Measurement tools have tolerances and are not all 100% the same as one another. Just like power meters need to have a +/- 2% or 5% there needs to be compromise made when there are multiple iterations of anything. 100% accuracy is not reality for anything and thinking it is would be naive.

For the record, I raced a IAAF Gold Level Half Marathon in the fall and the course was 600M long. This is the top rating for a running race and it also has to give some room for error and for tolerances. That being said it shouldn't be 10% and it should definitely not be 10% per leg of the event compounding the shortness. I think 2.5% from the overall distance is a fair compromise for events that are taking place over 50+ courses (or how many races they have currently)

---

------
"Train so you have no regrets @ the finish line"

They get around that in running by requiring all race courses to be slightly long. Better 26 miles 387 yards than 26 miles 384 yards.

This is precisely my point; your half marathon was 600m long, not 600m short; why do you think that is?

The IAAF rulebook allows for a "short-course prevention factor" to be added to the race distance to eliminate the possibility of short courses and subsequent ineligibility for world records etc. Your extra 600m on top of 21,098 metres is still less than +1%.

Also, how did you measure that 600m; if we're talking about what your GPS device clocked then we may as well end this conversation now...

The error factor ONLY applies to certified running courses. Rule of thumb in running: there are two types of running courses -- certified and short.

I'd say the one area where you have to be willing to budge is on the bike. Simply put, 112 miles of safe, enjoyable bike isn't always an option. I'd say give them +/- 2% on the bike with the stipulation being that if the bike is short the run has to be long by an equal percentage. That doesn't quite balance out from a time perspective but it would be close.

Actually, 600 m/21098 m x 100% = 2.84%. I find it kind of hard to believe that a Gold Level half mary would be so far off. As you said, if the guy did a GPS measurement then it could easily be off by that much. I believe that the old fashioned wheel that measures in feet or meters is still the most accurate mode of measurement that a "regular person" can do.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I would’ve clicked on the ‘at least’ option if it was offered.

With any long endurance event, be it marathon, century ride or Ironman there’s a whole lot of work that goes into completing that goal.

The problem for me with a short course is that although I could be proud of the achievement I’d always know...

Sure, it’s justifiable, it’s not like that 2 miles makes a huge difference but I’d just prefer to not have that cloud floating over the achievement.

Hello awenborn and All,

The Ironman Triathlon is a relatively new sport .... but it has a history that should be respected if we want the race to have the right 'feel'.

Accurate measurement is not that difficult or expensive in this day and age .... why be sloppy?

Race directors should care enough to exercise some quality control for their races .... is it that hard to do?

""Swim 2.4 Miles. Bike 112 miles. Run 26.2. Brag for the rest of your life." - John Collins, IRONMAN co-founder "
@IronmanTri

Originally from: http://www.ironman.com/...y.aspx#ixzz5EPSB4XUW

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

Hello windschatten and All,

Point taken .....

I will still go with 'quality control' and setting up the distances accurately ....

You could argue that some races have rain, some heat, some wind, some hills, some with currents that change during the day .... and so on ... so the same race venue is different on different days ... or even different for front of pack vs. rear of pack on the same day,

But .... I will argue that the distance should be accurate ..... drafting should have a penalty .... helmets required on bike ....

We should maintain standards where we can .....

Otherwise ..... what is next? eBikes?

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

An Ironman is a brand of race to include 140.6 and 70.3 triathlon distances.

Accurate measurement is not that difficult or expensive in this day and age .... why be sloppy?

Race directors should care enough to exercise some quality control for their races .... is it that hard to do?

-----

I would disagree. I think it's very time consuming and difficult with permits and what not. Then have to do this for swim-bike-run...yes it's hard.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Hello B_Doughtie and All,


To your point ...

It looks like it is not cheap to set up a race ....

http://host.madison.com/...37-001a4bcf887a.html

But since you are paying for it .... you should get your money's worth and have the race venue be accurate.

