Discussion: WC 2007

Looks like Canada and US will only have 1 man and woman at the start line in the 2007 World Cups.
http://worldofo.com/news/ownnews/last.html

This is ridiculous! Russia is 13th, behind countries such as Hungary, Austria, and Germany. Lithuania is way down there too.... I don't think IOF thought this through very well. And what's the intent, anyway? Is it killing off competitive orienteering in the countries where it's already dying?

IOF has a lot of stupid ideas (microbe) and this may be another, but there is a short term silver lining to this.

If our top 20 guys all had 4 WREs, the US would be in 15th place which would get you 4 World Cup entrants. I think it is difficult when each country is alloted only three WREs. For all of North America that is only 6 events. Europe on the other hand has more than 10x that. They need to grant more WREs to those countries that don't have easy access to lots of neighbors.

Does this apply to the WOC07 races as well (except the relay)?

Just the WC, I believe. Still a huge blow though.

I thought I heard it mentioned that the WOC was eventually going this route too. Anyone know what year that will happen?

Australia is looking pretty good on this list (somehow?), but it is a major problem for us. We have a country geographically the size of Europe, and have only 3 races. Most of us have to travel 6000km just to compete in the Australian Championships on the west coast this year. Then if we want more than 3 races we have to travel overseas, New Zealand isn’t that far away comparatively but it gets pretty expensive chasing WRE’s. After our best runners chase WRE’s its time to travel to Europe for the World Cup races, which is a $1 500 US airfare and a 24 hour flight. It’s unsustainable. I’m sure all non European countries have the same problem.

So was there any discussion about this in the IOF? In other words, was there a chance for different regions to have some input, or was this just sprung on us? More to the point, is North America even represented in any IOF councils or whatever body it is that makes these decisions? I remember when the Micr-O discussion was buzzing, Sandy H-J seemed to have some contact with the IOF bigwigs. What about now?

One way to get more world ranking points, and more people with world ranking points, is to come to the WREs in North America, including those at next year's Canadian Champs, and encourage those with average ranking points over 600 to come. I think that one difficulty with being alloted more WREs is showing that your WREs get enough ranked people (over 600 average) in order for the event to be ranked. The US and Canada have several, but a WRE here would need several of them, each finishing within a certain percent of the leader, in order to be ranked. But if they did, I think you'd get several more people here with rankings.

The Russia/Lithuania situation mentioned by Boris shows one of the weaknesses with the proposed system. Runners from those countries usually don´t travel much to anything except the bigger championships events (often caused by lack of funding), but they should still be up with the best in the rankings.
Maybe this can give some countries/runners an extra motivation to actually travel - but if the money isn´t available...
One other thing - why use top 20? To me it seems only the Scandinavian countries (and maybe a few others) even have that many runners that have taken part in 4 WREs? Would the list look very much different if fewer runners were included?

PS. Australia, New Zealand and all of Asia could also be losers in the long run with this system.

Are all 3 Canadian WRE in Sask next year? How and when was this decided on? It's great two years in a row we're putting on all three events.

It sounds to me like the scandis are getting sick of seeing crappy runners from other countries placing high up at the WC and WOC when they probably have tons of runners who could have beaten them had they been allowed to participate.

I can see how they might want some kind of system that allows only the best runners to compete (thus making a 20th place finish at WOC actually mean that you were the 20th best in the world), but I am not sure that this accomplishes said goal.

I can't imagine that it is impossible to acheive such a goal without hurting the development of the sport. Perhaps if they just tweaked the numbers a bit it would work...

It has not been decided, although at least two will likely be at the COCs, maybe all three. COF has inquired with clubs about their interest in hosting a WRE, to make sure that all know of the opportunity, before the IOF deadline soon for federations to apply for WREs. If no other club wants to host a WRE, I think that the COCs will likely host all three (Sprint, Middle, Long).

We should get into a habit of labelling WRE events with the appropriate "World" designation in the AP events list. The North Americans could use an update in this regard.

I am a little hesitant about embracing having all 3 WRE in one event. I realise that once you're there it's great to have all 3, but given that Sask2007 is in the summer and some of our elite will be in Europe, it could be actually quite disastrous if we didn't have enough ranked runners because all of a sudden, you have lost your 3 WRE, so then assumed that there are 3 more in the US to chase, that's still only 3 and not 4 as needed.
My 2 cents, but again, I'm just a Baribe girl in a Barbie world.

It sounds to me like the scandis are getting sick of seeing crappy runners from other countries placing high up at the WC and WOC when they probably have tons of runners who could have beaten them had they been allowed to participate.

I suppose that may be one of the reasons, yes! I heard some rumours at WOC, but I didn´t know about this before. The system may sound 'fair' considering how many good runners that aren´t allowed to even compete. But that said we could look at other sports as well - what about seeing 'umpteen' Kenyans competing for the world title in steeple-chase with no others qualified to run? Of course there has to be some limit to how many runners each country can enter!

Actually, if the number is 4 - then the number of runners counted when distributing those start 'permits' should be 4 (or very close to that). A single nation can have one, two, three very good runners without the depth of 20...

What the hell is a Baribe girl?

A Barbie girl so blond that she can't spell her own name!

What if they simply limited the participation to the top athletes in the World Rankings list that decide to enter. For WOC you could limit it to the top 150 ranked people who register and something similar for the World Cup. That way if you aren't in the very top you could only compete if enough people ahead of you didn't register.

Then of course you would have to throw in certain minimums and maximums to ensure that there is enough diversity.

