Discussion: COC Sprint - results

Here is an unofficial COC sprint results comparison thread. ;-)
Add your time here.

Mike Waddington (GHO) Course #3
Start: 1:19:06
Finish: 6:45:11
Pseudo Time: 5:26:05
Less fudge factor of: 5:09:30
Estimated time: 16:35

No, don't think that time will have won.

Someone did it in 5 minutes (or was it - 5 mins?).

Jon Torrance (OOC) Course #3
Start: 1:36:07
Finish: 7:02:16
Pseudo Time: 5:26:09
Less fudge factor of: 5:09:30
Estimated time: 16:39

Query: the fudge factor is based on Hammer's guess at how long it took him to get to the first control, right? Maybe someone who timed themselves could refine that for us, assuming they also used the start punch adjacent to the box of course 3 maps rather than one of the (3?) other start punches.

Wil Smith (Falcons) Course #3
Start: 1:31:06
Finish: 6:56:40
Pseudo Time: 5:25:34
Less Fudge Factor of 5:09:30
Estimated time: 16:04

I can say that compared to me, Mike S was about 30 seconds faster, and Brent was about 15-20 seconds faster. I am guessing those guys were 1st and 2nd as far as Canadians went, and John F might be pretty close to Mike Smith's time (or possibly even faster).

I was about 1:02 or 1:03 behind Wil, so 17:06 or 17:07. Brian Graham ran about 18:10.

My watch said 15:19 but it have been 2-3 seconds longer. I'll have to get out my epunch splits for analysis.

I believe using this system Hans was ~16:40 so we can award Mike S. the pseudo online gold, Brent the online silver and Wil the online bronze (same results as long). So congratulations boyz.

re: Fudge factor. No that was the fudge factor I heard while sitting on the ground after the race while picking burrs.

So it looks like John got you guys pretty good, eh? Maybe you should sign up to try to even the score in two weeks?

Beat the drum, Clem! thump thump thump thump

My heard in the air while burr picking fudge factor was 5:10:00 but that would seem to imply an implausibly fast run to control 1. No idea but anyone who took their time overall (and it sounds like John F. did) ought to be able to subtract all the other splits and give us a better guess at how close John F. and Mike S. were.

Using the given fudge factor, I think Brent's time would be around 15:45, and that's pretty close to what he told me his watch said. I'd guess we're accurate within a few seconds. And I'd believe that Mike S would be in the 15:30 range.

OK, so I'm a late entry to this discussion - am I correctly understanding that the Sprint medals haven't been awarded yet? No prize giving or results on site that evening??!!

If the results were irretrievably lost, this wouldn't be the first time in recent North American history. A club lost two days worth of A meet results in a year well after the computers were invented. No awards, no rankings. Hint: it was a really large A meet just before Attackpoint era.

An event that occurred shortly before another large event, perhaps? And put the prospects of the latter into serious question? (Although the results of the latter turned out fine, as far as I know, thanks to some last-minute expert help.)

AP era >=early spring 2000.

The COC sprint results _cannot_ be retrievable, for the simple reason that not all SI punches were working for all competitors and maps were not collected to verify manual punches. Their appearance would be a farce.

Ummm, i think this is still not enough info to avoid Sprint Series points, guys....

Hey Grizzly, since when are you The ROck? It reminds me of a bumper sticker that I saw in a bar about President Bush:

Like a rock, only dumber.

Great name ;-)

Why don't we just annoint the SS Finals as the Canadian Sprint Champs? Kind of like the "do-over" rule? We'll have professionally outsourced results and mapping. The course setting might be suspect, but you can't outsource everything, I guess.

:)

OR, following on someone else's earlier comment in that other thread on the COC's and protests, designate the NAOC as the COC sprint....

MC, I know you haven't seen me much recently, but I like to think I look semi-respectable these days. Not because I think that's a good thing necessarily, but because that's the effect I'm aiming for .... No self-respecting grizzly would adopt me into the clan these days. But comparing me to Bush is a far, far crueller blow to my self esteem.

I started my watch at the first beep of the start (-5 secs) and stopped my watch after punching the finish. My watch said 15:50 so I would guess my time was ~15:45 as Wil mentioned. Comparing our relative times afterwards I think we determined Mike S was 9 secs ahead of me and Wil was 23 secs behind me.
That would put
Mike S 15:36
Brent 15:45
Wil 16:08

I think John F was 15:2? with an awesome run. Wil and I warmed down with John a bit. It was cool to see how psyched he was.

