Discussion: AR under IOF?

There is an adventure racing conference taking place in Portugal right now (before the XPD race).

I throw this out there only because it is the first I've heard of it:

"Perhaps the debate which caused most discussion was the last, on international governance for AR. The Spanish and Portuguese Orienteering Federations put forward a proposal for all AR to come under the control of the International Orienteering Federation, and the benefits this might bring were contrasted to the risk of losing some of the adventure and spirit of adventure at the heart of the sport."

Is the adventure that might be lost the excitement of wondering whether a control might be where it is meant to be?

If the sports were started today it would make a lot of sense to have orienteering, rogaine, mountain marathons and AR under one umbrella of 'adventure navigation sports' or something like that. Having raced in all of these sports they are essentially the same sports. I hope I haven't offended anyone in saying that but in all of these sports you have a map and a compass and need to get from point A to B to C (almost) any way you want (ie., the same sport). An avid orienteer could argue that mountain marathons are ultra long orienteerig races, Rogaine is 24 hour orienteering and AR is multisport orienteering. Or perhaps an adventure racer would argue that orienteering is adventure running and MTB-O is adventure MTB.

Despite there being so much similarity I doubt this proposal will go anywhere because the sports have developed differently. Orienteering being bigger participation wise internationally and AR being higher profile. Why have the sports developed this way? Orienteering has a very tight set of rules and as such a much higher standard for race fairness, quality (maps, courses, control placement, etc). and for safety. It is easier to attract people from a broader age group. AR has more sponsorship, much higher prizing and perhaps internationally greater links to media but it also has a lot more freedom to explore those areas since the rules are much looser. One could argue that both sports are better for the way they have developed. So I can see why AR would feel they would lose 'spirit of adventure' but also gain a lot by being under IOF.

As an example of losing spirit of adventure, if you look at the maps and courses in early orienteering in Canada it reflects what essentially AR is today in Canada. Then orienteering in Canada moved to the international standards of mapping and course design - eliminating (mostly) the luck element of navigation. Many in orienteering would consider this important while many in AR would consider this against the 'spirit of the sport' as you perhaps develop a slightly different skills set for navigation when those luck elements (new trail, flooded valley) exist. But despite that the sports (I believe) are still essentially the same (map, compass, course, adventure).

Staying with a Canadian context now I honestly believe the two sports must work together much more like is done in other countries. The two sports can (and I would argue need to) learn a lot from each other. The collective expertise of race directors, athletes, coaches, mapping, etc. in the sports is incredible and complementary but each sport on its own does not have that level of expertise to develop and grow. Up to now there has been been too much AR vs. O attitude in Canada (each sport distancing themselves from the other, stating why they are not the other). But lets face it if the two sports were to work together more then the entire 'Adventure Navigation sport' community (athletes, race directors, etc.) in Canada would win.

A step in the right direction is doing what is done in France. If you visit the French Orienteering Federation web site you will see that this is a one-stop link for O, MTB-O, mountain marathons and AR.

http://www.ffco.asso.fr/

Good points Hammer, and your perspective gives me some more insight in why the push in this direction. My immediate resistance is that the "power" associated with Orienteering is based out of Europe. In Canada, we are rich in wilderness areas and our sport reflects the "adventure" part of AR. In many other countries, access to wilderness is limited, and the sport seems to reflect more "racing" - ie the Europeans bringing rollerblading in to expedition length events.

I've also noted we're behind in quality mapping compared to a country such as Sweden - so International mapping standards would put us behind. Standards for that matter would be a difficult label to put on some of these events. We do have safety standards in Canada though.

Another question comes up about the market dictating events vs. a federation - ie is a race director allowed to make a profit?

I agree the two sports should work more together and I see it amongst clubs like yours and mine (Sage) where there are enough participants that have a foot in both worlds.

I believe the pluses that have been presented are support from government for AR while under the O banner.

I'm not completely resistance to the idea, just trying to feel it out better.

The IOF certainly could learn a thing or two about publicity from AR (AR, after all, has been in the Olympics, which seems to be IOF's Holy Grail). I think AR could certainly benefit from some of the quality control normally present in orienteering.

That said, and with due respect to Hammer, this is not a match made in heaven. My fear is that the quality improvements would be the last effect noticed in AR. In the short term, I think there would be no small amount of friction between USARA and USOF. I'd rather see USARA simply adopt some of USOF's quality control policies than have it rolled into USOF.

USARA's grip on the AR scene is loose to say the least. If USOF clubs want to compete with USARA sanctioned events, all they need to do is put one on. Clubs that have done this report generally good results, both financially and competitively. The AR crowd generally doesn't care where the sanctioning comes from - they just want a good race. If USARA started feeling some real heat of competition from a more tightly controlled body, they might be prompted to clean up their own act a bit. Being a Libertarian, I'd rather have two organizations out there and let the market decide whether the future of the sport is quality events or high exposure. My guess is that both are possible, but only if there is real incentive for meet directors to do so.

AR, after all, has been in the Olympics

Like, how? news to me.

Exhibition sport at Atlanta, 1996.

Which would almost go to prove that fairness is less important than media potential in IOF sport selection, except that exhibition sports are the choice of the host.

I'm a big Olympics fan and I was unaware of AR's exhibition status in '96. Which probably shows that it wasn't much noticed by the average American viewer. I doubt it got much media coverage at all.

I just put in fifteen minutes or so on google trying to find some reference to AR exhibition race in Atlanta and I couldn't find anything. I found a couple of sources that said the Atlanta games had no exhibition sports.

Well, a full hour on network TV, which is a whole lot more than O has ever got in North America. It certainly helped that several American teams were doing well. I think Eco-Internet, won, but I'm not sure about that. I don't remember what time of day the summary show aired, but they gave updates during prime time (the race took four days).

I swear I'm not making this up! Internet searches on events prior to 1998 tend to be incomplete. Mountain Biking was also an exhibition sport in 96.

MTB XC was a full sport for the first time in '96. Bart Brentjens won the first ever gold medal for MTB in the mens and Paola Pezzo the womens.

demonstration/exhibition sports were stopped at the olympics, starting with Atlanta 1996.

Just to add to the confusion but there is/was(?) at least one other category of events called cultural festival or something like that. Ski-O was included as part of the festival accompanying the Nagano 98 Olympics, see: wikipedia.

Acually, if we're counting exhibition sports, orienteering (or at least ski-orienteering) has been in the Olympics, just prior to WWII, IIRC.

Counteracting the eurocentricity of orienteering would be no bad thing. But, knowing a few AR organizers and lots of IOF, USOF and COF officials, I can't imagine much more different approaches to sport. It would be a spectacle. Maybe no bad thing, if people were willing to let each sport be its own thing, and learn from each other. Perhaps a better suggestion is to have iOF and AR seek more opportunities to work together, perhaps under a joint umbrella of navigation sports. A combined World Championship, with orienteering, MBO, and AR, held at an O-Ringen...that would attract media and sponsor interest I'd think (and be fun to attend as a spectator). Now there's a spectacle.