This would at least avoid the current problem we face if a country has 5 kickass Orienteers, but not enough depth to get high enough in the country ranking to earn 5 spots.

Is there anything that can be done to attract the elite to the COCs, so that it gets all the best orienteers, as well as world ranking points?

Actually, there would be no need to have a maximum. You simply set the minimum to 3 per country to ensure that every country is able to field a relay team, and after that you simply go down the rankings list to fill out the rest of the 150.

With 38 mens relay teams at the last WOC, that would have resulted in 114 runners getting in as the minimum. Perhaps the total number should be something more like 200...

I think the idea is to cut down the size of WOC, not increase it.

How many people participated in the last WOC?

You can only cut it down so much if you want to keep expanding the number of countries fielding a relay team. You would think it would lower the esteem of the event to have fewer countries represented in the relay...

Ok, so just when I was thinking that this situation sucked of us but that we still might be able to improve it by focusing on getting our athletes to all of our WREs, I read this article on a Belgian Orienteering blog. It basically made me realize that everyone is going to be focusing on getting their country's ranking up and the European countries who we were hoping to overtake are going to have a much easier time of it than we are.

It looks like we are pretty screwed.

If NA has only 6 WRE's then we need to put them at races that BOTH the US and CDN racers will attend (ahem, like the wonderful NAOC being hosted in 5 weeks time in Milton where you get 3 WREs).

My vote for an annual joint US-Canada team trials in mutually agree on relevant terrain that doubles as say 2-3 WREs and possibly the annual awarding of the Bjorn Kjellstrom Cup to ensure a large participation and the opportunity for both countries to increase WRE points.

Genius Hammer! Then we can get the trash talking for WOC started early :)

A little bit of good news. In the WRE handbook it says:

Regional Championships which rotate on an annual basis between two or more Federations (e.g. Nordic Championships) can be WREs in addition to the host Federation's normal allocation of three WREs

This says that every event at the North American Champs can be a WRE day. That makes 9 WREs every other year.

Another genius in the group!

If the Olympics worked like the new WC plan, then the Jamaican bobsledding team would never have existed. And that would be a sad thing.

On several occasions New Zealand has run 'their' WREs in Australia, in the interests of maximising the number of ranked runners in the field (a WRE in New Zealand, with only New Zealanders participating, might struggle to get the required number of previously ranked people). Naturally this suits us too as it means we sometimes get a fourth or fifth WRE without having to leave Australia (although, as Grant's pointed out, domestic competition in Australia - or North America for that matter - still involves travelling distances that are longer than going from one end of Europe to the other).

Last weekend was the first time since mid-May that I spent a complete weekend within the boundaries of my home state. Still three weeks until I get to spend a Saturday night at home...

Jeff, that sounds good, but read that carefully. The new IOF notion of a "regional championship" is a bit more than what we've ever produced at the NAs.

I have no idea what the new notion is, but I suggest that the next NAOCs (or New Zealand/Australia regional championship) naively apply for WRE recognition anyways.

BorisGr: So was there any discussion about this in the IOF? In other words, was there a chance for different regions to have some input, or was this just sprung on us? More to the point, is North America even represented in any IOF councils or whatever body it is that makes these decisions? I remember when the Micr-O discussion was buzzing, Sandy H-J seemed to have some contact with the IOF bigwigs. What about now?

I certainly don't keep close watch on happenings at the IOF, but from what I've observed (as a former USOF VP Competition and an IOF General Assembly attendee this year and in 2001), this is the way these types of decisions are made at the IOF:

1. The IOF Council (upon which Bruce Wolfe was the last North American representative, if I remember correctly) proposes for approval broad strategic initiatives (such as the Elite Events Project) to the General Assembly, on which all full member federations are represented. These are not fully detailed action plans, but rather goal-oriented documents, the implementation of which is up to Council and the committees.

2. For important changes in the rules or conduct of the sport, the IOF Council votes on it.

3. For smaller changes in the rules or conduct of the sport, the relevant commission votes on it.

After the recent GA in Denmark, COF President Charlotte MacNaughton asked Foot-O Commission Chair Maria Nimvik about the micro-O decision. She replied that the Commission thought that the addition of micro-O was too big a change for the Commission to act on it, and they refered the issue to Council.

I'm not sure at what level the new WC runner allocation system was decided at.

I know that the people who make the decisions about things like this are interested in knowing the viewpoints of runners from all the different federations, but they're also busy people who probably don't take the time to comb Attackpoint and other websites for opinions. Probably the best way to communicate an opinion to IOF is by reaching some sort of consensus among the US/Canadian/Australian/whatever team and submitting comments via the national federation. For maximum effectiveness, it would first be a good idea to get acquainted with the current strategies being embraced by IOF, so that you can address not only your own point of view, but also some alternate approaches to achieving IOF's stated goals.

But, of course, who has the time and attention both to train and to do what it takes to maybe make a difference?

There are a couple of issues here:

1) I'm concerned that the IOF does not seem to be playing with open cards (again). All but the largest nations seem to have been kept in the dark about the details of the proposed rule changes... until the document is quietly posted in an out-of-the-way spot on the IOF site.

COF President Charlotte McNaughton specifically tried to discover the details of the proposed rules changes at the General Assembly this summer but there was no mention of it. Only rumours which we heard via the larger nations.

On August 25, my brother Wil accidentally discovered the Special Rules for 2007 document while surfing the IOF page. The COF had received no word or warning of these changes, despite having kept our ear to the ground. I fired off an email to the IOF Foot-O Reference Group mailing list, which seems to have sparked off reaction on the web. Good. What we need is an open debate.