Boris, you can't award points without complete results. I personally don't have any sprint series points this year and am trying hard not to get any so this total lack of results is playing right into my hands. :-))

Points, shmoints. Show up to the Finals and we'll get things taken care of.

Brent, Actually you do have points. We are tied in 82nd spot with 116 points.

Ok, here are my official stats:

John Fredrickson (HVO) Course #3
Start: 1:17:06
Finish: 6:41:51
Pseudo Time: 5:24:45
Less Fudge Factor of: 5:09:30
Estimated Time: 15:15
Watch Time: 15:19 (started just after start punch and stopped just after finish punch)

Yeah, I was pretty psyched because the course was so awesome, and I felt great physically and technically. Those factors together get me pretty high :)

Not that i'm in the running to win or anything...my estimated time anyway is 18:17 according to the messed up splits

An ok run for me, but many ~10 s mistakes and a few bad route choices.

now seeing this I feel very disapointed about the sprint ( all the comments-map course, where I put 99 % of the effort were appreciative , except the posting results ). I thought it was just a thing of doing the math, but apparently...wow

Don't be disappointed, Nick. The sprint was the highlight of the weekend!

The 'fudge factor' of 5:09:30 must be close. I timed myself with my stop watch as 19:16.

When I applied the fudge factor to my situation (Ross B; course 3 as well) I got:
Start - 1:25:06
Finish - 6:53:47
Pseudo Time - 5:28:41
Less fudge factor of 5:09:30 gives 19:11.

We're not Canadian, so we don't count, but Nate seemed to have a decent run on his course:
Zach (course 1)
Start - 45:10
Finish - 6:12:13 (5:27:03)
Net of Fudge - 17:33

Nate (course 4)
Start - 1:05:07
Finish - 6:32:50 (5:27:43)
Net of Fudge - 18:13

Loser - named changed to protect the guilty (course 3)
Start - 1:03:07
Finish - 7:03:12 (6:00:05)
Net of Fudge - 50:35 (included 28:01 for C10)

and I thought I had a bad C10
Start - 1:07:06
Finish - 6:58:03 (5:50:57)
Net of Fudge - 41:27
16:15 for control 10

Start: 50:06
Finish: 6:16:10
Pseudo Time: 5:26:04
Less fudge factor of: 5:09:30
Less punch fudge factor of 5 x 0:06
Estimated time: 16:04

So we have a tie for the bronze?
With an asterisk?

Course 3 (M45)
Start: 47:07
Finish: 6:19:55
Pseudo Time: 5:32:48
Less fudge factor of: 5:09:30
Estimated time: 23:18

Sudden, I thought you started early enough to encounter all 6 non-functioning SI units on the men's course.

>Sudden, I thought you started early enough to encounter all 6 non-functioning SI units on the men's course.

Oh, sorry Wil, Hans has the bronze* now in the online results.

There is another aspect of the dead controls. If one encounters a control that doesn't beep, then one should use the pin-punch. However, I am too deaf to hear the beep. I know that I should look for the light but I don't always do that. I wasn't aware that many of the units weren't turned on. If the punches had been checked at the end of the race, I would have been DSQed.

Y'know...

Some of you may have noticed that at meets where I'm working finish/results, there's always somebody out by the finish line with a clipboard and a watch, just writing down bib numbers and times as people come in. 95+% of the time, this list (known as the Mil List) is just ignored and thrown away. But once in a while, it turns out to be crucial, like at Day 2 of the US Champs this year, when the finish line computer started doing something inexplicable and had to be rebooted, putting it out of action for several minutes. Thanks to the Mil List, we didn't miss a thing. For anyone organizing an important event, I will strongly encourage you to consider including a no-tech manual backup. I wasn't at the COCs, but I assume they didn't have this. If they had, it would have been trivial to generate a list of times for the Sprint, despite whatever troubles there may have been with the electronics. Paper and pen always works (make sure you have a spare pen as a backup).

On a related note - I always time myself, (force of habit) with the stop watch on my wrist. At a race a few years ago (after introduction of sport ident) someone questioned me on it, implying that it was kind of silly to do so, as SI now takes care of everything in such an easy manner......

I believe it would be negligent of any meet organizers not to have a back up system going on as JJ suggests. (we did so at the Westerns in July, and COC in 2004)

I can't say for the sprint, but for the Long, there did not appear to be any such backup in place. Before I started, I was looking down at the finish from the parking lot (in case Zach managed to get in before my start), and the finish line looked very lonely, as the early M/F-12 finishers came in: no one was manning the area (and the maps were not being collected).

when the finish line computer started doing something inexplicable and had to be rebooted, putting it out of action for several minutes

This is not unheard of even in Sweden. Things happen every now and then, but usually there is no manual backup.

