Inadvertant cheating on ISSOM

[EddieH]

Despite the fact that I notified the controller and planner of the St Andrews race that I carelessly set off down an alley marked with 2 red lines thus noticing that both gates were open before I realised and doubled back, and I pointed out that it would be easy to spot peole who'd gone that way, I note the results are published with no DQs.

This was between 228 and 222. On Men's 40+ there are 3 100% impossible times on this leg and I am sure there are others on other courses and classes. These people CLEARLY have not run the course legally - quite probably not through deliberate cherating, but nonetheless they have failed to fulfil the requirements.

Why are they not DQ'd. I do not agree that "it is difficult to see the lines" - Spotting these things was the major point on this leg. If we just let people do it willy nilly we completely erode the validity of urban style competition.

Disqualification DOES NOT MEAN cheating - It means failing to complete the course.

Of course if it were decided that in such cases a hefty (and I mean hefty) time penalty is added instead of straight DQ, that seems perfectly acceptable, but we canNOT go on letting people get away with it when the splits unambiguously prove what happened.

[andy]

all we can propose is self dsq.

Was the response I got when I asked him about this leg.

Nobody passed on your self-dsq to me, so in your case that's why.

[EddieH]

Andy - read my post. I am not self dqing as I noticed and backtracked - (see my split) I talked to the controller and planner and pointed out that it would be easy to spot people that went the illegal route - indeed it is there is no ambiguity - they did NOT complete the course.

I am not naming names - anyone can see who they are - I am not accusing them of deliberate cheating, merely of failing to complete the course, hence they should not have a result.

[AndyC]

I'll point out that at Penrith numerous people were DQ'd on the basis of their times indicating a similar transgression.

[andy]

ah yes, sorry. I won't slap you with a dsq then

I totally agree with you, it is easy to work out who did and who didn't and I am bit surprised by the reaction from planner/controller

[IanD]

I agree with Eddie.

If you gain a time advantage by taking an illegal route, you have not completed the course fairly. Same as if you gain a time advantage by missing out a control. It is no more valid to allocate an un-adjusted result to someone who has, perhaps by mistake, saved time by taking an illegal route than to some who has missed a control.

I think a time penalty would be more appropriate penalty for a mistake than disqualification, but the rules do not currently permit this. So where the splits make it clear that people have taken an illegal short-cut, they should be disqualified by the organiser (or planner or controller).

I would also add that wherever possible the mapper/planner/controller should try to avoid the event becoming an eyesight test of "can you spot this tiny purple line". In this specific example, there were two gates and no legal way of using the space between them. Surely it would have been better to mark the area between the gates as out-of-bounds, whether olive-green or purple stripes?

[Spookster]

Why are they not DQ'd.

Probably because nobody has formally complained/protested about their times. I don't think it is for the Organiser or Controller to scan through the complete set of split times looking for instances of obvious illegal routes. However, if somebody protests, then specific issues can be addressed (and at past events, have resulted in DSQs for splits that are unfeasibly fast).

I agree with you. I'd say anyone under 1:15 for that leg didn't go the legal way, and there are three under 1:00 which I guess are the one's you refer to.

If you want it fixed, make a complaint (and if necessary, protest).

[EddieH]

I don't want to protest about individuals that have quite probably not deliberately cheated - I focus on myself. However urban O has many detractors and it only strengthens their arguments when farcical situations such as this are allowed to persist.

I dispute that it is onerous for the planner/ controller to look at the splits and dq them - if they don't know which gates were opened and shut at different times yes, but not when they have been alerted of a very particular circumstance on a leg the main purpose of which seems to have been to spot that the obvious route is in fact illegal.

After all surely most planners like to see what people do on their courses and like to take a bit of time looking at it.

[andy]

I'll point out that at Penrith numerous people were DQ'd on the basis of their times indicating a similar transgression.

It's happened at Edinburgh in the past too.

The difficult thing is what to do about people further down the list who have times similar to those at the top. Could go either way!

[Electrocuted]

On Saturday at least 5 people in front of me ran straight through the dark green to control 220. While some uncrossable features may be difficult to notice on the map (purple marks where gates are) the large patch of dark green definitely wasn't. It was probably an extra 30 seconds to run round to the control so quite irritating seeing those blatently going through the uncrossable feature. I agree that controllers need to take a stricter stance on this. If people don't take the time to read the map properly then they should accept the consequences.

[Angry Haggis]

I agree with you. I'd say anyone under 1:15 for that leg didn't go the legal way, and there are three under 1:00 which I guess are the one's you refer to.

For the record I ran the leg in reverse (Course 1) legally in 1:11.

[housewife]

I ran the oob route. I can't say I noticed at the time, nor after, nor when looking at the splits later, I only noticed when someone commented how did people get between the controls in under a minute. I didn't see the purple spots, and there was no gates in the alleyway that I actually noticed. If you disqualify people based on time alone, how do you let them know why they are being disqualified? I tried to email this morning to say that I had been oob, but results pages don't seem to come with any contact email addresses.

[andy]

I agree with you. I'd say anyone under 1:15 for that leg didn't go the legal way, and there are three under 1:00 which I guess are the one's you refer to.

For the record I ran the leg in reverse (Course 1) legally in 1:11.

I also ran it, hesitantly, in 1.09. I think the fastest time on mopen might be legit (although would need to ask him)

[Spookster]

I'd say anyone under 1:15 for that leg didn't go the legal way, and there are three under 1:00 which I guess are the one's you refer to.

Sorry, just to be clear, I meant anyone on M40+ under 1:15 looks suspiciously fast. On M Open no doubt faster times are likely (e.g. 1:02 and 1:04 taken by the people finishing 1st and 2nd).

[AAH]

Compulsory headcams for all participants at WOC 2015 sprint???