2) Allotment of runners per nation:
My main problem with the proposed system is that I think 1-2 runners for a nation is too few. I don't have problems with the larger nations having more runners, if this is what is necessary to ensure that all potential medal winners have the chance to participate in World Cups and WOC. (Whether it is necessary to increase the numbers to 8-10 to achieve this is another story).

For the smaller countries where Elite orienteering is already struggling to survive, or on the verge of breaking through to the next level (hopefully we're in the latter category) these rule changes could be the kiss of death. Sending runners to World Cups gives important motivation and experience to be able to develop to the next level. Keeping the smaller/non-European countries warm should be a main goal of the IOF if they truly wish to increase the strength of Elite Orienteering internationally.

I can see no good argument for limiting the numbers of the smaller nations, as long as there still are A and B finals.

MY SUGGESTION
I think a reasonable proposal would be to make the lower limit per country 3 instead of 1.

The COF is drafting a letter of protest to the IOF. Hopefully other affected federations will do the same.

I think it's another example of the ridiculous direction IOF are taking with the sport.
Many of the big sports have world champs where selection for the national team is difficult, but they have governing bodies strong enough to realise that is the nature of sport, and they make only minor (e.g., world champions can compete) changes to the rules. Some sports/nations have first past the post in qualifying - that's tough (not sure I like it, but it happens).

I guess this is all part of the disappearance of world cups - and maybe heading in the direction of 'golden league' style series, where the best/invited compete. If this is the case - then it should be transparent that this is the aim, and similar time/thought needs to go into developing competition for nations/people outside this group.

If on the other hand this system will be brought in to world champs, i think it's a disgrace, and can do no good for the sport as a whole.

As of today France would get 9 spots and Ukraine 1 in the mens class. The 9th Frenchman is in the 205th spot on the world ranking and in whereas the 2nd Ukrainina is 59th but out of the world cup (3rd Ukrainian in spot 69 and 4the in 131 but likewise out). That's an extreme case of the stupidity in the rules.

It's ironic that IOF is deciding to choke elite orienteering outside of Europe the same year that a non-European wins a gold medal at WOC and the WOC organizers keep harping on how many different countries are represented, and how many different countries' runners made the finals.
If the attempt to include Micr-O angered some people, I would hope that this proposal is met with at least as much indignation.
When IOF talks of making this a truly global sport, how hypocritical will they look when, down the road, the WOC relay consists of 18 teams, seventeen of which will be from Europe?

Does anyone have the full list of country standings? It must be publicly available someplace?

The next NAOCs should definitely apply for a WRE. My understanding is, that compared to a the new definition of a real IOF "regional championship," doing a WRE is relatively trivial.

BTW -- I think it is entirely possible to conduct the NAOCs in the normal way and not have it be a certified "regional championship." Ironic, yes, but those are the rules.

Boris: Go in on the IOF homepage, click in on World Rankings. Scroll to the bottom of the page and click where it says "Federation League Table". This is the list of country standings.

I wonder whether, given that the burden of maintaining a high federation ranking falls on a country's best 20 orienteers of each gender while the reward of participation in World Cup races accrues to at most the best 10, this will lead to some federations subsidizing the cost of their good but not absolute best orienteers participating in WREs. Perhaps appeals to patriotism will suffice.

Also, I haven't checked the schedule but it seems likely that any Canadian who misses the 2007 COCs because they're orienteering in Europe could get in as many if not more WRE runs over there than they would miss.

What holds us to have NAOCs each year? Alternating among Canada, USA, and Puerto Rico (there is O federation there).

It's great two years in a row we're putting on all three events

The North Americans are in addition to the 3 regular ones. Canada could have had 6 in 2006. The US has all slots filled for 2007, and has enough interest for 2008 to have competing bids for the 3 that are not the North American Champs.

Where are NAOC 2008? And the US WRE in 2007 as well?

The NAOC are being held by CNYO in mid-late September 2008. http://cnyo.us.orienteering.org/schedule.html

Where are NAOC 2008?

Central NY hosted by CNYO.

2007 US WREs that will be submitted to the IOF are one (Day 1), two (Day 3), three (Day 2?)

Does anyone know if these new rules will eventually apply to WOC as well as WC? If so, which year will that start?

I think that you should try to make as many of the WRE events as you can sprints and avoid the classic distance. You will get more people on the course, and I'm pretty sure that as a group the points will be higher.

No plans underway yet to apply it to WOC. But the IOF has a history of doing things in a non-transparent way (see Micro-O, or the new WC rules), so you never know.

As far as the 2007 WC rules, there is already a strong resistance from multiple countries gaining ground against them, and if enough people from enough countries join the fray, the IOF may have to reconsider.

Current suggestions seem to put the minimum number of competitors per country at 3 rather than only 1, though some have suggested higher numbers (like 5 or 6).

It seems that the IOF (and orienteering in general) probably risks losing momentum in smaller O-countries by denying them adequate representation in international events. And it is not clear what, if anything, tangible will be gained by limiting participation from smaller countries.

So, we'll have to see what happens. But if you're reading this and are against the drastic limitations imposed on smaller O-countries (called "blatant discrimination" elsewhere), spend a moment and lobby your national federation to speak up officially to the IOF - please don't just write into this forum.

What are the proper channels that we can use to lobby USOF to speak to the IOF? Or should we just bombard Frauke Schmitt-Gran of the IOF Foot-O commission with angry emails?

I think the proper way is to form a unified AUS/NZ/US/CAN lobby, and go through the Australian Council representative. It does not seem to me that there are good channels open between USOF and the IOF in either direction.

