Southern Champs BKO

[Tim]

Following on from Roger's post, starting at 10:08 I was affected and I agree that I lost about 5 minutes. Not having a copy of the BO rule book on me at the time I assumed that the first 2 legs would be discounted and the race would effectively start from control 2. Things didn't go terribly well from then on and I had a scrappy race ending up 15 minutes down in 9th. Not sure if it did affect me mentally (I had a lot on my mind for other reasons) but if it did that's my own problem/weakness. 5 minutes quicker I'd have been 8th so not great difference. The missing control compounded a rather crappy run but it's not like it's the only event I'll be doing this year.

However there are 2 things about our course I did find frustrating:

The mountain biking paths you weren't allowed to run along were what they were but I felt the courses did not do enough to avoid them and we had a couple of legs where running along one would have been a good route. From observations on the day some people's idea of not running along them differed from mine. Wouldn't call it cheating but it introduced the possibility of a degree of unfairness. Same could be said for the "crossing the car-park" restriction at the end of the course. I think courses are best when they don't have a plethora of rules thrown in.

Secondly we had a leg (12-13) which crossed a very wide seasonal marsh and given the recent weather and the weather on the day it was total pot-luck as to which way was going to be the quickest. Avoiding it was a long way around, but if you went straight and found it impassible it was going to be even longer. I went straight and it was fine. Conversely the seasonal marsh between 17 and 18 was a man eater – I went up to my thighs and very nearly got stuck – had I been 6 inches shorter I would have really struggled to reach the tree I used to haul myself out. I think a bit of advice at the start would have been appropriate.

Tim (Must)

[NeilC]

An update:

http://www.bko.org.uk/node/58/results

[graeme]

Ah, the old 'make the affected competitor the bad guy' tactic!

Ah, the old 'make the affected competitor the good guy' tactic!

[Mrs H]

Well while I appreciate that gives Alan the moral high ground does it actually make anyone happy? (Also while I'm aware there will be an advantage to him being NC - I don't actually know what it is please explain).

I would still like to know if the control was stolen or just not put out - I feel it makes a difference.

[Homer]

What a fudge!

If I were a competitor on M45 I'd rather the class was voided than know that the deserved winner had declared himself n/c.

I wonder how Ifor feels? I'm pretty sure he won't be putting his name on the trophy.

And, like Mrs H, I'd be interested to know how the control came to be missing.

[NeilC]

I would still like to know if the control was stolen or just not put out - I feel it makes a difference.

I gather that it was stolen by person or persons unknown, although a suspicious looking mountain biker wearing an SYO top and clutching a broken derailleur was spotted nearby.

[DavidJ]

I would still like to know if the control was stolen or just not put out - I feel it makes a difference.

I gather that it was stolen by person or persons unknown, although a suspicious looking mountain biker wearing an SYO top and clutching a broken derailleur was spotted nearby.

As a member of the organising club, I honestly have not heard the actual reason for it being missing for the first 30 minutes. I agree it might be interesting to know but I am puzzled why, to quote Mrs H, it might make a difference. Surely all it would do is to point the finger of blame at one of the volunteers (presumably either the planner or an assistant or the controller) or presumably the alternative which would be vandalism. The decision about what to do though should be precisely the same. Perhaps you are thinking that those taking the decisions might be influenced by the cause? I very much doubt it as, like everyone else, they would be trying to generate a fair outcome.

[Mrs H]

Well obviously there is a difference between accident and negligence - the law recognises the concept of culpability. If the control was stolen then the debate stands as is - what ever you think was the correct solution. If the control was not put out the course should be voided and the runners given their money back and the championship decided at another event. It would be wrong for the club to profit from the runners in that class when they were not given the goods and services as advertised and which they paid for. (simple consumer protection law that also neatly solves the problem of the unfair result in the process).

[Gross]

Agree with Mrs H & as a controller the reason why the control was not out would impact on my view. Basically.... nicked = unavoidable, forgotten = avoidable.

[Arnold]

The rules do seen a bit daft in this circumstance.

Everyone agrees Alan should be the winner, so why not just declare him the winner by removing the legs?!

I get DJM's point that in some cases, removing the legs could make things worse by introducing a different bit of unfairness. But in this case it doesn't so why not go down that road? Surely the point is to find the best orienteer on the day (over the fairest available bit of course) and that's Alan

Can the rules not be rewritten to give some discretion to the organiser to make the most logical decision?

And if the only options are to either void the course or let it stand as-is then surely the only possible decision is to void it, even if it affects many other competitors. And then you re-run the Southern Champs sometime later in the year. People still had a nice day out in the forest and there's a finishers' list just not an official champs result.

[EricH]

I was running the start on Sunday. The missing control was reported to me by one of the early starter helpers who ran back to the start rather than carrying on with his own run. He then went back to man the control and warn other people. I contacted the planner and the organiser. During the course of the morning I spoke to both the planner and controller who both said that the control had been put out and checked.

[AndyC]

I was running the start on Sunday. The missing control was reported to me by one of the early starter helpers who ran back to the start rather than carrying on with his own run. He then went back to man the control and warn other people. I contacted the planner and the organiser. During the course of the morning I spoke to both the planner and controller who both said that the control had been put out and checked.

Respect to that helper - I hope he was already on a free run - if he wasn't then he should be!

[Tim]

Mrs H - what's with the witch hunt?
I would agree with you if BKO were a commercial organisation organising events for profit. They are not. So, even if the control had not been put out, applying consumer legislation is a bit harsh. It would not have been malicious, mistakes happen, no one’s perfect, get over it. Jeez.
Why is it that the people affected always appear less bothered than those that were not?

[andy]

Put your pitch forks away. If it was left out by mistake then I'm sure those responsible are feeling pretty crappy about it and will endeavour to make sure it doesn't happen again. Do we really want to risk pushing someone away from the organisational side of the sport by naming and shaming? no, we don't.

[DavidJ]

... It would be wrong for the club to profit from the runners in that class when they were not given the goods and services as advertised and which they paid for...

Mrs H, there is no profit! As you are only too well aware, the sport depends on the combined effort of many people. The club members put in hours of volunteer effort for no charge to benefit the sport: the mapper was given only a small proportion of what a commercial mapper would have charged us; the planner provided his services free despite spending hours modifying the courses as the location of the car park was changed; and many loyal club members were up early and out late on the day. Any surplus goes into club funds and is returned to the sport. A discussion as to how to respond is interesting and valid; a post-mortem and allocation of blame and an attempt to use consumer protection legislation is, in my view, over the top.

As it happens, we have been informed that the control was stolen.