Caddihoe Chase 2010

[Mrs H]

- my missus posted drivel like this on Nopesport in her yoof,

Ah the good old days - I wonder what ever happened to PeterB

[Gnitworp]

Was day one ment to be a middle race as some of the winning times seemed a bit quick?

I'd be interested in the answer to this question, since it wasn't advertised as a Middle Race, and was an Interland Selection Race. Olly Williams's winning time on Blue was 30.47 (34.43 for the leading M55).

[Scott]

Well, I wasn't there, but according to the controller's comments:

From the point of view of Controller the weekend was memorable for all the wrong reasonswith vandals striking on Day 1! At about 3.30pm on Saturday I was visiting the finish when a competitor ran in saying that control 636,a small depression on top of a hill,was missing. On reaching the site which was less than 200m from the finish it was clear that the whole control unit,Stake,S/I box and flag had been removed as well as the planner's tag. Despite a search of the area no trace can be found. The control site was the penultimate control on 5 courses and close to another penultimate control on other courses so it is difficult to understand how the vandals got away without being seen. I would be very interested to hear from anyone who can throw any further light on this. Another, but possibly unconnected puzzle, was that one of the white/yellow course control units had been moved some 10m during the competition.

Some 30 competitors on 5 courses were affected by the loss of 636 including some of the Interland selection runners and with the urgent need to produce Chasing Start lists for Day 2 it was decided to curtail all 5 courses at the control previous to 636 at which point runners had not been affected by any external factors. This action was subsequently endorsed by British Orienteering.

I guess if some courses were cut short by three legs that might at least partially explain the quick times.

EDIT: But having said that, from RouteGadget it doesn't look like Blue was one of the courses affected.

[Gnitworp]

It wasn't, so Bart's question still needs an answer.

[LostAgain]

I think it is unfortunate that Nic & Ben had a lapse in judgement starting 1 minute apart.

It has been shown, Graeme may be able to point out the statistical reports, that running together can give even the top atheletes as much as a 10% improvement in their time.

Starting so close together allows people, whether right or wrong, to conclude that there was collusion to achieve a higher result than would otherwise be achieved.

Ben and Nic are both very competent Orienteers, both have attended Summer Tours, I would have hoped that these aspects would have been discussed.

Gaining an advantage by "working together" is an aspect of Orienteering which happens at almost all levels of Orienteering either by intention or by accident as orienteers will come across others on their course and undoubtedly use them.

By starting within 1 minute on purpose opens you up to the accusation.

Hopefully a couple of leasons can be learnt:

1. Teenagers should not be given the responsibility of starting at appropriate intervals. This should be implemented by the organising team.
2. Nic & Ben, nobody likes to have these accusations made. Hopefully you will see how visible a run is with the likes of the internet and the split analyser etc etc. Coaches and Selectors regularly use these tools to confirm their thoughts.
3. Have a great run at the WM and YHOA selection races and prove to your accusers how good you are
I'm Zac's Dad

[Mrs H]

I had a look at the Splitalyzer real time graph for the first time as a result of this debate and would just point out that a trace like that doesn't always tell the whole story.

I looked back at my second day race at the White Rose when I had an absolute tussle with someone else throughout the course. You have never seen two people trying so hard not to follow each other, the other person was a faster runner than me but I think I was reading the map better and although we mostly did not see each other on the leg - she favouring the paths, me the straight route - we kept meeting at the controls.

I can concur that I have not tried so hard to keep going at the top end of my speed range for a very long time and thoroughly enjoyed the experience - so with no collusion it was a definite advantage to me.

You cannot see any of the above from the trace - we just appear to have "fallen in"- but it would have been the same who ever the other person had been - I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of difference whether they were members of the same club or not - they are still in direct competition for the same slots at Interland and could have "fallen in" with anyone like one of the good senior men on that course starting a minute or so before or after.

