Embargos

[EddieH]

I can see the point of embargos for major events - level 1.

However 12 month embargos for all areas to be used for a level 2 event bother me. I know that the rules have aways contained embargo requirements, however these have often not been obeyed. As the original National Events panel chairman I know well how little notice was taken of this by many clubs who though nothing of holding even badge events on a proposed area only months before a proposed national event.

Are level 2 events really that important that a club has to forego all its activities in the area for a whole year? There are two clear examples to me where this rule, if enforced, will cause serious detriment to clubs.

One is in an area where there is very little terrain of any quality, and the loss of a regular training area could devestate a club's training program.

The one that concerns me personally looks like occuring here in 4 years time when Moray 2013 plans to use Culbin, Roseisle and Lossie Forests.
Not only does this look like curtailing all but one of Moravian's income generating events but our current modus operandi involves regular low key events of sprint type and yellow courses. These are attracting senior and junior newcomers who are beginning to become regular. I think our club will have to look very closely at allowing our activities to be affected in this way and really cannot say what conclusion we will come to.

To me the Scottish 6 day is a high profile event, but a holiday one, NOT a major British level 1 event. If the ruling is enforced, we will be in danger of losing such events because it may well be that our committee decide that we will not accept such a draconian curtailing of our activities.

And before anyone comes back and says "If you want to run the 6 days, just don't run at the events" that doesn't wash - Where will the planners etc come from? and where will the income generating punters come from?

[distracted]

Agree entirely - and as you have effectively said, embargoes for events below 'Championships' are detrimental to the development of the sport.

More people? More places? Local, regular, quality events? Especially for clubs with a limited number of areas, embargoes don't fit with any of these. They're more likely to force clubs to use rubbish areas more often, which can and will put some people off. If you have a good area sitting there then use it! - and along those lines, can we also see an end to the far-too-common practice of clubs 'saving' their best areas for the bigger events, meaning you only ever see it used once every 3-4 years...?

Clubs need to apply some common sense in implementing these changes. In this case, it probably means only top level/FCC/Selection races will have enforced embargoes. "Sorry, your club can't use any of X, Y or Z areas for training because we have big colour-coded events on them in the next year and they're embargoed" sounds as stupid as it is...

[NeilC]

So if no embargo is placed on the SSD, CompassSport Cup Final, FCC Final (JWOC selection race) etc then do existing rules cover competitors attempting to gain an advantage
1.5.2 Competitors shall not seek to obtain any unfair advantage over other competitors.
1.5.5 Any search for the competition course or inspection of the competition area before the race is forbidden?

If so then there is no need for an embargo for level 2 events (whatever events end up being included at this level).

I still suspect though that there would be justifiable complaints if the winner of the FCC final got to go to JWOC having run on the area a couple of months/weeks previously at a local event.

One alternative is for an embargo to applied to selective level 2 events either automatically (eg FCC final) or by application to Fixtures committee or some other body.

[Snail]

I think embargoes have merit for level 2 events. I definitely have an advantage if I've run on an area recently (probably within 24 months, let alone 12) - and particularly if I've planned or controlled on it - because I can (a) recognise many / most features in the terrain so relocate quickly if needed; and (b) run some legs with little reference to the map.

Conversely my other half doesn't have as good a memory and could run on the same area as last week and still not recognise being in the same place!

But surely embargoes don't mean that an area can't be used? Just that if you run on it you should be counted as non-competitive at the following "major" event. I would be quite happy to run some low key / level 3 events and then be non-comp in the 6-day, particularly if the alternative was no, little, or only low quality training and events in the previous 12 months. Provided of course that being non-comp is handled properly, i.e. you still get a time and splits, just no ranking points or prizes.

Where I think the system falls down is that few organisers - or perhaps their entries and results systems - have the ability to easily classify people as non-comp. I tried to enter "non-comp" once - because I'd controlled on the area relatively recently and felt that gave me an advantage - but was told it couldn't be done and I had better just enter normally!

[graeme]

The proposed embargo on Level 2 events just shows how totally those redrafting the event structure have missed the point. Which was, that levels should reflect on the quality of presentation of the event, NOT its level of competition. A bespoke WOC selection race could well be level 3 (No loos, no online results, not everyone allowed in) - but should surely have an embargo! It would be insane to say an event like Eddie's Culbin weekend would be third rate (L3).

There are two very different things in breaking embargoes - whether an individual can train on an area and whether a club can hold an event. In the first case, I'd say even at a L2 event the embargo should apply (i.e. the person hould be non-competitive). Holding an event is a harder call. If the first event is the major one (6-day followed by SOL in the spring) the unfairness is limited as "most" people will have already run there. For little events, I'd say that if Eddie beats his rivals having run regularly in those Moray areas, its a pretty hollow victory.