What can be (and usually is) done - provided the Finish unit works - is to collect all the SI cards of incoming runners for later download into the system and/or (much later) to retrieve times from the Finish unit itself...

USOF is contemptating (or perhaps passed at the last board meeting) a rule requiring manual backup -- in particular for not relying on electronic equipment to track who is still in the forest.

At the COC sprint, when the computer wasn't working, we were eventually asked to download into a standalone SI printer, with the idea that the information could be retrieved from the printer. I guess it's more complex than originally thought.

information could be retrieved from the printer

It can definitely be done - I´ve used that for club training!

Whose equipment did they use? I hear those stand-alone printers are way pricey.

Orienteering Ontario owns most of the SI equipment used by clubs in southern Ontario. Funding was obtained through a government grant a couple of years ago.

provided the Finish unit works

Ay, there's the rub.

Redundancy means two independent systems. Like what will be required in terms of lights at the World's Hardest Night-O.

"...into the belly of Pawtuckaway..."
Having a manual backup system means having a manual identification system too. We've been discussing whether we need to use bib numbers any more - with SI doing the recording for you they have seemed redundant. But this discussion is making me rethink some of the assumptions we've made.

For anyone organizing an important event, I will strongly encourage you to consider including a no-tech manual backup.

Is required for WRE at NAOC. Will enforce.

No-tech manual backup? Sundial?? A metronome and a person counting to ten thousand? I can't think of a sufficiently precise timing system, nor a sufficiently reliable one, that has no tech. Please advise. :-)

While I can understand the argument that two independent timing systems may increase reliability, and I hear all the paranoia about new-fangled tech, I think that this argument misses a huge point. Two independent, low reliability timing systems are not necessarily more reliable than one high reliability system. When my club started using SportIdent, we pointedly had a backup timing system. Soon after we stopped bothering. The system is simply far more reliable than, say, the old semi-manual system that NEOC used to use, with a half dozen finish workers accumulating stacks of maps, and a half dozen result workers trying to match them to a list of finish times. The latter system's results were horribly error prone, and results needed crisis reconstruction about once per event day. (How's that for reliability and confidence in results? Dare I mention the times when results workers gave up and said "oh, just interpolate the ten times for the eleven finishers...close enough"?) Don't make me gag.

I just can't see how lower tech per se is being held up as a more reliable alternative. (Do humans not make mistakes anymore? Sorry not to be PC, but most tech that I buy is more reliable than a human doing the same task...the day is here.) Nor a proliferation of multiple systems (how well synchronized?), without having high confidence in the primary result system. Far better, it seems to me, to make the main system work reliably; you'll end up with better reliability and consistency than two systems. By the way, that's a key strategy is modern process improvement. Rather than having lots of extra inspectors on the production line as a second check, better to find the sources of error in the process and fix them. That's how the Japanese car makers kicked the American car compaies' butts...when the promoter of this idea couldn't find any American companies interested in his ideas.

From reading the accounts, it sounds like the results were in disarray at the COC Sprint not due to the hardware failing, but because humans set things up incorrectly. (Failed to synchronize the start and finish units, failed to program some units to start at the right time.) Some will argue that this is an argument against tech; I will certainly agree that it's an argument against using a system ("manual" or "techy") that you don't understand. If your club doesn't have people versed in SI, or can't "borrow" some, then I'd suggest not using it. But using it, and having a second sort-of result system in parallel, is a recipe for even more uncertainty about the results I claim. Put your effort first into being confident about your primary result system. If the primary result system is flaky, a second result system isn't a solution, it's a bandage, pointing to a need to address the underlying ailment.

Wha?

better to find the sources of error in the process and fix them

That would be a reasonable goal if you had an ample supply of event workers fluent in German to interpret the error messages. As a backup solution (yeah), a half-dozen Valerie Meyers will do.

"Addressing the underlying ailment" in the case of SI means doing something to make their engineers come up with a better manual and online help. Or having enough people so expert in SI that they require no help. Since neither of the two is feasible for most North American clubs, I'd say trust in SI, but also go for the watch and paper.

Process management theory has an application scope. If your transfer function for process control variables is zero, I'd say you are outside the scope.

Eddie?

Or having enough people so expert in SI that they require no help.