Is Japan in a similar boat? Though, it might be hard to include them in this effort.

Yes, Japan is in a similar boat. And don't forget South Africa and Israel - both countries routinely field teams larger than 1 athlete.... And of course there are quite a few European nations whose O-communities are quite small and are therefore caught up in this mess too.

It might be productive to first cobble together an alliance of the geographically isolated English speakers first to build momentum, and then invite others in the same situation.

"I think that you should try to make as many of the WRE events as you can sprints and avoid the classic distance. You will get more people on the course, and I'm pretty sure that as a group the points will be higher."

Strikes me as over the line into gaming the system. Nor do I doubt the IOF would make a rule against it if it became common.

Well have there been *any* sprint WREs in North America? Any middle distance?

Looking at the WRE calendar I can see that there have been a mix of middle and long distance events. The first sprint that I see will be at the North Americans. We could use a lot more.

The last 2 team fundraiser WRE's were middle distance (Alabama and Florida).

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to use our quota of 3 for 1 of each discipline. Of course, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to game the system, if possible, either. History is littered with stupid rules, and people finding ways to subvert them.

I don't think the IOF is paying enough attention to us to figure out if we are gaming the system.

I don't think the point is to be gaming the system.

To me, the point is having the system be more reasonable, not trying to find workarounds and stretching the rules.

And, I should point out that it is important that some of us go away to WREs outside of North America, race well, and earn lots of extra points to "import" into our pool - that's partly how AUS/NZL have managed to get pretty strong pools going.

I think part of the point is that no matter how many WRE points WE manage to collect, someone will always be stuck with only 1-2 runners and that's too few. This is not the direction we want to be going. Right now the focus is on changing the system. If it turns out we can't change it, THEN we can start thinking about gaming it.

I don't know much about how these things work, but I think that coordinating a coalition of nations will take too much time to be effective. The COF is working on drafting a letter of protest to the IOF. If everyone on this forum lobbies their federation to do the same then we'll have something going on.

Meanwhile Frauke is being bombarded via the FOC reference group mailing list (which is hopefully also monitored by the rest of the FOC). I'm doing my best to pass on the best arguments from this discussion.

I have posted a message to the USOF board. At least so they are aware of the issue.

Gaming the system is of course is impossible, given, as Sandy points out, there will always be someone at the bottom. If there is an exploitable gaming vector, it just becomes a different game to see who is best at exploiting it.

I still think we should mix in WRE sprints, tho.

Go fight the battle on all fronts. While the federations are slowly working to make the system more reasonable, take full advantage of it the way it is defined today--have a lot of WRE sprints. It is not like you are going to suddenly shoot to #1. Although if you did, I guarantee that the system would change in a big hurry.

Irregardless, I don't see why there isn't one sprint, one middle, and one long WRE every year already.

Best way to game the system is to use the Canada 2000 plan. Import a bunch of really good Norwegians a night or so before the WRE, offer them lots of alchohol in pre celebration of a wonderful party (wedding) and then watch our points go up on race day.

Excellent! That's thought leadership!

Genius HAmmer! Who can we marry?

That should definitely be a matter of public debate on AP.

we have one internatonal businessman...

-- Who can we marry?

I thought the Fundamentalist LDS were out of business now.

Maybe it's time for a revival?

I think we should sacrifice a young couple in the name of Elite orienteering in NA.

How young?

I'm not positive, but I think this move by the IOF is not a new idea. Seems to me that back in the early 90s there was a quota system for how many competitors each country could sent to World Cup races, and maybe there was talk at that time about doing likewise for the WOC. What I specifically remember was that in 1990 and 1992, when there were World Cup race in the US and Canada, that those two countries were allowed to send more than their normal quota to those races because they were the host, or the neighbor of the host. I think the number allowed to each country was based on performance in the previous year's WOC (this was before the WRE series was started).

The whole thing is f*^$@&n ass. Thats not to mention that apart from WOC the WC races are basicly one off events in conjuction with major scandi events - Jukola, O Festivalen, O-ringen and Swiss Cup (the swiss might as well be scandi)

to save some time , i'll ask Vlad or someone else , what fee is going to be from 2007 , or 2008 to be granted a WRE event licence ? is it per day / or per event ?

I wonder if a simpler solution to achieving IOF's objectives would be to give entry to the top 150 ranked orienteers to World Cups. Federations could submit additional orienteers, who would be admitted on a space available basis, in order of ranking. The US and Canada each have a woman in the top 150, and more orienteers not far below. This might result in the US and Canada each getting 2 or 3 orienteers in World Cups, assuming that not all of the top 150 want to go to each WC. Like the WOC A Final, it would be a goal for our top orienteers to aim for. (With the current proposal, there isn't as much incentive for an individual orienteer to get WRE points.)

If, however, the currently proposed rules are implemented, maybe the US and Canada should make some use of WRE points in determining who goes to World Cup and WOC, in order to encourage getting WRE points. Maybe even use the WRE list instead of a national ranking list for the elite categories.

having looked at the format proposed (iof wc page), I'm really not convinced that Ireland will want to have more than zero runners wanting to travel and spend lots of money to run automatically in B finals in Sweden and Switzerland....

The World Cup per se will finish in France.

I think a more relevant question is whether smaller nations want the current version of World Cup reinstated, where there is a week of competitions independent of those that have gone before, similar to World Champs.

The way it is going, Ireland will run in international competitions at World (annually) and European (biennially) Champs (maybe we'll get an invite for NAOCs too!), and that's all.

