VOIDING OF COURSES

[Gross]

It seems (from below) that BOF have decided that outside non-orienteering factors should have an influence of whether a course that is seen as unfair should be voided or not:

Reasons for not voiding a course go beyond the simple question of unfairness,
including:
· The requirement for a 'winner' for prizegivings, publicity, media coverage, sponsors, etc.
· The loss of credibility with funding bodies such as the Sports Council if there isn't a British
Champion included in the roll of honours.
· Local authorities, sports partnerships, etc. who give benefits to anyone who can
demonstrate achievements at a national level.
· In the case of World Ranking Events, the loss of Ranking Points for GB competitors.
It was

[NeilC]

Putting the above in context a championship course wouldn't not be voided just because of the above. However if it was felt that the race did produce a worthy champion (as in BEOC this year)unfairness to runners who were not in a position to gain a podium place might not be considered a good enough reason to void.

The arguments against this approach were put forward in a previous thread so no need to repeat again here. Different people have different views.

[Gross]

The arguments against this approach were put forward in a previous thread so no need to repeat again here. Different people have different views.

So one of the authors of the ruling & member of the rules committee is suggesting that public debate of the subject should not continue?

[NeilC]

The debate should continue but no need for the same people to make the same point that a missing or misplaced control should automatically result in voiding irregardless of who, or how many, were affected. It has been made and noted.

A useful way to progress the debate is to consider what happens in other countries (in orienteering) or in other sports.

I don't believe that the sort of problems that could lead to course voiding don't happen elsewhere - and Eddie H's post on the recent WMOC lends some support to that view. How many other competitions are scratched (O or otherwise) because of problems?

[Gross]

But those with other views (such as yourself) are welcome to continue expressing them??? Doesn't should like a 'fair' system to me.... maybe it should be voided... unless of course it gets a mention in the press:)

[graeme]

From the guidelines for the British Championships...

Rule 1.

Purpose: (a) To find the British Champion in each relevant age class.

And it's not rule one for nothing. The purpose is not to determine who is 16th best, whether the planner can get the distances right, or to produce a fair course (which is, of course, impossible). The purpose is to determine worthy British Champions.

The jury has a responsibility to determine whether the race fulfilled its purpose. They did that. Nobody has yet come on here with a post saying
"Jenny Johnson does not deserve to be British Champion because...". And at the same time "Although a control was in the wrong place, Oli Johnson does deserve to be British Champion because...".

I'm all for open debate - but until the voiding brigade address the main purpose of the event in the specific context the jury had to consider, there's no debate to be had.

[Paul T]

Here's what struck me about WMOC.

After the confusion at the start of the first qualifier, the organisers acted very quickly to sort things out. They could have shrugged their shoulders, put it down to a first day blip and hoped that people would be forewarned for the next day, but no. Overnight, they considered, implemented and communicated changes to the start area for qualifier 2 and the final - more signs and extra bodies to announce call-up times in six languages every minute for 4 hours.

So, back at the mobile BOC control, whilst there's been lots of debate about when courses should and should not be voided, I've not seen anything about about the cause of what happened and how we should prevent it. We could probably all have a good guess, but if I had to plan a big event soon then I'd really like to know.

Stuff happens. What matters is how quickly we learn from it.

[NeilC]

Stuff happens. What matters is how quickly we learn from it.

Absolutely and items 7/11 and 7/12 from the same minutes quoted above address this. The Major Events Handbook is a living document that gets passed on and amended year by year. This hopefully minimises the chance of the same mistakes being made each year. Last year SEOA had an event evaluation procedure for all its regional events with examples of good practice quickly circulated to all clubs. Even throughout the season early problems (eg those associated with waterproof maps) were not repeated as later events learnt from the earlier ones. Controllers of course have always served a similar role but with rapid advances in technology (and competitor expectations?)efficient spread of information electonically has a crucial role to play. Bring on the new website.

[andy]

Stuff happens. What matters is how quickly we learn from it.

This is so true.

There's a been a lot learned over the past week with the problems we've had with bibs at Spey 2007, we will make sure the 2009+ teams know what these were and how to prevent them happening again!

[Oldman]

From the guidelines for the British Championships...

Rule 1.

Purpose: (a) To find the British Champion in each relevant age class.

And it's not rule one for nothing. The purpose is not to determine who is 16th best, whether the planner can get the distances right, or to produce a fair course (which is, of course, impossible). The purpose is to determine worthy British Champions.

To quote what is an obvious opening statement about a Championships as somehow being the main or only raison d'etre is in itself totally misleading and I would say mischievously selective to support one's point of view.

Are we now saying that as long as a course has "the right" Champion it doesn't matter who else was affected or how badly? Come on!!

[Adventure Racer]

Are we now saying that as long as a course has "the right" Champion it doesn't matter who else was affected or how badly? Come on!!

You're missing the point - yes it does matter, but not enough to void the course and so prevent the person who clearly has run the best from being champion. I do wonder what exactly somebody midranking who is 5 or 10 places lower than they should be because of a course error actually gains out of the course being voided anyway.

[Gross]

OK.... BEOC 2222..... top UK athlete wins W/M21E and claims at finish that she/he had an almost perfect race except for a wobble at number 10. Athlete was clear favourite to win and victory classed as 'deserved' after years of hard work. Turns out that number 10 was in wrong place and the slight wobble meant it was found...

Athlete 'deserved' victory but clearly didn't complete the course as planned as didn't visit site of number 10..... should result stand or be voided???

(not based on any real or past situation)

[NeilC]

I do wonder what exactly somebody midranking who is 5 or 10 places lower than they should be because of a course error actually gains out of the course being voided anyway.

If the race in question were a selection race then such a person might have a good case for feeling aggrieved. However I gather that selectors often look at more than just total times and use splits analyses as well. Thus useful information can be extracted from an affected course, whether voided or not.

[graeme]

Athlete was clear favourite to win and victory classed as 'deserved' after years of hard work.

To be clear, "deserved" (in my post) has nothing to do being favourite or years of hard work. By "deserved" I meant on the basis of all evidence at the race in question. And obviously only one person (at most) can deserve to win. At BEOC there is ample evidence that Jenny was the best on the day.

I'm not clear what your 2222 example is - if legs involving the misplaced control were decisive then there isn't enough evidence to say who deserves to win. The course has not fulfilled its purpose "to find British Champions" and should be voided. If the favourite won by more than the splits to/from 10 then it need not be.

This ruling means that athletes MUST continue after finding a misplaced control. They cannot assume that the course is voided.

I would say mischievously selective to support one's point of view.

You may recall I don't agree with the Appeal decision, so providing evidence in their favour isn't supporting my point of view.

[Gross]

Athlete was clear favourite to win and victory classed as 'deserved' after years of hard work.

This ruling means that athletes MUST continue after finding a misplaced control. They cannot assume that the course is voided.

Just to confirm - I'm not talking at all about this year's BEOC.....

And agree entirely that competitors must continue & not make any assuptions about what's going to happen... if athletes are to be pulled from the race then they will be advised at a suitable point... e.g. Heather M... about 750m before the end of last leg in Vennela...