Discussion: WC rules 2007 - We fought for what?

I looked at WC qualification scheme and I must say that WC 2007 look to me as another brilliant move by IOF or IOF Foot-O Commission how to ignore runners from small countries.

Countries without runners at WC round 1 are able to send runners to WC round 2 (by WC rules) but they could start only in B-final, because is no Q races in Hovden.

Is this stimulating or not for small countries?

In my opinion all WC races should have Q race so everybody could have chance at any race to get in the A-final, except maybe for the last WC race. Why don’t we have only A- final with 120 participants on the start and with 40 best start last with LIVE coverage If organizers arrange TV broadcasting.

Why?

Runners or FEDs don't have money to send them to the all WC races but they surly don't have money to send them just to participate in B-final even if they could q for A-final for the next WC. So even that this kind of rule in this moment does not harm anybody it is unfair and very negative signal to the undeveloped O-countries.

I will not guessing which system could be batter but I assume that only Norwegians or some other runners will take part in B-final at Hovden.

My remark:

If IOF strictly want to have this kind of WC system they should also think about how to use WRE ranking list not just for the allocation for number of athletes per countries but also for individual runners.

What kind of strange ideas have small countries?

I think that runners with WC points should be somehow evidentially excluded from the WRE list or that we must have two WRE ranking list. A list with only countries which are under 15-20 place at WRE federation list and a rule that 5 runners could race in A-final something as pre-start or last competitor on the list. Maybe this could be relevant just for WOC but will definitely motivate runners and federation to strength their ambition to develop sport.

YAH, I really like to know your feelings about this WC rules or if you have some other ideas about how should look like IOF development policy for the small countries. I didn't find any files at IOF pages.

Something as

WOC 1989 Sweden
Countries without runners in A-final after qualification race could put their best runner to run A- final. Rule was probably valid just at WOC 1989.

Just for IOF development reasons I think that this kind of rule is good motivation for low ranked nations. Maybe could be good to have it back and keep it so long as IOF can't reach some basic numbers when they speak about development.

% of IOF members participated at WOC, WC races
% of IOF members participated in A- finals at WOC, WC races
Olympic status?
.......

I am just wondering what we need more to strength our sport: fairness or minor exceptions to help low ranked countries. For young runners and their motivation for training this kind of rule is the best rule. In this way runners from one country in Q races also race among each other to grab one free ticket for final.

To have one runner in A-final is a looong way for some countries.

I've never liked the "B" final concept and to have that as the only option for some countries at various World Cup Races is a farce. Its either a World Cup or a Northern Europe (+ Australia) Cup - IOF make up your mind!

WC 2007 - round 1 in numbers
IOF member FEDs: 68
IOF member FEDs participated MEN: 27 nations - (39,7%)
IOF member FEDs participated WOMEN: 20 nations - (29,4%)
A - Final - MEN: 17 nations - (25%)
A - Final - WOMEN: 10 nations - (14,7%)

Qualification by wildcard:
Rule which have no sense as Q race is not in the program.

IOF always find a rule to stimulate the strongest countries, but I have not seen yet the plan how they will help small countries. I think that numbers and percentages should be higher in the future as today and that this goal should be also included in the IOF development policy (if exist?) and a little bit higher on the IOF task list.

Eoin:
If IOF officials don't want to hear this facts it is a legal right that all other 40+ countries say that we want an answers from IOF or that IOF commissions make discussion and give us answers/their solutions about the most important issues which affect small countries. The last option is always a congress and elections.

I don’t want to tease IOF but I think that we should prepare a list of questions/proposals and to expose our problems we have as a small members of IOF.

Possible/not possible?
1. Each country has 1 place in A-Final at WOC races (WOC 1989 rule).
2. Each country has 1 place in A-Final at WC races (if qualification race is not organized)

Feel free to add your question/proposal to the list.

I don't really want to get into this, but if your proposal 1 is accepted kofols and you say there are 68 member nations, then that makes for a pretty big A-final field.