[distracted]

I think embargoes have merit for level 2 events. I definitely have an advantage if I've run on an area recently (probably within 24 months, let alone 12)

Perhaps, but does it matter that you have an advantage? What are you gaining if there's nothing up for grabs?

[Scott]

Perhaps, but does it matter that you have an advantage? What are you gaining if there's nothing up for grabs?

Depends how seriously you take the ranking list and/or badge schemes, I suppose... (in the latter case you're arguably just cheating yourself, but the former is definitely "competitive").

[awk]

Totally agree with Graeme and NeilC. So for instance, Snail, you don't need the embargo rule for L2 events for the instances you cite - it's already built in to the rules.

[distracted]

Interestingly - it seems that the rules on embargoes were changed at the beginning of the year, for the current structure:

Changes Recommended and Approved by Rules Group
Rules:
• Eligibility:
• 3.1.2 - At all British Championship events and the JK, competitors shall declare themselves non-competitive if their acquaintance with the terrain would give them substantial advantage over other competitors. Nothing that occurred more than 24 months before the date of the event shall be taken into account.
• 3.1.3 - At all other Level 2 (National) and Level 3 (Regional) Events, competitors shall declare themselves non-competitive if their acquaintance with the terrain would give them substantial advantage over other competitors. Nothing that occurred more than 12 months before the date of the event shall be taken into account.

Guidelines:
• National Events:
• The area should normally not have been used for an open orienteering competition in the 12 months preceding the event.

So if they decided that things could/should be changed with regard to the old structure, why go and reverse that decision now with the new structure?

[SJC]

Levels should reflect on the quality of presentation of the event, NOT its level of competition.

So we are going to categorise events based on whether or not they provide toilets ?
Personally, I would prefer to know what level of competition I am likely to be up against.

[awk]

Levels should reflect on the quality of presentation of the event, NOT its level of competition.

So we are going to categorise events based on whether or not they provide toilets ?
Personally, I would prefer to know what level of competition I am likely to be up against.

Here we go again! Aside from national level events, it's not BOF that decides the 'level of competition', it's up to clubs and regions what they put on, how they advertise it, and who enters. Take a look at events now: there are plenty of C3s where the quality of competition is zilch, whilst events I've raced in this year at C4 and even C5 have provided vastly tougher competition. I knew that beforehand, but not because of the BOF category.

[graeme]

So we are going to categorise events based on whether or not they provide toilets ?

Among other things, yes. You've pick this as the extreme example and we thought hard about it. Its not exactly a new thing - it was the MAIN recommendation of BOF's "Women in orienteering" review. And sending newcomers to cr*p in the forest is a pretty effective way of putting them off. Just because you and I are happy out there with the bears doesn't mean we should inflict it on others.

Personally, I would prefer to know what level of competition I am likely to be up against.

So would I. But short of having a rule saying "graeme shall compete having rested up and shall run the blue course" this isn't something BOF could legislate for. As in road racing etc. events develop a reputation which determines the size/strength of the field.

Graeme

[NeilC]

levels should reflect on the quality of presentation of the event, NOT its level of competition.

So what quality of presentation do people think ought to be applied to level 2 events?

Toilets seem agreed
Overprinted maps also given that many/most level 3 would also have these
Electronic punching and on-the-day results (again pretty standard)
Some think that an embargo would not increase quality, others think that it would
A qualified controller (ie a current level 1-3 controller)?
Online pre-entry?
Decent assembly area?
Post-results analysis (eg winsplits, routegadget) produced in a timely fashion?
Quality of area (can you have a level 2 event in which the black course goes round a small area three times or spends 50% of the course in brambles)?
A minimum number of courses offered ?
Provision of drinks at the finish (do we really need this anymore?)
Others?

[geomorph]

levels should reflect on the quality of presentation of the event, NOT its level of competition.

So what quality of presentation do people think ought to be applied to level 2 events?

Toilets seem agreed
A qualified controller (ie a current level 1-3 controller)?
Decent assembly area?
Provision of drinks at the finish (do we really need this anymore?)

Its is interesting that these ones actually may need to be covered in detail under the Risk Assessment rather than being pre-defined quality standards.

So the quality standard would have to state ' the level of controller should be one with sufficient experience to provide appropriate oversight on the Risk Assessment' or some such waffle.

Toilets are both a quality standard and a RA evaluation and therefore need to be determined with both factors in mind

Drinks at finish - this may be considered a courtesy, but it is definitley something that cannot be ignored under th RA. If the finish is a long way from the assembly then risk mitigation would suggest that drinks need to be available near the finish.
Same covers clothing dumps

[Tatty]

I disagree about drinks. At a Lakes 5 Days they didn't provide drinks, you just took your own. what's the problem if everyone knows? No empty cups for the Organisers to dospose of, and no woory that they will run out of water. We rarely have an event with water on tap