Scott Fraser has voluntarily given up his 3rd place at BUSA individual after the recent speculation. Scott does this in respect for his fellow competitors. 3rd place will therefore go to Graham Gristwood of Warwick University. No further action will be taken.
I will readjust team scores but I don't think this will affect overall positions.
Graham Gristwood of Warwick University (BUSA organiser)
BUSA RE: Scott Fraser
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
34 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Ha ha ha - someone's sure to have something to say about that GG! Anyway where would we be without a bit of controversy - sounds like you organiused a brilliant event - i like the look of the social - pretty soon people will be saying the WM is the orienteering social centre of the world
-
Mrs H. - nope godmother
- Posts: 2034
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 3:15 pm
- Location: Middle England
No way should Scott be discounted.
Following is a part of the sport - and this is from someone who's woefully too slow to ever take advantage from it! That's why we have seeded start lists. There are plenty of people who can run fast and if they were allowed to start 2 mins ahead of oli then they'd finish 2 mins down! Hambledon mass start proved that.
But Scott won the right to get a late start through being good at running and navigating, had an unfortunate incident to lose the map, but made the best of things using Stefan (and Oli).
I dare say that the 3 of them 'running together' went slightly quicker (as is usually the case) and that might have given Oli those 30s on Craney in the end.
You can't go around tinkering with results after the event for something like that. The start list has an effect on the results - it has to!
How many competitors were running completely uninfluenced the whole way round?
I know the whole 'finishing without a map thing' is a bit contentious with the old BOF rules etc but i can think of many a race as a junior (when i was better and faster) when i would catch people up and they would just follow me round. they may have had a map at the finish line but they couldn't have told you where they went on it. The answer would have been 'wherever he went!'
With only 30s start intervals for the sprint champs next weekend, i bet there will be a few who maximise their start draw and might not have been in the final otherwise. That's just the sport.
GG set the fastest relay time at BUSA by 1.5 mins because he had home advantage - but no-ones disqualifying him:ed kelleher did that on his behalf!
Following is a part of the sport - and this is from someone who's woefully too slow to ever take advantage from it! That's why we have seeded start lists. There are plenty of people who can run fast and if they were allowed to start 2 mins ahead of oli then they'd finish 2 mins down! Hambledon mass start proved that.
But Scott won the right to get a late start through being good at running and navigating, had an unfortunate incident to lose the map, but made the best of things using Stefan (and Oli).
I dare say that the 3 of them 'running together' went slightly quicker (as is usually the case) and that might have given Oli those 30s on Craney in the end.
You can't go around tinkering with results after the event for something like that. The start list has an effect on the results - it has to!
How many competitors were running completely uninfluenced the whole way round?
I know the whole 'finishing without a map thing' is a bit contentious with the old BOF rules etc but i can think of many a race as a junior (when i was better and faster) when i would catch people up and they would just follow me round. they may have had a map at the finish line but they couldn't have told you where they went on it. The answer would have been 'wherever he went!'
With only 30s start intervals for the sprint champs next weekend, i bet there will be a few who maximise their start draw and might not have been in the final otherwise. That's just the sport.
GG set the fastest relay time at BUSA by 1.5 mins because he had home advantage - but no-ones disqualifying him:ed kelleher did that on his behalf!
Nottingham University: September 2000 - September 2009. Staying in higher education for a decade is harder than you think.
- wonderboy
- orange
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 6:24 pm
- Location: Derby
wonderboy wrote:No way should Scott be discounted.
GG set the fastest relay time at BUSA by 1.5 mins because he had home advantage - but no-ones disqualifying him:ed kelleher did that on his behalf!
oli johnson reckoned "even if the course had been taped they wouldn't have been able to keep up with gg"...wouldn't put his fastest time purely to home advantage
-
SJ - blue
- Posts: 481
- Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 12:14 pm
- Location: Stockholm
Surely this brings up a how new element to strictness of the rule mentioned. If others do follow on an si event, it comes up on a winsplits pursuit graph that they were with someone. But did they follow? Who followed who? Did They Work together? Did they even take the same route choices?
Other questions too. Should butterfly loops be used on every event to prevent following? ARe intervals big enough?
Other questions too. Should butterfly loops be used on every event to prevent following? ARe intervals big enough?
-
rob f - yellow
- Posts: 2191
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:14 pm
- Location: Manchester
Rules
Maybe I am missing some more discussion than just these few postings, but I can't help thinking, why did Scott have to voluntarily DQ himself? He should have been axed as he crossed the line. I remember being told at some IOF race it was a rule to finish with your map. I have seen runners go back and pick up their maps on run-ins; indeed I have myself. A quick look at the IOF rules and although I cant find that one, I did find a rule saying that you should hand your map in at the finish - implying you need it. Why? well that is what u use to navigate. Maybe people don't look at their maps as much as they should when they are in a pack, but at least they have the possibility - if they have it in their hand and not jettisoned into a ditch. It is part of the sport, the using a map bit. You dont see a biathlete dumping their rifle cos they dropped it. Scott is very able (see this years JK) in navigating so what was he scared of re: going back and picking up his map? I think this was just a careless, foolish, naive happening which I am sure he and others will learn from. As for him being honourable, I think it was the only option open to him, if the organisers failed to DQ him.
While we are on the subject of maps and rules, it does say in IOF rules that old copies of the areas' map should be put up in the assembly area the day before the race, not on the day itself. On the race day itself, old maps of the area are banned. It seems pointless to me to have an old map up in assembly, like JK Day 2 and collect in the maps. And if you STILL don't get why, its because anyone can go up to it who has had an early start and say to a later starter, this is where the course goes. This is perhaps especially important at a relay. Just outside the OD club tent for instance, they were clearly displaying an old map.