Enforcing the 4 minute rule will obviously help - but it may not remove the appearance of this problem.

[mharky]

Woh!!! Just looked at the routegadget for the black course. Two things strike me:

1) The course is waaaaay (20 minutes) too short event though there is plenty of room to get a 60+ minute course for Craney

2) The course is not very good and seems to avoid really good control sites.

A bit suprised, I used to think this was a good event. I've I'd run that black I certainly would have wanted words with the planner and controller...

[andypat]

Jeez Mharky - its bad enough you shafting the officals for events you have actually been at!

[mharky]

If it takes Craney 45 minutes, god knows what time a good orienteer could have gone round in...

Look at the RG, there is some fantastic bits of detail, yet the course is a point-feature party...

[lilywhite]

Hey Mharky, thanks ;o) Actually took me 49 but they took out the last 3 legs due to vandalism. I can see why you'd think those things looking at routegadget. Have to say though that the course planning and length of courses were probably actually knock-on effects from it being undesirable to leave a path and the map being very sketchy. So no qualms from here regarding the controller and planner, who did a sterling job. Maybe the choice of terrain/quality of mapping should be looked at more closely though.

[mharky]

Boom! that was quicker than i thought, shouldn't you be working?

aye, maps can be misleading, i'd be able to armchair plan a great "looking" course, obviously the planner had the terrain to deal with

[graeme]

It has been shown, Graeme may be able to point out the statistical reports, that running together can give even the top atheletes as much as a 10% improvement in their time.

That's right. At elite level (by which we mean "people who make few mistakes", not necessarily "people who are fast") "blind following" gives you about an 8% speed up. "Running together" as a pair seems to give you each about 4%. The Norwegian federation (and I) wrote a fairly detailed report linked here:

http://news.worldofo.com/2009/12/21/ext ... enteering/

At non-elite level (by which we mean "people who make many mistakes"), its harder to quantify, but the effect is somewhat larger.

We did interview many elites, almost none of whom regarded following as "cheating", some even regarded it as the "right" of anyone who ran well in qualification.

Anecdotally: this week, I was caught by Rory Mathieson at Tentsmuir after an hour. He runs faster than I do, so he was ahead most of the time. I'm not going to confess to "following", but the splits show I made up about 3 mins (10%) and Rory about 1 min (3%) on times "projected" from the first hour.

[andypat]

[Anecdotally: this week, I was caught by Rory Mathieson at Tentsmuir after an hour. He runs faster than I do, so he was ahead most of the time. I'm not going to confess to "following", but the splits show I made up about 3 mins (10%) and Rory about 1 min (3%) on times "projected" from the first hour.

I got caught by Murray Strain at the 3rd control at Devilla a few weeks ago - for some reason this did absolutely nothing for me.....

[madmike]

Andypat,
I know exactly how you feel, I was once caught up by GG, Oli, Rhodri, Kris, Big Jon, Graeme, Speakie and Oleg to name a few and I didn't benefit at all from any of them

[pete.owens]

That's right. At elite level (by which we mean "people who make few mistakes", not necessarily "people who are fast") "blind following" gives you about an 8% speed up. "Running together" as a pair seems to give you each about 4%. The Norwegian federation (and I) wrote a fairly detailed report linked here:

http://news.worldofo.com/2009/12/21/ext ... enteering/

At non-elite level (by which we mean "people who make many mistakes"), its harder to quantify, but the effect is somewhat larger.

14s and 16s certainly come into this category - and of course those mistakes mean that it is even more likely for competitors to catch up with each other on a course (even with 4 minute start intervals). It is fairly common for better junior orienteers to sweep up the runners in front of them and a pack develop. This obviously helps the weaker runners, but I'm not sure about the stronger one as the distraction of trying to shake off the others can lead to mistakes.

I think it is unfair to criticise the juniors and certainly OTT to accuse them of cheating. I doubt many of us are capable of actively ignoring the presence of other competitors running our courses.