There is more than enough expertise in our sport to consider “course certification”. When considering all the factors that influence course quality, it’s possible to generate a rating which would reflect how the race should come off.
If the RD wants a higher rating, then certain variables can be changed to achieve it i.e., reduce wave size in order to reduce bike course concentration, etc.
New courses could be certified before they are finalized.
Certified would be a lot more valuable than “sanctioned”. And, I’m sure USAT or some other group would consider offering this service.
USAT promotes a sanctioning process which ensures that the event course has been, “…carefully reviewed by the experienced staff at USA Triathlon”.
USAT further states that sanctioning will verify that, “The course is well planned…”.
doesn’t that mean accurate and verified course distances?
I think what low country is trying to say is that USAT just basically rubber stamps race applications. They have a process they send out, but no one ever checks to see how things are actually run at the event site. No one measures courses to see if they are accurate. No one makes recommendations on course saftey(like 2000 people on a flat one lane course might not be safe). Their guidelines are basic, and most everything else is left up to the RD. I’ve been pointing out a wave start solution to decrease the load on the bike courses for years now, and a few races have adopted it. But this is something that USAT should do, not me. SO in the absence of USAT’s ability to actually certify a course as safe, accurate, and competitive, I think there is room for a private orginazation to perform those duties. SO if you go to a race that has that kind of real certification, you know that certain things are really in place when you show up. A private orginazation would have to be on top of it too, because they are a business, unlike the monopoly of USAT that is out there now. If they don’t do a good job, they lose money and credibility, which as we all know, is death to a private business. To a sanctioning body these things don’t seem to hurt them so much, so they can continue to give very little service to the athletes and RD’s, and not suffer for it…I for one would love to see a group pop up to take this over…
i thinks i need to come up with a tongue in cheek symbol to attach to some of my less than obvious posts.
preachin’ to the choir all the way on this and related topics.
Jim! Don’t do that, you had me worried!
Monty’s reply started me thinking about a race-review service with ratings attached. Every other industry has one, and it keeps products in line.
I would pay money to subscribe to a service that reviewed races in detail and gave them a user-friendly grade. The current situation is such that the athlete’s voice is disorganized and weak. Of course, this service would have to be somewhat clandestine in order to survive. But, politics aside, its product quality would decide its worth.
I’m not hammering USAT’s sanctioning, but as Monty said, it’s way detached from our on-course concerns.
How about it Dan? Your agents await you.
Are you ready to invest some time/money into this startup and going from Tri to Tri applying the rating?
i think it would be a touch easier to convince USAT to tighten up a little.
i know…i know…the chances of that are…
this is along the lines of my commenting earlier that all USAT events should have mandatory officiating requirements. no officials on site…no sanction. we all know how much supportive attention that has received. (and yes i will get certified for officiating this coming spring)
There are alternatives to agents. It would take a website at which triathletes could log in and give a structured report(with comments) within 30 days after the race. These would be compiled/scored and a total rating generated.
The results would be transmitted to subscribers.
A lot more productive than the current voices in the wilderness.
It would take a website at which triathletes could log in and give a structured report(with comments) within 30 days after the race.
or RD’s could just read ST race reports and make changes for next year
That’s what I’m thinking, but ideally you’d want to certify a pretty good group of people all around so that you could apply semi-uniform course ratings to many courses nationwide (or world I suppose).
It would have to uniform and there would have to be a measure of volume of response. Three comments after a 1000 participant race isn’t worth it.
I’m sure an ST math whiz can tell us how many reports constitues a 95% confidence level. I guess I’m referring to sample size.
Well, maybe you’d open it up for feedback and see if folks agreed, try to balance the aggregate comments about positives/negatives, but you would also more than likely just give it a score and see if the feedback supports that. Otherwise, what’s the difference between that and any other survey?
I think of of as a tool. If I give a survey result(raw data) to an RD, he or she is going to point to the good stuff first, and then say “I’ll look into it” about the bad stuff. Unfortunately, this is a parallel to the USAT system of referring to referee’s reports.
But, if there is an organized report with subcategories which point out why a top score wasn’t received, this is a tool. Mainly because it’s from paying customers and not an overworked regulatory agency.
I agree that the top 1% and bottom 1% should be omitted.
The consumer must rule!
Absolutely, I think we’re in agreement here. I’m just saying that you probably ought to come up with a score, then adjust it based on feedback.