Also races that are run year to year can have permanent survey markers and amortize the costs over several years.

What do you think?

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

I wouldn't think that would be feasible if we are finding that communities along some of these courses aren't interesting in helping the race and/or create major headaches already.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

It is not easy. But then they chose to put on a race. If I lay out an IM course and post the map to the internet and say,'here, you can do a free IM any time you like by using this route' then you get what you paid for. But when someone chooses to put on a race one of the things they have obligated themselves to do is produce an accurate course.

If the course has to be shortened or lengthened due to logistical concerns then fine. I'd even give up to 10% leeway for really extenuating circumstances, like Town A gave you late notice that you can piss off.

But if the course is off because you were too lazy to ride it twice to make sure or could not give good directions on where to put the turnaround, then the RD has not held up their end of the bargain.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Has IM who puts on probaly the best events in the sport been “lazy” with their courses? I wouldn’t classify that with their race distances. Most of the time it’s off because an circumstance.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I don't know exactly how it happened this year, but it sounds like someone didn't do enough homework.

“The bike course utilized the Hardy Toll road and while doing the final course check on race morning with city and transportation officials, it was determined that the safest turnaround location was not true to the predicted course measurement. For the course to be the standard 112 miles, the turnaround location would have needed to be placed in an area which cut down the width of the course and included a low wall embankment, making that location unsafe.”
Read more at http://www.triathlete.com/...#CCqTqfF9ijLguq53.99

None of that sounds new.

I'd give them more leeway for 2016 than 2018.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

This OP's remark is what I was hoping was in the poll too. The IM at a minimum of the 2.4 (S) 112 (B) 26.2 (R) distances. The distances could be more based upon routes and whatnot, but distances would need to be at least the minimum standard. Sure, certain athletes might select courses that weren't longer just like some select courses that are flat.

I’m curious how people know that a course is short. Surely there are short courses that everyone agrees are clearly miles short (a bike of 109, for example). But if my GPS says I ran 12.94, do I trust it? Ideally it would always record a long course because we don’t ride/run perfect tangents, we pass people and swerve and whatnot, but if it says I’m short do I know the course really is? What’s the error rate on my GPS watch?

What other data do you use to prove the course is short? Online mapping system?

Aside: I used to coach a cross country team. One course yielded times that were too fast, in my opinion. The opposing coach told me he measured it several times and it was a true 5k. I showed up with a wheel and rolled it myself, fully expecting it to be three miles or less. Damned if it wasn’t slightly long on my one trip around. I cut every angle as close as I could and it certainly wasn’t short. I felt like a dick.

Hah, a certified course and it was marginally long?! Precisely my point.

These days, all athletes measure the course distance by their GPS watches (or footpods) and the prudent ones will add on 10-20% extra distance buffer for running a longer line, GPS errors (as is inherent) and potentially "long" courses.

A certified course should never show up short under these circumstances. If everyone measured 10.1km for an Oly run then you wouldn't hear any complaints, but when everyone starts clocking 9.5 then people start to feel hard done by... simple.

I doubt it is lazy. Shorter sells well. And folks are likely not going to complain (r question publically) if they get a PR.

I agree - the race distance should be exactly the distance and certified. I did IMMD and the swim was cancelled, and the bike was cut to 100 miles. Which is fine due to the weather - i understand... I still raced it but it didn't feel like an ironman race at all. I was bummed during the whole thing. Now, if i raced an ironman without weather issues and found the course to be short, I would feel cheated. In my opinion, an ironman distance race should be that distance. It's what I train for and what I expect when i sign up for it.

NASCAR and the Olympic committee wouldn't be having this debate.
Hell, a high school cross country meet wouldn't either.
Shows how far our society has declined, our grandparents wouldn't even comprehend this.
That generation put a man on the moon with slide rulers.

Reminds me of all those insane 'Lance was the best of all the cheaters..' threads that turned me off of ST for several years.