British Sprints

[nooomember]

Some controversies then were there!?

[Alun]

Putting the niggles to one side, I thought the RAF flypast was excellent. Full marks to the organisers for arranging that. But next time, can we have the Red Arrows' smoke turned on BEFORE they fly over us please.

[andypat]

I enjoyed it. Good to get the chance to run around the Olympic Park. Shame about the weather in the afternoon. I thought it was brave of the organisers to DQ so many although the OOB was a bit variable. Contrary to the final details some areas of flower bed which had (non orienteering) signs saying do not cross were actually mapped as cross able.
Felt sorry for the organisers with having to deal with delay then downpour and a power failure!
Can't really complain since I do love a challenge but the 1st control on my final course will attract some comment I suspect.

[DavidJ]

Can't really complain since I do love a challenge but the 1st control on my final course will attract some comment I suspect.

But not from you?

[andypat]

Nope!

[roadrunner]

I see the results aren't on Winsplits yet (nor are the SportIdent CSV files available), in contrast to the Middle Distance champs. Does that imply there are still some issues to be resolved?

[IanD]

Disappointing Heat course, interminable delays, but I thought my Final course was worthy of a championship. Dealing with the bossy and petulant park events manager must have been an ongoing nightmare for the organisers. Kudos to the planner who faced her down when she tried to insist on the elite final course being changed during the competition.

[MJG]

You have to ask if the format is the best one? Every year it seems the finals are delayed because there are issues with the heats which have to be sorted before the finals start list can be produced. And then displayed in a tiny window so only a couple of people can view the list at a time. Why not two races with times added together? The Cambridge Science City sprints seemed to have it exactly right. Two contrasting areas, run with a choice of a small gap or a large gap. This would make the organisation's job so much simpler. Although the heats start well balanced from the ranking list it only takes one no-show to make one heat easier to qualify from than the others. This year a 20 minute delay to the heats (the last control and finish controls were not in place at the original start time) became a one hour delay to the finals which reduced the number staying for prize-giving as scheduled trains and flights became tighter. Yet again no prizes just a standard job lot medal. Would a mug, buff or even a Toblerone break the British Orienteering budget?

[denbydale]

You have to ask if the format is the best one? Every year it seems the finals are delayed because there are issues with the heats which have to be sorted before the finals start list can be produced. And then displayed in a tiny window so only a couple of people can view the list at a time. Why not two races with times added together? The Cambridge Science City sprints seemed to have it exactly right. Two contrasting areas, run with a choice of a small gap or a large gap. This would make the organisation's job so much simpler. Although the heats start well balanced from the ranking list it only takes one no-show to make one heat easier to qualify from than the others. This year a 20 minute delay to the heats (the last control and finish controls were not in place at the original start time) became a one hour delay to the finals which reduced the number staying for prize-giving as scheduled trains and flights became tighter. Yet again no prizes just a standard job lot medal. Would a mug, buff or even a Toblerone break the British Orienteering budget?

On the original proposed start time for the finals most of us would have got round in the dry!!

[roadrunner]

You have to ask if the format is the best one? Every year it seems the finals are delayed because there are issues with the heats which have to be sorted before the finals start list can be produced. And then displayed in a tiny window so only a couple of people can view the list at a time. Why not two races with times added together? The Cambridge Science City sprints seemed to have it exactly right. Two contrasting areas, run with a choice of a small gap or a large gap. This would make the organisation's job so much simpler. Although the heats start well balanced from the ranking list it only takes one no-show to make one heat easier to qualify from than the others.

I think the "two race" format would be better too. Another option, that might reduce the delays between heats and finals, would be to allow those challenging disqualification etc. to "run under protest" in the final (as is allowed, though seldom done, in athletics), giving more time to sort out protests (though that would still have to be done by the prize giving if they finished in the first three).

I also wonder about the rules about A and B finals in small classes. For example, in M75 and M80 there were only 9 and 7 competitors respectively; was it really worth running two separate finals? As you can have 18 in the A final, why not just have one final if there are 18 or fewer entrants?

[yted]

It was great! Definitely worth it. The heats were easy but the final was a real challenge at sprint speed and it was great to run round the olympic park.... and I now know how to use an oyster card. Many thanks to the organisers. I know only too well how tricky it must have been to obtain and retain permission during the planning stage.

[NeilC]

Why not two races with times added together?

I controlled the 2010 age class sprint championships which had this format and then organised the 2011 combined sprint championships which saw the first running of the current format. The former was certainly easier to organise but competitors wanted the challenge of having to qualify for a particular final (the reason why not all competitors in a small class run the A final).

The event has grown and become logistically very difficult to organise. There are a number of ways in which the format could be simplified (and remove the balanced heat problem) without losing its essential character, however E&CC seem reluctant to consider any significant changes to our major competitions at the moment.

[graeme]

competitors wanted the challenge of having to qualify for a particular final

Which competitors? AFAIK most people just want to have two good races, just as we did before the age-class and open champs got merged. The qualifiers were needed in the old open (or elite) champs because there were so many people, but do the elites want it? Given four chances at www.sprintscotland.co.uk/, Kris, Fanni and gg see no need for it!
All the courses have at least two age classes running: there's absolutely no need to have multiple courses. We could even have a competition for 18s and 20s just like every other event on the planet...
Year after year organisers are unable to deliver this event as intended. They can't all be incompetent! We should realise that the fault is with the overcomplicated format.
As Neil goes on to say, there are many ways of doing the finals: hopefully with the new "contract" future organisers will have the courage to offer a manageable format on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

[andy]

You have to ask if the format is the best one?

I'm not sure about the non-elite classes, but at M/W21 (and arguably 18/20 too) it really needs to match the international setup, which is heats and finals.

[PhilJ]

A good point Andy. My query would be does the current sprint/middle/long champs (is there a separate BEOC any more) align to the course lengths, event format, technical dfficulty, course planning, start procedure, finish procedure, quarantine environment, doping control etc etc that are found at world cups, world Univ, JWOC, other wre and World Champs. If they do not then how do they benefit/get British elites "world" ready?

Its a bit more than having heats and finals, after all JOK chasing sprint has those or is that the benchmark?