Yes, that exactly. Yes, it's a nuisance to learn, but it is learnable (as our club and others have proved). If it's not feasible for your club, and you can't "import" someone, don't use SI. Vlad's suggestion of using SI anyway, but using watch and paper as a backup, seems likely to lead to the COC Sprint situation, plus some incomplete or unclear pen and paper results. (I can't recall how many times I've heard 1000-Day result workers complain about receiving indeciperable, incomplete info taken manually by pen and paper by some other event worker.) If pen and paper results are what you think your club can do reliably, then make that your primary system, and focus on doing it right. A secondary system is just an excuse for neither system being right. ("Oh, don't worry, we have the other system.") When I hear a backup system being proposed as a solution to unreliable results, the latter is exactly the thinking I hear. Which is why it doesn't solve the problem.

Pen and paper is unreliable if not done in a structured way. For the 1000-Day, we have printed forms for the start (JoeMok list) and the finish (Mil list) where people write down the relevant information in boxes. Takes a single person to do this on each end. What has been unreliable is trying to read a start list marked up in a free-form manner.

Are you really arguing against having a simple backup system? There are plenty of things that can go wrong with any system. What's wrong with having a simple paper record that can be used to calculate results if something does go wrong? If it makes sense for voting systems, why not for orienteering results?

A backup result system is only appropriate, I claim, if you're already confident in your primary result system. Yes, I know the reverse seems like the case, but it's not. Two flaky result systems will only lead to confusion and more stress. Get one solid result system first, and only then add another. This discussion has the cart before the horse by talking about backup systems first.

If it's not feasible for your club, and you can't "import" someone, don't use SI

By that logic, no club other than DVOA, BAOC, or FWOC should ever use SI..

I think there is a misunderstanding of the term "backup system". The goal of a backup system is not to be a full-featured solution. It is to provide basic functionality in the event of the prime system failure. Ever wonder why hospitals have generators? Wouldn't you be happy there is indeed a generator that someone's operating table is hooked up to, despite all the calls to electric system officials and prayers to Gods to redirect those hurricanes?

Sorry, this discussion is getting into the "Wha?" domain indeed.

I'm arguing against using a "simple backup system" as a fix to a poorly implemented primary result system (which was the case for the COC Sprint based on what happened). In that situation, I have no confidence that the "simple backup system" will be implemented properly either. In fact, since it's a backup system, I suspect it'd get even less attention.

The 1000-Day has a pretty solid primary result system. So does FWOC, using SI. Adding a simple backup system to either is a fine idea, especially for a big event, as it will likely increase reliability from 98% or something to 99 point something.

Adding a simple backup system to the chaos of the COC Sprint seems likely, in my sceptical eye, to change the reliability from 67% to 50%, as even less focus is placed on each system. Far better to change, say, from SI to some other system that the club has used more often. Or train more people on your club's result system.

The 1000-Day has a pretty solid primary result system. So does FWOC, suing SI.

'Suing SI'? But they seem to be doing a good job! I assume you mean 'using SI'

By that logic, no club other than DVOA, BAOC, or FWOC should ever use SI..

Or should train some people on SI, as EOOC and others have, or import people, as YOA did.

If you don't have enough skilled people to keep your electrical grid humming, then you may not have enough skilled people to keep your generators running either. That's not a scenario associated with reliability. Yes, a generator backup may be better than nothing in that situation, but the right answer is either a more relaible grid (with enough skilled caretakers), or a reliable system of generators (with trained caretakers) as primary. Either of those can be a reliable scenario.

"suing SI"

Yes, using SI. Probably a Freudian slip from when they kept denying the electrical interference problem that we and the Aussies saw until a European saw it too.

The 1000-Day has a pretty solid primary result system.

Pretty solid now, perhaps, but it wasn't always so. In the early developmental days, we had myriad problems (whcih I'm sure you remember, Jim), which we have since found ways to prevent. I sure was glad to have the backup in those circumstances. Thanks to redundancy, we've never had a significant loss of results (that I can recall) in 13 years of events. (Plus use of the system at places other than the 1000-Day.)

Boy am I glad my hospital has a generator instead of a representative at PG&E. I'm also glad there are those airbags in the car, although certainly the primary safety system should be elimination of driving privileges to idiots, total cancellation of rainstorms and fog, and a ban on potholes won't hurt.

Speaking of backup systems, I didn't see the little barcode reader at the US Champs. What happened to it?

The 1000-Day had testing before use in the 1000-Day, as I recall. (Including at low key events where it wasn't the primary, I think, as well as at home?) And you made a point of having multiple well trained people who understood the system (inside and out...including so far as having three people who could fix the spreadsheet macros if need be, or go back, use the info in the spreadsheet, and fix spurious results).

