

How does WARA generate its base contours?

WARA has a library of data that it is adding to since about 1995 when we started to produce maps using digital data. When a new area is identified that we don't have the data for, we place an order with our state government's lands and survery department and they produce a DXF file that has the basic map data that we require (plus a whole lot of stuff we don't use) - it will have contours, tracks and roads, watercourses, other water features, buildings, property boundaries and maybe some basic vegetation details such as plantations. The data could well be over 20 or 30 years old in some cases. There is another AP'er lurking here that will laugh at my clumsy attempt to detail this. Hopefully he will jump in and correct my mistakes of ignorance.

For most of the areas that we use for rogaining in WA, being an area from Geraldton to Albany and out to the wheatbelt, we can source 5m contours.

Assuming I am the aforementioned chuckling APer, you're actually pretty much right MrR. :)

Neil - I'm not sure of the actual provenance of most of Landgate's data, I suspect a lot of it is satellite 30/90m DEMs. It's certainly not O-quality, despite some people's best efforts to prove otherwise.

When a rogaine setter finally puts a legend on the map that matches the features on the map itself, I will consider that WARA has mapping standards ;-)

Well then, it should happen in about 12 months. :-)

Oh come now, for a few years in the early '90s I'm sure B.H. used the same 5mm old art liner felt pen to hand draw the major tracks in - if that's not Consistency, what is?

My latest amused thought. When the WRC next comes to Australia, the international expectation will be for maps to match the current European standard. MrRogaine can prod Simmo to try and qualify because the map will be close to IOF standards.

I try not to prod simmo. It always ends in tears when I do.

One day, I would dearly love to set a World Champs if only to showcase the fantastic sort of event WARA can, and usually does, put on.

WARA has already had one

http://wa.rogaine.asn.au/index.php/results/220-eve...

That was the winner posting. I still remember the club meeting when he wandered in uncharacteristically late (after arriving from Perth) and plonked the trophy on the table. That was the end of that agenda for the evening. ;-)

Does that mean we can't have another one?

We could have one in Kalgoorlie. One control could be at the bottom of the super pit. The description would be "a depression" because the pit wouldn't be marked on the map.

I don't think that 'depression' is a proper rogaine feature.

Depends on how badly you are lost and how much map inaccuracy has contributed to that state.

or how many toenails you are definitely going to lose.

Funny you mention that. One of our juniors with us in Estonia could not believe it when one of my toenails fell off last night. He thinks I have some kind of medical problem. I told him many rogainers lose toenails but he thinks I should look into the problem and do something about it.

I'd like to say, those are the words of wisdom born of experience, but then, wisdom is not a word I 'd associate with a sport that loses your toenails on a regular basis. Maybe your junior isn't thinking about the toenails as the concerning medical condition.

You haven't met the guy!

BTW - it is very common for ultra-runners to lose toenails as well.

Maybe they are lacking iron.

I think they are cheating in ultras

I follow people in ultras.

Try different shoes. Doesn't solve the problem completely, but it sure can help.

No no, I can follow people just fine in the shoes I have. Thanks for the concern though jj. ♥

I meant the lack of iron. The kind of shoes that horses wear can help with that, though the installation can be uncomfortable.

tRicky is it the one with the afro or the one with the weird hat and scarf?

Neither, weird hat and scarf is a senior believe it or not. Afro doesn't talk much.

Orienteers at least can spell the name of their sport.

This thread has gaained nothing.

And I don't suppose you will be planning a trip to South Dakota to do a rogiane?

Well I won't have completed (as opposed to participated in) a full 24hr within the time frame! Also no - direct clash with World MTBO Champs.

Take me back to the Black Hills...

My toenails spontaneously fall off before a rogaine. My body knows instinctively what sort of punishment it is going to be subject to. I fooled it last weekend by withdrawing at the last minute. One (half) fallen off toenail for no good reason.

Getting back to the thread, the real cheating in roogaines is leaving stuff out on the course . I was thinking of blood, sweat and tears which can lighten the load as the event progresses, but would also apply to toenails.

Getting back on track of this thread, as rogaining is not considered a real sport, is cheating actually something to be concerned about?

If rogaining weren't a real sport, why are people upset when they realize they can't "just enter" the World Championships?

If they're American (US) they're probably upset it's a World Champs type event that is participated in by other countries... ;-)

Folk round here don't like your smart ass attitude.

Hee-haw, in an intelligent manner.

jj - I agree regarding shoes. I had black toenails after finishing my first ultra. I did running shoe fitting at specialized store and they pointed out that I was buying half to full size too small. Before that I thought that running shoes need to fit as tight as a glove but after I realize fit should be as tight as mittens instead.

I needed a laugh and this thread has provided it. But I guess I haven't done a 24hr recently enough to qualify for the WRC, since my toenails are currently all still intact. BTW, where are the pre-qualifying rules published?

The Rogaine Committee of Orienteering USA has requested the latest rules applicable to WRC 2014 from the IRF. The rules applicable to WRC 2013 are here.

Back to cheating (rule B 10 specifically). Some observations - I have seen two teams violate this rule blatantly, and place in the top three both times, so it is a concern and not just wannabe folks doing this. It is also risky. Perhaps organizers are reluctant to enforce (and yes, I did report one, it was not addressed) because the penalty is pretty harsh, DSQ or banning. Based on the say so of a competitor, not an organizer. Not a pleasant task for an organizer. The regs do say MAY on those, so perhaps a lesser sanction (loss of four highest point controls? or such) might be an idea. The wristband would be great, if something durable can be used. Final comment in this lengthy blurb - I am not sure it is the case that adventure racers are more likely to violate B 10, in my observation of several offenses, I noted that it was teams of three or more that were doing this. adventure racers are more likely to run in packs, it seems, and more people may make it more likely to separate.