The disadvantages of less international competition: competiting, and meeting friends from all over, is fun; there are less possibilities to have good results -> harder to get funding; more terrain-specialization is required;

don't know what else. Tough cometition is easy to find. There are plenty of Swedes who can beat me in Sweden, and plenty of Czechs who can beat me in Czechland, and Aussies in Australia...


Personally I don't see why the IOF are asking countries to select runners - the WC will be an individual competition.


What do small nations want to get out of the World Cup as it will be next year?

Looking at the IOF table GBR men in 6th place only have 15 runners with 4 scores. Even the Swedish men in the lead only have 27 runners with 4 scores. Looks like using the top 20 from each country is way too many.

Hi Dave,
I agree with you. 20 is a lot given the current number of runners competing in 4 WRE races. Moving this number to say 8-12 would help smaller countries compete on more of a level playing field, and likely better reflect the caliber of national teams at WOC because the top runners would matter more than strength in depth.
This also seems like a relatively easy tweak to the rules to make.

In a similar way the US sprint rankings arguably require an overly high number of events (8 I think) which rewards people for showing up rather than being competitive. But perhaps that's another thread....

I guess the point is that improving the details of the existing rules could go a long way towards improving the system, without the need for wholesale change and the resulting acrimony.

what fee is going to be from 2007 , or 2008 to be granted a WRE event licence ? is it per day / or per event

It is €200 per day for 2007 and €250 per day for 2008 and 2009, according to the latest info I received. USOF pays the fee in the United States, shielding the organizing club from the expense. In exchange, the organizing club pays USOF championship-level sanctioning fees for all participants, not just MF21. Except for very large events, the club will come out ahead in the deal.

It might well be that it is wrong starting to deal wether one or three runners for small nations..


Maybe it is quite more usefull to point out the core of this new rules.... Orienteering is getting UNFAIR!

-> Not every nation has the same terms. No, the big ones get better ones.

But even for the big ones this will be no good (a phyros-victory) if for ex. Switzerland could send 20 Athletes to a WC this means:

- It is getting far more expensive to send the delegation
- Selection races will loose their character a serious race with cup-nature
- The team-results (rankings of the second and third best runner) will become worse
- The acceptance of the sport in public will diminish for there will be a far smaller diversity of nations in the first part of the ranking and the number of winning nations will decrease (~similar to NOC)
- Even if we won more, the diversity of winners names would increase, and there would be little use, because only stars are working (even to have Schneider, Lauenstein, Merz, Müller, Hertner, Ott and Hubmann is far to much for Swiss Press)

O.K. so far ...
... and there is another point in this false decision: The Olympic Project of the IOF died hereby.

So let me ask again. What can I, as a US Team runner, do to voice my displeasure in a way that IOF will hear? Are there some official channels through which we can go? There are no Americans on the IOF Foot-O commission and none on the General Council. So what can we do to be heard? Can we ask USOF President Chuck Ferguson to draft a letter? Or USOF VP Competition Clare Durand? Can we draft one ourselves and ask Chuck or Clare to send it?

Very good point Boris. I would certainly be willing to draft a letter or help somehow if I knew the best way of going about it. Let do something! There is a Swiss on the IOF Foot-O commission, I thought about contacting him somehow... but what is the best way?

>Sandra: Ask Marcel Schiess!

Boris/Sandra: An official letter of protest should be written by the USOF Board or the USOF president on behalf of the board. Probably the most practical would be for the US Team or representatives thereof (i.e. you guys) to draft an official letter of protest and suggest/ask the USOF to send it (i.e. ask the president to sign it).

Keep your arguments clear and concise, and make a concrete suggestion about what rule changes you would like to see.

On the Foot-O Commission side there is a mailing list called the IOF FOC reference group. Each country theoretically has athlete and coaching representatives on this list. In theory it is for canvassing the elite athletes and coaches' opinions on upcoming changes. In practice it is used to host bitter discussions AFTER the IOF makes decisions (read: MicrO and now). Find out who is your representative(s) on this list and why they haven't posted input there yet. If it turns out you don't have a representative there then you should volunteer.

Sandy, I have been happily (and gratefully) reading the IOF FOC reference group emails that you have been sending to the Canadian O-squad, but am not aware of any Americans on the list.

Boris, Sandra, and any other USOF members concerned about this --

If you write something, I will make sure it gets to the USOF board. I have previously alerted the board of the issue. If you want me to forward all correspondance on the board list that has been made, drop me a note off list. Or, you can lurk on the board net (usof-bod in yahoogroups), or I will forward anything you write.

Sadly, I do not have the skill, time, or contacts to draft the letter myself, or I woud do so.

I am on the FOC reference list, and I haven't posted input because I can't speak any better than the overwhelming majority of the much more qualified people who have. It was agreed on the list that no opinions were solicited, on or off the list, prior to the change in the WCup Rules.

Why have there been so few Americans running the World Cups over the past few years?

Boris, what do you want out of this? Same (i.e. 2007) format but with more runners per nation? a return to the present with WOC-style weeks?

What do the IOF want out of this - TV coverage essentially, I think? Are they going to get it? Have they got it arranged already?

I can't see the new format lasting without serious money being involved.

If you can get something together and circulate it before France that would be cool...

I compared the World Rankings of some remote countries (AUS, CAN, CHN, JPN, NZ and the USA) and of their orienteers, with an eye to figuring out why some remote countries did better than others, and whether there’s anything that we can copy. (AUS, NZ and CHN are higher on the Federation League tables than CAN, JPN and USA.)