Unless the COC result problem is different than what I'm inferring from what I've read, the organizers sound fairly unfamiliar and unconfident on the SI system. If it's just a lack of synchronization of start and finish punches, or an error in the base time of the event in the software, then I'd have expected corrected results the next day, pretty easily for someone familiar. Since an AttackPoint thread seems to have found a workable fudge factor that gets results consistent with various watches and other info, my suspicion is strongly on the simple error but lack of familiarity thesis. If so, do you think that telling them to add a person with watch, pen and paper to the finish line would have lead to a neat list of finish line results on a preprinted form? You (JJ) describe some of the advance preparation for the pen and paper "Mil" system as being the reason that it yields consistent, reliable info unlike the handwritten start line info. Which I think underlines my point...prepare the primary system properly, and then add a backup. Don't add a backup to a poorly prepared primary system, because it's likely to be just as unprepared. If we're going to use SI, let's get enough trained people. Otherwise, let's use another system. Talk of a backup before having enough trained people on the primary sounds premature, and leaving the root problem unaddressed.

The barcode reader was in a box in my car. When I got to Wyoming and looked at my bib number, I saw that they didn't have barcodes on them. I had neglected to inform the person who bought the numbers that we wanted barcodes. So we went to the older, paper JoeMok system.

No, the 1000-Day results system did not get prior testing at low-key events or at home. We started cooking it up on the plane while en route to the event in 1993. The first time it was used was at the Prologue & Chase in that year, the finish for the former being on a card table in the middle of a field, many hundreds of meters from the nearest vehicle or power source. It was the primary system from the get-go, when we had only one macro (Control-Z: "record the current time"). Everything else was gradually added after that. The "multiple well trained people" consisted of the three of us who were on the plane, and I, at least, didn't know much about spreadsheet macros back then. (Or most of the other functions Charlie was using.)

I have printed Mil List forms these days, since I don't know who we're going to rope into being on Mil List duty, and I wasnt to make that job very basic and simple. In the past, it was usually Mil Plant doing it (hence the name), and she created the form by drawing vertical lines on ruled yellow paper. The point is that the backup system, although it can be laborious to process in the event that it's actually needed, is very simple to operate in the typical case.

Even with good backup manual system as a compliment to main SI system we would be in the ballpark of 2 to 15 seconds accurate with manual system as starters are allowed to take somewhere between 2 to 15 seconds to punch the start unit.

Nevertheless, manual backup system may save the face in case of disaster with main SI system.

Okay, so you've introduced 15 seconds of jitter into the start timing, recorded only on the SI dipsticks. You're right, it's pretty tough to have a backup system that's going to help in that situation.

Another idea for a low-effort (though not low-tech) backup system that could be used at both start and finish: put a video camera at each location. At worst, you might get some fun footage. In a pinch, you could use the video to reconstruct start and finish times.

Actually, I've proposed this approach for things like the split controls for King of the Mountain at the Highlander. Experience has shown that it's a madhouse trying to record bib numbers and times with the sort of pack running that you get in that event. But put a digital camera there, with someone to click the shutter whenever someone punches, and the problem may be solved. We've also considered using this approach instead of the Mil List at the finish line.

IOF permits a video camera at the finish for the back-up at a WRE if there is also a digital clock in the view.

To be fair to the Gators, the person who managed SI for the COCs is very knowledgeable and experienced with the system. He regularly helps other clubs with SI questions and issues. We don't know what the problem was with the Sprint, but no results have been posted online for any COC event, and I suspect the reason may be a combination of the overwhelming demands and sleep deprivation of last week, combined with the reality of back-to-work this week. I'd be surprised if the problem is a lack of expertise.

At WOC in Denmark they had one primary timing system and two back-up systems (one being the same, only they used two sets of everything).

Ironically Sportident is not recognized by IOF as an official timing system, but is solely used for punching the controls! At the finish (and at the start I presume, I never was there) they instead had two separate photo-cell systems for timing - and they also had a video camera as the extra backup.

For Sportident they also had two 'competitions' running on separate computers and the runners had to 'punch' two separate download units after finishing - all for backup reasons.

All this of course was due to the importance of the event - and might be a little over-kill for a low key local meet :) but it shows how things can be done if the need arises...