Sorry I didn't get back, I was away from computer and technology for a while.

This thread probably, as could have been expected, diverged for the most part from my original discussion intent. If I reveal my location then organizers in the scenarios I referred to would perhaps be unfairly suspicioned. tRicky: It wasn't you I was referring to.

There was thoughtful discussion on a couple of topics I had not mentioned, e.g., dropping of packs/gear. As stated by some, clarifications on that would be most welcomed.

Back to the original topic: The consensus of discussion so far seems to be technology is the best answer, which is unfortunately not practical for smaller events (volunteers, money). So I'll more narrowly define the topic question, knowing beforehand there may not be a workable answer. Also, I am thinking more of the likes of the WARA rules R10 and R16 (5 metres) than IRF B10 B16(b) (time window) since a B16(b) time window implies electronic recording.

So, along these lines...

Q. For small events how can organizers be encouraged to run a clean event, or is that just not worthy of worrying about since it probably can't be done.

Is the potential threat of a penalty being applied enough to solve the problem - or does it really have to be a Platinum Solution?

In the few AR events I've organised we have a penalty for teams not being able to rejoin within 30s. Any marshal or course official at any time can check that pretty quickly and simply. After our initial two events where we good-naturedly popped up at likely spots and penalised a couple of teams it simply has not been an issue in subsequent events.

To make it absolutely fool-proof would require too many resources, but it works as a deterrent. At WRC level something stronger would need to be in place to be totally fair as the odds of being pinged would be so incredibly low.

And on the pack drop question - several teams used the pack drop technique to do an out-and-back into a CP before continuing. It seems a pretty clear rule to many people already - but let's make rogaining more like orienteering and increase the rules while we're at it, just in case there is a loophole somewhere. ;-)

Rule 83(a)(xxxiv)(B2) explicitly states that any team outscoring tRicky is immediately subject to a doping test.

and Rule 83(a)(xxxiv)(B3) explicitly states that any team containing tRicky is immediately subject to a doping test if they complete a 24hr rogaine in one piece.

Anyone choosing to be tRicky's team mate is automatically a dope.

What about choosing to be tRicky's mate?

Who would be that silly ;)

:P

I hate you all, except Tash.

tRicky and TrishTash sitting in a tree
R O G A I N I N G ... :P

C'mon tRicky how about contributing to the MTBO thread. Some stories about rescuing a country's honour in the face of adversity.

...and dear god, please come home soon before Tash goes (more) bananas.

Clear expectations, specific penalties.

That's what I'm going to suggest for small events.

Sure, you're going to say "everybody knows", but it's possible that everybody doesn't know what goes for this event.

So in the pre-race meeting say "we expect all teams to stay together withing this boundary "X". We will spot check through the event and if found violating this rule, the penalty will be "Y".

Yes - someone can still violate the rule, but you've been explicit and they know they are cheating... You can also actually spot check...

We ran a small AR in ROC over the summer and gave teams 10 minutes between running/biking/paddling "off the clock" with the caveat - any time over the 10 minutes will count as penalty time as if they are overtime (loss of controls).

Did we actually clock people - no. Did every competitor / team manage to that 10 minutes - yes. Could we have pulled up the time they checked in and the time they checked out and gotten a specific answer - yes - if it seemed called for.

So it worked ok and wasn't a burden on us.

Here's another one - how many times have you actually checked pin punches on an event to see that the right pin pattern is in the right box for each competitor?-)

What are pin punches?

In WA we still use pin punches and if the pattern doesn't match, you don't get the points.

And if one pinhole is on the line and Mr Rogaine's aged dad was trying to read the card then you'll get docked the points*... almost an orienteering mentality from back in the Perfect Punch = Points days.

Fortunately enough other people changed the decision by weight of indignance!

Some races have had good luck by stationing a volunteer at a likely out and back point, and then making them wait for their teammate. If you have the extra staff, of course.

What are pin punches?

Oh, get off it, Vova.

Some people have long memories. :-)

As an ex-organiser of a rogaine, I admit to not really caring if competitors chose to cheat this way. If the sport can't provide a fair and efficient means of policing this rule then I put it in the same basket as unfair maps - part of the sport. Organising a rogaine is hard work without dealing with this sort of issue on the basis of a "he said she said". Its not a problem for a lone organiser to solve in isolation from the rest of the sport. The accusation of an organiser being 'indifferent' should perhaps be replaced by an acceptance of the helplessness of the situation the organiser faces. When there is a surplus of volunteers, then you can send policemen out on the course. But I can't remember the last time anyone reported such a surplus.
If a competitor really wants to take fairness seriously then they should only attend events with individual electronic timing and software to check rule compliance at controls. If there are not enough of these events for you, then seriously you should go orienteering instead. You have the personality to fit into the sport. Of course, the cost of this attention to fairness is many more rules, more work in mapping and course planning and a significant investment in technology. If you feel disdain to this extra effort, by all means keep rogaining and enjoy it as a pastime, but don't complain to an organiser about lack of fairness. In a sense I am agreeing with the original poster - bad rogainers may well drive out good rogainers. Here is the rub. I don't really care about this either. Social evolutionary forces will sort out a new equilibrium. My ex-organiser status is very small part of that evolution.

There. That should revive this thread.

Nope. Just killed it.

I suspect its too early to make that judgement. The thread almost died the last time it came back on topic. Then again, it was the hijackers from WA who revived it, so maybe you will be proved correct. ;-)