Looking at their top twenty ranked orienteers, the difference between the rankings of the top few of the various countries wasn’t so great in many cases (with some exceptions like Hanny Alston of course, but that wasn’t the main factor in the difference in the country rankings). But there was a striking difference in where the runners got their points.

The top twenty orienteers in AUS, CHN and NZ got most of their collective points in their home country, a few in a neighboring country, and the top few got a bunch of their points at WOC (but also got some at home). There were some exceptions to this pattern, of course. A few Aussies are clearly either expats or big travelers. (But not many.) And some Aussies got points at one or two non-WOC European events. The Chinese didn’t seem to travel to neighboring countries. (In fact, most of their points are from the Yunnan Orienteering Festival…which, as Vladimir Gusiatnikov in the States points out, risks a big drop when the points expire en masse a year later.) But the pattern was pretty distinct.

In Canada, Japan, and to a large but lesser degree in the US, nearly all the points were gathered overseas, at WOC, World Cups, and various WREs. Few or no points were earned in the home country or a neighboring country. As a result, the list of ranked orienteers tended to be quite short (plus lots of people who had dropped off due to not running at a WRE for a year or more). The AUS, NZ and CHN lists were quite long (and had fewer drop-offs, relative to the list size (and often in absolute number)).

At current standings, CAN, JPN and USA would qualify for one orienteer at World Cups under the new system, as would the Chinese men. The Chinese and Kiwi women would get two, the Kiwi men three, the Aussie men four, and the sheilas nine. (The actual allotments are determined based on standings on January 1, 2007.)

This suggests a strategy for getting higher nation rankings, and getting more ranked runners, as well as more WC and, someday, WOC slots. Following the AUS/NZ example, focus on lots of home racing (especially the big races), and a little foreign racing. (And have some big races that everyone goes to (and make those the WREs).)

Just an observation. The difference seemed quite striking.

Does anyone know when and where the USA plans to have its WREs next year? The question came up on the Canadian o-squad list, and might also be valueable input to Canadian clubs contemplating hosting a WRE next year.

'sheilas' nice localisation, Jim.

I'm hoping to draft something this weekend as an official USOF response. If anyone has already written something or has specific language they would like included let me know.

Clare, thanks for being up to the task of writing the USOF response!
I think, from my point of view, i'd make sure to say that we are ok with the system in general but want a more reasonable minimum of 3+3 for each nation; additionally i'd point out the ridiculous distances we'd need to travel to get to 4 WREs in North America in, say, 2007 (the US ones are in Michigan, Virginia, and North Carolina. If you live on the West Coast....); and also point out the ridiculous argument that it will now be the job of a country's 2nd best runner to convince the country's 19th best runner to go to more WREs.... There are surely many more things that have been mentioned, but these ones jump out as important flaws in the system, if this system is intended to be fair. Thanks again!

Hi Clare! Thanks so much for putting something together. I think Boris pretty much summed it up! The main point should be that 1 male and female is too little and that this should get moved up to three, especially because this way the rules don't have to be changed very much, but it makes it more fair for those nations who have certain disadvantages in the ranking system, like difficulty getting 4 WRE's because of distance and funding. Maybe another point could be that this type of system shouldn't be used for the World champs in the future only the World cup, but I am not sure how to argument that point.
It's really great if USOF takes an official stand on this, us athletes can cry out as much as we want, but IOF will be more likely to listen to the federation! Thanks a lot.

I would also mention that using the top 20 from a nation is probably too many. There are not many nations with 20 athletes who have raced in 4 WREs this year, and it is kind of silly to put so much pressure on the hobby elite. Just because the top 4 countries have 20+ serious elite athletes does not mean that other countries do.

And I don't know if it would be appropriate to mention the disclosure issue or not, but it would be great if the IOF could put together some kind of system where more people are able to input their opinions on such big changes before they are actually put into place.

Addition to the Special Rules for the 2007 World Cup in Orienteering

Hello!

The IOF Foot Orienteering Commission will, on the background of recent discussions, suggest an addition to the Special Rules for the 2007 World Cup in Orienteering.

We have decided that those Federations getting a quota of one or two runners according to the published version of "Special Rules for the 2007 World Cup in Orienteering", may get their quota increased up to maximum three runners: One runner among the 150 best in the WRE of January 1st, 2007 will increase the Federation quota by one. Two or more runners among the 150 best will
increase the quota by two (if the maximum of three is not reached yet). Women and men are handled separately.

The exact wording is not decided, but will hopefully be ready and published around October 1st.

Frauke Schmitt Gran
IOF Foot-O Commission

Right now Samantha is 132 and Pavlina is 153.

And Louise is 150 exactly. Two spots for US and Canadian women, if that remains at year end. (Maybe incentive for Louise and Pavlina to come to NAOC...)

I'd think Samantha might want to try to get some insurance points too....

Unfortunately for the guys, although both Mike S and Mike W have significantly more points than any of the women, the male field is way deeper in the WRE, and the cutoff will be somewhere over 4500 points (!!!). Mike S will need to somehow pull out 300 extra points at NAOCs to do it - a pretty tall order, but not impossible.

The gaming suggested above would achieve it if we all tanked the race except for Mike and he blew us out of the water - but that's not what it's all about.

The fact that the IOF is adding rules might indicate that:

A) they are concerned enough that there is a problem for the smaller O-nations that needs addressing

B) the proposed rules as laid out previously are NOT set in stone - which means that we should definitely be pushing extra hard for what we really want - a minimum of 3 runners per nation. Period. And a lot more transparency and open debate for major decisions....