One reason for using start punches is the frequent problem keeping track of start times through several start lines. I remember an event where I was started a minute late despite pointing out to the start crew that they had slipped a minute since the last starter. "Nope, it's fine." Had to walk them through what had happened carefully. "Oops." It happens, a lot I think. Generally an independent backup list of when people started isn't kept, which is necessary for a true independent backup system, for what it's worth.

Bash , you've got almost right. the reasons you gave there are probably accounting for huge majority of the problems.

also i can say since i monitored the start for a long time, people put their SI card at the end of the last beep, therefore maybe a 1-2 seconds at the most, could be the error margin. also everyone in the same classused the same start unit.

Results for all events are now on the festival website.

Quickly looking at the sprint results:

Eugene M probably would have beaten Ross B for Gold in M35 if he didn't have to paper punch 6 times (only 17 seconds separated them).

Emiliy K similarly might have edged out Anita O for Bronze in F-Elite (20 sec), and Hans F would have been close to Wil S for Bronze (30 sec).

The rest of the results seem OK as most in a certain class were treated to the same# of functioning stations.

I don't appear in the sprint results (that's OK with me). Zach's time is way off - I think they forgot to subtract his start time or something. Nate's time looks about right.

But I notice the sprint results say preliminary, so presumably they will catch up with the big errors.

Bill - Eugene may still get it. One of the things they are trying to sort out is the fact that many classes actually ran the same course. My natural class is M45. I had registered for M20-34 for the sprint on the asumption that it would be a different course from M35 or M45. All three ran "Course 3". If I am not to be listed in M20-34 it makes more sense to list me in M45 than M35. But I think the same thing appies to Ted; maybe others.

As of now, I am still not counting the COC Sprint results in the Sprint Series standings, unless the Head Commissioner tells me to do so.

Boris & Peter - I think as far as sprint points go, it would only make a difference of 1 point if someone lost a place due to having to paper punch. It would be a shame to toss these results based on that as I doubt anyone on the list would prefer 0 points vs. 1 point less than they deserve.

Ross - my take is that you should be listed where you entered as organizers can't know the motivation exactly why someone chose to run up (i.e. to make sure they got sprint points, to be compared to certain runners, to get a longer course, etc). ...and I'm not just saying this because you and Ted and Adrian would bump me from 1st to 4th in M45 if all those category switches were to occur!

For sprint races, there ought to be some consistency about which categories run on the 2 courses (M&F) that will count for the series. e.g. M17-44, and F17-44 might make sense.

>But I think the same thing appies to Ted; maybe others.

So I win M35 sprint? ;-) I need revenge on Eugene for winning the THOMASS last winter.

In trail running (and Rogaine) if a course is common to many categories then a person can win in multiple categories as long as they meet the age requirements. Something that will need to be considered when the final rules for sprints are determined (ie., number of courses, which categories on specific courses, etc.).

Did people like the way the Gators split up the classes for the sprint?

For the Sprint Series, the results for the COC sprint won't be used .... in the update that will be posted later today. But for sure they will be used for the following update. It just seems better to wait a few more days and get something a little more accurate.

--------------------------------------

Just thinking ahead to next year, I'm thinking that the way to go is to change the system as follows. Keep the scoring of each event the same, but change the way you qualify for the Sprint Finals, and also hopefully the way we determine who can run in the Canadian and US Sprint Champs (yes, I know there hasn't been qualifying for the latter two events up to now, but there ought to be, just too many slower runners diluting the spectator interest).

Qualifying will be determined by:

1. Add up the sprint points for the top 20 runners in each club (men and women done separately). This gives you a club ranking for each sex.
2. The top four clubs get 10 runners, the next couple 9 runners, and on down, with clubs ranked 23rd or lower getting just 1 runner.

Just like the IOF rules for the World Cup....

Except they're f**king serious. :-)

------------------------------------------

And I'll be serious again. Argue all you want about the rules, the fairness, the descimination, whatever. But don't lose focus on the one thing that will trump all of those -- just get better, as an individual and as a country. If Hanny can do it from Tasmania....

The problem isn't the rules. The problem is we have to get better.

I just got back home. made some phone calls( after my phone line was fixed) to see where we stay.the times from sprint should be ready soon.
Peter , I believe they could be used for sprint series accurately ( except that some people punched while for others the SI units worked) but as time spent in the woods from start to finish they should be Ok. there were for 4 units at the start and each class used the same unit during the event.

"just too many slower runners diluting the spectator interest"

That was brilliant, I am still laughing out loud.

preliminary results for sprint .. and other at COC are up, here http://www.coc2006.ca/COCMain.asp

or I'm just too late to post this ??