I think qualification for the WOC A-final is fair as is - the best runners should get a spot regardless of nationality. Every nation should be allowed to enter runners in the qualification races, though. The only point in there being a B-final is, in my view, that it is a chance for those who didn't make the cut to get a bit more experience at this kind of level, which seems to be what you are arguing for.

I don't see how this policy `stimulates the stronger countries' at all, though I am replying simply to the comments about WOC rather than the WC.

It's only for the event in Norway (Wcup2) that you will have to run B-final only and you can still qualify to that race based on world rankings. If your world ranking is too poor, you still have 8 out of 9 remaining races to hope for, so it shouldn't be a big problem. After all, WC and WOC are elite events and not recreational events that everybody should have the right to attend.

In addition, no qualification=more compact program=fewer days of vacation needed=good for small nations?

Its either a World Cup or a Northern Europe (+ Australia) Cup - IOF make up your mind!

The whole process is open to the World, and the main driver, by far, of who stays in and who does not, appears to be how well people do. If us 'little' countries want more slots, one option is for us to earn them by getting faster at orienteering. Like Australia has done over the past decade...

you say there are 68 member nations, then that makes for a pretty big A-final field

Only IOF Full Members may participate in the World Orienteering Championships. There are currently 48 Full Members. The rules for WCup change every year. I believe only runners from Full Members can participate this year.

The smaller countries lobbied hard for extra WC slots and were granted them. They then proceeded not to use them. My opinion is that they don't deserve to get them again.

I think that IOF want the World Cup to be open to as many Elite orienteers as possible irrespective of nationality. This obvoisly means that some countries will get many slots and some will get few or none. This makes sense to me. As Wyatt points out, if we want more competitors, we just have to get better.

Olympic status?

I'm not sure I follow the connection, but if the contention is that limiting the involvement of sub-elite athletes hurts the potential for Olympic status, then I'd have to disagree. Eddie the Eagle notwithstanding, most olympic sports have qualification standards which must be met by any athlete in order to compete, regardless of nationality. Those that don't typically have some sort of qualifier to determine who gets to go from the "non-elite" countries. We're not talking about qualifiers for finals - this is just to get in at all.

There are exceptions, so we do occaisionally get treated to watching, say, the Egyptian mountain biker getting lapped in a 3-lap race, but I don't think the IOC regards this as a good thing, nor would it look more favorably on a sport that goes out of it's way to bring down the level of competition at the top.

We (USA) have had 40 years of reasonably inclusive rules to bring our program up to international levels. That's long enough. I don't think we need any more breaks. I'd very much like to do a world cup event some day, but if I make the team and then the IOF decides my sorry ass isn't up to the challenge, I don't think I'd have much of a problem with that assessment.

Olympic 3000m Steeplechase - Anders Garderud (Sweden)
World Cup (Soccer) Cameroon 1 Argentina (defending champions) 0
Cricket World Cup Ireland defeated Pakistan

If you know who is going to win beforehand why bother turning up?

Well, exactly. Maybe that's why they (=minor O nation runners) don't turn up.

I don't think so. If you look from a »minor O nation runners« perspective they know very well that they can't reach for high places so this is not the main reason why they don't turn up.

More probably reasons are:
1. Interest to race at top events – WOCs, WCs (many have chance only ones in a live time); location of the WOC, WC
2. Financing (by yourself)
3. Time
4. result (when you're getting batter, have more time, get financial support from FED, sponsors this factor may rise to first place; result which count for that runners are probably best personal or country result event if this mean 18 place in qualifier or good time in % behind the heat winner.

This is more or less amateur approach but these are the 99% of today’s facts for 40+ countries. Participating still mean a lot to these runners as this is probably driven force for some runners to stay in orienteering and to put some energy also to develop sport in their own countries on the basis of what they saw, experienced and learned at WOC, WC races.

I couldn’t find any good statistics for numbers of participating countries/runners at WOC and WC on annual basis for last 20 years. Does anybody have it?