I know the toad don't worry; and I've already said that I don't feel like this IOF decision personally affects me, but I'm not going to let that stop me from sticking my foot in my mouth even deeper.

Is the 6 competitor limit also unfair? It means getting on the podium at a World Cup is harder than getting on the podium at the WOC. Does that make sense? Why should a World Cup medal be more prestigious than a WOC medal?

I agree with Wil's input.

The rules change that Frauke suggests may help us on the women's side for next year but the fact remains that the system is
1) hopelessly skewed toward the European nations and
2) sill a rich-get-richer system

NOT encouraging for International development if you ask me.

I think we should stand by our demand for 3 runners per nation.

I know the toad don't worry, but ...

If we use a ranking top 20 runners from each country for something, we should make sure the list is somehow fair and it has something to do with the level runners really are competing. And if we take top 20 runners, it means the list should be sensible all the way to places areond 500. Right?

Lest's see how it looks now:

Here is top 300 at the moment.

Here is places (male) 280 - 288. Are these runners really running in same level? Or is it just question of how easily you can get to WRE races. Or what is it measuring?

280 3540 Håvard Lucasen NOR
281 3534 Jan Troeng SWE
282 3524 Joachim Stamer GER
283 = 3521 Boris Granovskiy USA
283 = 3521 Topi Anjala FIN
285 3511 Denis Müller GER
286 3509 Martin Larsson SWE
287 3508 Eric Bone USA
288 3497 Ben Rattray AUS

There is several AP runners. Are you racing at the same level? And are you racing at the same level with Håvard Lucasen, Jan Troeng and Topi Anjala?

If not, why are you listed so near each other?


Here is all Finnish runners. Only 139 names (male). Only 21 runners with four races. And Finland is one of the very top contries here!

My opinion is this whole WR system does not work at all and this list and points should be used for nothing. If some countries will get more (or less) entrants, there should be some fair way to earn (or loose) those places. WR is wrong tool for that at the moment.

I am happy to see that they are acknowledging some of the flaws in their proposed system and attempting to fix them. But I agree with Sandy that we shouldn't give in until they fix the rich-get-richer issue.

Getting a minimum of three would yield more slots for now, but wouldn't address the fundamental inequities and flaws of the system, which would still be there as countries remote from Europe get better. Perhaps a more radical suggestion, even if it doesn't get immediate traction, would highlight the problem and eventually get it fixed.

Instead of 3 WREs per country, allot 10 per continent. This would still leave Europe the advantage of having all the World Cups and most WOCs, but would make a more level playing field.

Even Thomas Buhrer admits that his country's runners below the top ten are hobbyists, not elite, so why make it vastly easier for one continent to get hobbyists ranked than all the other continents? Looking at the rankings of many Europeans, most of their points come from events a short distance away, an enormous advantage in getting hobbyists and the second tier ranked. By mentally eliminating half of the closer races from the rankings of the second tier of Europeans, the range of country rankings narrows, and non-European countries assume what I'll state is their rightful place. A world ranking system should be a test of skill of course, with reasonably equal opportunity for all. (How many Europeans need to travel by air in order to get to most WREs in their own country? What is the justification for requiring that of some runners, but giving others numerous opportunities close by? Surely at least the opportunity should be equal?)

OK, I said it was a radical idea ;-) I'm afraid that I may get some people's hackles up, but hopefully I've made clear a point about a marked flaw in the system and how it's being used. Peace.

Lucky enough Finland does not have more then 3 WRE races ( BUT WAIT !!! MAYBE THAT'S NEXT.. how many runners in top 300 have each country will gave a chance to that country to organize up to 10 WRE- like 10 runners at world cup, and have the countries after place 22 having one event ). I'm sure in Finland or Sweden will be at least 20 clubs in each country willing to pay 200 Euro ( maybe those 20 clubs are within max 4 hours drive to each other, like the time need it to cross Switzerland . next year in Canada to compete at WRE races i have to go 4 hours too....oops. by plane. maye is 8 to 10 hours flying from Yukon to another WRevent in our country. does anyone think that Moldova or Georgia or DPRKoreea will pay those money to be able to organize WRE when they probably do not have 20 people in that class. and after you pay the money you have not enough ranked runners to start the pool.
Nobody knew back in 1990 that Cameroon will beat Argentina( the world champion at that time) at soccer world cup, or they forgot 12 years later,that Senegal beat France ( the world champion ).

now let's have a nice pool in Europe, wher will invite some other orienteers, maybe sell them(non europeans) some wild cards, for the good of TV and maybe sponsors will follow. as everybody mentioned here , this is a wrong move.
PROPOSAL... let's have all world cup events outside Europe and use those for qualification for next year WOC ( which should be every year in europe in exchange ). I hope all top 4 countries bring to outside Europe 20 runners ( 10 each gender )and other countries their max numbers. with all that income will afford to go every year in Europe. and maybe will see the light at the end of the tunnel ( as mr. Buhrer said )

to Jagge.
maybe those placse 280 to 288 are just about the same level of orienteers, because outside of europe you do not get top runners , therefore the points in NA for instance are less, regardless of your perfect race. and when Eric or Boris competed in Europe, more or less they were so much behind the winner that gave them so many points, so they are ranked where they are. again.. forget about the time need to go to those events


just checked and I belive that I might be wrong ( for sure ). Eric and Boris have those from 4 events and the norsk and the finn guy they only race 3 times. so definitely they have more average points.. my fault.. oops .. why they race only 3 times ( and really close to home/country ).. ?? money.money, money, must be funny in the rich men's world.. must be a group from sweden I believe.. tsk, tsk...money.. evil..