Which brings me on to another rule - competitors with intimate knowledge of an area should be banned from competing. Not sure if GG's team was competitive but I dont think it was - and so it should have been. Maybe some more people should be honest about being intimate with areas....
All the above is about fairplay - which should be paramount in our sport.
While we are on the subject of maps and rules, it does say in IOF rules that old copies of the areas' map should be put up in the assembly area the day before the race, not on the day itself. On the race day itself, old maps of the area are banned. It seems pointless to me to have an old map up in assembly, like JK Day 2 and collect in the maps. And if you STILL don't get why, its because anyone can go up to it who has had an early start and say to a later starter, this is where the course goes. This is perhaps especially important at a relay. Just outside the OD club tent for instance, they were clearly displaying an old map.
Which brings me on to another rule - competitors with intimate knowledge of an area should be banned from competing. Not sure if GG's team was competitive but I dont think it was - and so it should have been. Maybe some more people should be honest about being intimate with areas....
All the above is about fairplay - which should be paramount in our sport.
- Ravinous
Maybe I am missing some more discussion than just these few postings, but I can't help thinking, why did Scott have to voluntarily DQ himself?
Is there a definative rule for finishing with a map? It appears not, in which case the rule that was broken was that Scott followed someone else.
So surely the way to go about this is either for him to DQ himself, or for someone to make a formal complaint. If a formal compaint was made, then the organisers could make a desicion -like at the JK last week. Have a think, if no one compained about the miss hung control at the JK last week, would the course still have been voided if it was noticed by the person collecting controls?
So did anyone actually make a formal complaint about Scott? If not it seems like he did the honorable thing.
Perhaps there should be something a bit more definative in the rule book about this?
- Guest
mmmm....
well, some of us are a bit too portly to make it up the hills - let's make everyone else carry a few extra kilos to make it fairer. And some people are red / green colour blind, so we could have special glasses to give everyone the same problem?
Yes, I'm being facetious, but come off it, anyone who's orienteered for years has an advantage in terms of old maps and knowledge of areas. And in this particular example, GG had the big disadvantage of being an organiser for goodness sake.
All the above is about fairplay - which should be paramount in our sport.
well, some of us are a bit too portly to make it up the hills - let's make everyone else carry a few extra kilos to make it fairer. And some people are red / green colour blind, so we could have special glasses to give everyone the same problem?
Yes, I'm being facetious, but come off it, anyone who's orienteered for years has an advantage in terms of old maps and knowledge of areas. And in this particular example, GG had the big disadvantage of being an organiser for goodness sake.
-
Lumpy Lycra - orange
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 11:25 pm
- Location: Brum
G has a point. I feel it is the interpretation of intimate which is the problem with the rule. Most races are unimportant and it probably isn't an issue. But for more important races, intimate knowledge is like taking drugs in my book. If you live on that area and train on it every week for example, planned on it, mapped it; at one extreme surely that person should declare himself non-comp, even if he hasnt seen the course before the start.
If we had explicit rules for everything - what we can and can't do, the rule book would be rather large. But without being too much of a rocket scientist you can interprete the rules and you will see the implied terms. Like if you got an invitation that said Black Tie. Now it explicitly says Black tie, but it is also implied you wear a white dress shirt, DJ, etc. etc. Now if it says you must hand in your map at the finish in one rule and in another it says you should navigate around the course independently, then why the need for more rules?
Finish with the map in your hand or be Dq'ed.
If we had explicit rules for everything - what we can and can't do, the rule book would be rather large. But without being too much of a rocket scientist you can interprete the rules and you will see the implied terms. Like if you got an invitation that said Black Tie. Now it explicitly says Black tie, but it is also implied you wear a white dress shirt, DJ, etc. etc. Now if it says you must hand in your map at the finish in one rule and in another it says you should navigate around the course independently, then why the need for more rules?
Finish with the map in your hand or be Dq'ed.
- Ravinous
But for more important races, intimate knowledge is like taking drugs in my book.
I respect that this is your opinion, but mine is that this is absolute tripe. Embargoed areas are set well before most major events and the vast majority of people respect these.
Knowledge = like taking drugs? Drugs are used to make people run faster etc. and having prior knowledge of an area just doesn't do those things! I really can't see how you can take something as innocent as prior knowledge of an area and partner it with something as stinking and cheating as taking drugs
Fair play
-
Rhys - green
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:44 pm
- Location: The Attic, 16 Watson Road
point 1 - the organiser (ie me) was in the forest when scott finished and was unaware of what was going on and was not told all the facts until today
point 2 (possibly slightly tongue in cheek) - had busa relay been a critical selection race or had warwick even stood a chance of victory, then yes it would have been unfair to compete (eg. Edinburgh holding World Students champs selection race in Edinburgh) as it was we need all the advantage we can get, and it still wasnt enough to prevent total sheffield domination so congrats for your against the odds victory over the pre race home favourites sheffield
point 2 (possibly slightly tongue in cheek) - had busa relay been a critical selection race or had warwick even stood a chance of victory, then yes it would have been unfair to compete (eg. Edinburgh holding World Students champs selection race in Edinburgh) as it was we need all the advantage we can get, and it still wasnt enough to prevent total sheffield domination so congrats for your against the odds victory over the pre race home favourites sheffield
- gg
- diehard
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:48 pm
34 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 185 guests