I think that WOC, WC rules are just one part of the story. Countries which also want to succeed in the long run they need more help at education. If IOF had money also to support not just map clinics over the world to get new members but also ELITE training camps in IOF full member countries this will be the HELP which is really needed. To set down regional camps with professional coaches from TOP 5 countries to educate local coaches, runners. It is batter, cheaper and more people could afford than visiting O-Ringen camp…. Some international sport federations have this kind of a system and it is very positive and helpful for small nations.

If IOF thinks that international growth mean just number of IOF members than rules and priorities for what spent money are O.K.

The only valid argument I see against letting in a more representative field in effect increasing the number of starters i.e more from smaller countries and more of the many excellent athletes from Norway, Sweden, Finland etc who can aspire to the top rung is the logistical one, which has not so far been raised in this thread. There is no technical issue; the forest, terrain, map and controls remain the same.

The longer the start list, the more time it takes for the organisers. As early starters finish there is the issue of quaranting either them, or the later starters, or both, so that discussions are not held between team members.

For sprint and middle distance events with small start intervals there is no real problem, with a 2 minute start interval you can start 30 per hour, so over 6 hours (say 8am till 2pm) you could have 180 runners.

The difficulty comes with classic distance where a 4 or preferably 6 minute interval is needed. Here I would argue (for World Cups) you could have 80 from the WRE and 10 reps from the next countries who don't have runners in the top 80. For WOC a qualification is necessary for classic, but I would argue not for middle or sprint.

I do not think the World Cup will be long-lived anyway. There are too many, too big unresolved issues:
- who are allowed to run
- how to select races for the cup
- how to arrange the races (left-hand, micr-o, mass-start, etc)

E.g. Finland is not sending a full team to the next race in Norway, so you do not need bad conscious not doing it either. On the other hand, as long as there are only a few races with prize money, there will be elite runners turning up. I've been wrong before.

Olympic status?
I have in mind only this. One of the IOC criteria for Olympic inclusion is also a number of nations attended in last few WOCs. WOC 2003 organizers financially helped runners from small countries with »free accommodation« and this was probably the reason that they have record numbers of country represented.

This should be on the IOF task list not on the organizers task list. In some countries orienteering is a small sport and probably don't have big potential to grow in next 10-20 years as other sports are already so strong.

WOC, WC?
I still stand behind the idea of this rule.
1. Each country has 1 place in A-Final at WOC races (WOC 1989 rule).
2. Each country has 1 place in A-Final at WC races (if qualification race is not organized)

As Thundra/Desert pointed out this mean max. 20-25 more runners in A-final. If we don't want to watch recreational runners in IOF A-finals I suggest that IOF decide level of WRE points for small countries. I think this will mean app. not more than 10-15 runners more in A-final.

3. Each country could have 1 place in A-Final at WC, WOC races if runners have at least 4.000 WRE points. Is break line high enough for recreational runners? I think YES.

»Wyatt, rambo, mata, Jon W« or somebody else could think that this kind of a rule will be a privilege for small country and that is not fair as the runners are not equally treated. They are not equally treated already today. I agree with you that runners must achieved some standards in order to compete, regardless of nationality but I also think that IOF events must be opened as much as possible to all nations.

Example:
At Hovden IOF found the last remaining athlete for the A- final in Skarholt Anders with 4.524 points at 159 place. Is he a recreational runner?

It was just a question how deep down on WRE list organizers must go to fill A-final with last 50 runner among all of them who are present at the WC race. If we had today WC event outside TOP 5 countries it is sure that 50th runner in A-final would have less points than Skarholt. I didn't analyze how many countries have runners among 4.000 points but if IOF someday decide break line it is fair that give small countries 1 place in advance without searching down on the WRE list.

Where start recreational level? At 4.523 points, at 4.000 points, at 3.777 points, when you wear o-dress with long sleeves, you don't have a trainer, you can't afford to travel,....

I'm just saying that IOF shouldn't be only ELITE sport (not the same as professional as I define professional when athletes could live out of orienteering) if we want that orienteering will grow in other countries too. When IOF will establish professional WC than....... That is all.