>Instead of 3 WREs per country, allot 10 per continent.
>This would still leave Europe the advantage of having
>all the World Cups and most WOCs, but would make
>a more level playing field.

Funny, I had a similar thought as I was out running today. Only my idea was limiting Europe (a smaller geographical area than Canada) to 3 WREs in a year. Maybe an extra 3 every second year for regional championships. And since the WOCs are in Europe and count as 3, then I guess they'll have to travel to get their 4th WRE, same as everyone else....

I had a feeling that wouldn't go over well with Buhrer et al., but given the magnitude of geographical inequity involved under the current scheme, it would at least get them thinking along the right lines.

My second thought was that there could be a subsidy from the richer O-nations to the smaller O-nations - so they can help pay our way to get to events. And maybe even fund our club system and help purchase some infrastructure (maps and equipment, maybe a team bus and some well-located clubhouses for starters...). That would help out to make the playing field REALLY a bit more level. After all, it must be level, since according to Mr. Buhrer: "The reasons for this [the fact that runners not qualifying under the current World Cup scheme are not good enough to compete at a world level] are mostly not any bad circumstances, but lack of training and/or lack of talent."

Not that we all have enough training or talent - to be sure - but to gloss over any advantage of having:

1) well-established club systems,
2) close proximity to many quality maps,
3) close proximity to many quality races,
4) funding from clubs and local sponsorships, and
5) funding from national federations,

is pretty far-fetched.

I'm with Jim - the WRE system as it currently is implemented is hugely flawed, and therefore basing major decisions on this flawed system is a mistake, plain and simple.

One thing which has only just occurred to me - does anyone know how it's determined which country a competitor is from for the purpose of calculating these rankings? If it's based on the country codes of runners in the World Ranking lists then that is flawed as those codes are sometimes (from my own experience in Australia) allocated on the basis of which country someone runs their first WRE in, rather than which country they're eligible to compete for. There's also the question of people who change countries, and dual nationals.

Here is federation ranking (men) by counted runners:
There may be errors (=ties, I only sorted by points)

Runners:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

    SWE   2  4  4  3  3  3  3  3  2  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1 

    FIN   4  2  2  2  2  2  2  1  1  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2 

    SUI   1  1  1  1  1  1  1  2  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  4  4  4  4  4  4 

    NOR   10 6  5  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  5  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  3  3  3  3  3  3 

    GBR   5  7  8  7  7  5  5  5  5  5  4  5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5 

    DEN   8  8  7  5  4  4  4  4  4  4  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6 

    GER   21 20 19 18 17 15 15 13 13 13 11 11 11 10 9  9  9  9  9  7  7  7  7  7  8  9  9  9  9  10

    AUT   19 17 17 17 16 14 12 12 12 11 10 10 10 8  8  8  8  8  8  8  8  8  8  8  9  8  8  8  8  8 

    FRA   3  3  3  4  5  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  9  9  9  9  9  7  7  7  7  7  7 

    HUN   27 23 21 21 20 18 17 16 14 14 14 13 12 12 12 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 

    CZE   11 10 9  9  9  8  8  8  8  8  8  8  8  9  10 11 12 12 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

    ITA   7  9  11 11 10 10 11 9  9  9  9  9  9  11 11 10 11 11 11 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

    AUS   22 19 20 20 21 20 18 18 17 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13

    EST   9  12 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 10 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

    NZL   28 26 24 23 23 22 21 20 20 20 20 18 16 16 16 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

    LAT   15 14 13 15 19 19 19 19 19 19 18 20 19 18 17 17 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 18 18 19 19

    RUS   6  5  6  8  8  9  9  11 11 12 13 14 15 15 15 15 17 17 17 17 17 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 21 21

    BUL   16 18 18 19 18 17 16 17 18 18 19 19 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 18 18 19 19 19 19 18 18

    LTU   13 15 16 14 13 12 13 15 16 17 17 17 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 18 17 17 17 17 16 16 16 16

    POR   29 27 25 25 25 25 25 23 23 23 23 23 23 22 21 21 21 20 20 20 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 17 17

    POL   18 16 14 13 12 13 14 14 15 16 16 16 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23

    ESP   20 21 23 24 24 24 24 22 22 22 22 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 20 20

    BEL   25 22 22 22 22 23 20 21 21 21 21 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22

    CHN   35 34 34 34 33 33 31 30 29 29 27 27 25 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

    USA   36 33 32 31 29 29 29 28 28 28 28 28 28 27 27 27 27 26 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

    ROM   24 24 27 26 27 27 27 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26

    UKR   12 11 10 10 15 21 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27

    SVK   14 13 15 16 14 16 22 25 25 25 25 25 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28

    SCG   33 36 36 35 34 34 34 32 32 32 30 30 30 30 30 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29

    ISR   26 29 30 29 30 30 30 31 31 30 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

    IRL   30 30 29 27 26 26 26 27 27 27 29 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31

    CRO   32 32 31 32 32 32 33 34 33 33 33 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32

    SLO   34 35 33 33 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 34 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33

    CAN   31 28 28 28 28 28 28 29 30 31 32 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34

    BLR   23 25 26 30 31 31 32 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35

    JPN   37 37 37 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

    NED   17 31 35 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37

    HKG   38 39 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38

    PRK   39 38 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39

    RSA   40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

    TUR   41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41

    TPE   42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42

    COL   43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43

    ARG   44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44

    VEN   45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

    KOR   46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46

    BRA   47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47

    KAZ   48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48

    MKD   49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49

    MDA   50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50