World Records set at Unicon
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
Section 1.7 deals with world records set at Unicon. I have no problems with the gist of this section, but I think the wording could be improved. For instance, in the first paragraph it is said that Unicon organisers MUST comply with standards in the WRG. In the second paragraph, it is said what must be done if Unicon organisers do not comply with those standards.
The last sentence of this section states that for records set during Unicon competition, some documentation criteria are not required. I propose that we somehow add that this also holds for records set immediately after composition, if the same equipment and officials are in place. This is already done in practice, but not sanctioned by the current text.
Comment
I agree that the wording could be improved. It would be more logical to write that the organizers of a Unicon should do everything in their power to meet all the requirements of the WRG - if this is not possible for whatever reason, the second paragraph would apply.
I am against making exceptions to the documentation criteria for a Unicon. As mentioned in the other discussion, I would be willing to revise them and adapt them to the competition situation - but I am clearly in favour of keeping them the same for all competitions. Even at a Unicon the starter, the timekeeper and the referee should confirm that everything is in accordance with the rules.
Also, that the IUF and the WR Committee have the same documentation for every record and all records are judged equally.
Comment
An organiser of Unicon must follow the IUF Rulebook, as per section 1A.1.1 in the Rulebook. In the Rulebook, there is no room for deviation from this requirement. This is somewhat strange because we know that deviations from these rules sometimes cannot be avoided - and are agreed upon.
The WRG do recognise that such deviations occur, which is a good thing (not the occurrence of the deviations, but our recognition of it). I think it would be good enough to require that a WR must be set in compliance with the IUF Rulebook. This way we "catch" situations where the Rulebook was not followed completely. If a WR is set or broken in a specific IUF-sanctioned competition that has been done without exceptions (deviations from the Rulebook), I think we usually recognise such a WR without checking on details from the starter/timekeeper/referee report. I believe this is a correct procedure. We should still have the right to check such details - this right could e.g. be exercised if we have doubts about what actually happened.
Since we in general require that records attempts should be done according to the IUF Rulebook, all WR attempts (be they at Unicons or not) must comply to the same criteria, and are judged equally.
Comment
I think we agree that all WR attempts should be done according to the IUF rules, so that they all meet the same criteria and are evaluated equally.
I think section 1.7 in the WRG is to be understood primarily as an indication for the athletes that on a Unicon the requirements are fulfilled. However, we also know from reality that it is sometimes not possible to fully comply with the rulebook even on a Unicon - in this case, however, according to the WRG, the riders must be informed in advance that no WR can be set up in the disciplines which are affected. Basically, I think this is a reasonable procedure, but the question is whether the whole issue should not be better dealt with in the rulebook and whether it is then sufficient to say in the WRG that all records must comply with the requirements of the rulebook and any additional rules from the WRG.
Comment
I agree. This corresponds to Proposal 2: Relationship and referencing between World Record Guidelines and IUF Rulebook, for which the discussion phase ends today.
Many subjects that we discuss in the WR Committee, are related with each other. This has caused some of the subjects to be fragmented across multiple discussions which is somewhat confusing.
Comment
The original rule was to make it easier to set world records at Unicon- because the witnesses are all present, and we assume our world championship event is measured to the highest standard.
I'm not clear what you mean by events immediately after composition (?assume you mean after Unicon, but at the same venue?). The main difference would be in the witnesses- at Unicon, there are potentially hundreds of witnesses, so we don't need documentation to say it happened. For a record outside of Unicon- for instance if someone went out on the same track to set the hour record a few months later- I think you'd still want to satisfy yourself there are witnesses. There is no way for the record committee spread around the world to know that someone did what they say they did.
In terms of Unicon meeting world record requirements, in an ideal world, that should be the case. Having attended several Unicons since the 2011 WR guidelines have been in place, I realise the practical reality of our sport- the conditions/challenges are not fully appreciated until the event directors arrive at the venue- for instance, having course changes to the road events due to circumstances outside the organisers control. As a volunteer driven sport, we have limited resources.
So yes, I agree that the IUF World Record should be done in accordance to the Rulebook, rather than recognised simply because it was done at Unicon, which may have deviated from the rulebook.
Comment
"Immediately after competition" (not "composition") means within minutes. Say, the competition for that discipline has just ended, maybe by having finals. Some rider, or maybe a team like in 4 x 100m relay race, grasp the opportunity that all witnesses are present and everything is still set-up, to do a dedicated record attempt.
This is not during Unicon competition, but all the requirements are satisfied as if it is during competition.
I would agree that if this is stated in the WRG, it must be more clear than just "immediately after competition".
Comment
I think the current unconditional sentence "The IUF recognises world records set at UNICON... (etc)" is too sweeping a statement. I would add 'generally' to this sentence, and explicitly state two possible exceptions: (a) We reserve the right to verify compliance even if a record is from Unicon competition; (b) if the requirements are not met, a record will not be granted.
I think it is fair to include results that are set immediately after official Unicon competition using the same venue, equipment and officials. This happens in practice already. Contrary to what I wrote before, I don't think we need a stricter definition for 'immediately after competition', because 'immediately' is a quite strong word and we can loosen it at our decretion. (Personally I am OK with a 30 minute delay, but not a one-day delay.)
It is not up to the World Record Guidelines to prescribe that "Unicon organisers must ensure that... (etc). This is something for the IUF Competition Rulebook (that addresses this indeed). Also, the two months advance notice if WR standards are not met, fits in the Competition Rulebook, it is not something the WR Guidelines should state. I think it's better if the WR Guidelines reiterate what the Competition Rulebook says about this, while also making clear that if the record standards are not met, a record cannot be granted.
I'd like to add that to this section that IUF reserves the right to verify compliance before granting a world record coming from Unicon (irrespective of whether Unicon organisers would state that they met all requirements).
Comment
I think the current unconditional sentence "The IUF recognises world records set at UNICON... (etc)" is too sweeping a statement. I would add 'generally' to this sentence, and explicitly state two possible exceptions: (a) We reserve the right to verify compliance even if a record is from Unicon competition; (b) if the requirements are not met, a record will not be granted.
Absolutely agree!
Furthermore I think it is more a Rulebook discussion in order to make sure that Unicon hosts meet all requirements for world records to be broken. I think nowadays it is an absolute must for all hosts to guarantee this.
I think the current unconditional sentence "The IUF recognises world records set at UNICON... (etc)" is too sweeping a statement. I would add 'generally' to this sentence, and explicitly state two possible exceptions: (a) We reserve the right to verify compliance even if a record is from Unicon competition; (b) if the requirements are not met, a record will not be granted.
Comment
I agree as well.
I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned in the discussion about the documentation of records: But I think that if there is a "record documentation form", for example, then it should be filled out for Unicon records as well. This is the only way to ensure that all records are documented and traceable in the same way afterwards. However, I would very much appreciate it if the rulebook would transfer such documentation to the organizers in charge in case of a Unicon and if the athletes would not have to worry about the documentation in case of a "Unicon record".
Comment
Do committee members also agree to my other three paragraphs?
Jan's comment is related to my fourth paragraph. Responding to Jan: like you, I would not put the burden on Unicon participants to handle record claim forms. From the rider's perspective, it should stay the same that if you achieve a record-worthy result at Unicon, the record will be awarded automatically. I'm not sure if we would (a) generally rely on Unicon hosts to have done everything correctly, with our right to check that, or (b) have Unicon hosts fill in all the paperwork for every record, so that they confirm that they have done everything correctly.
What do others think about (a) versus (b)?
Comment
I tend to (b).
We only have to be careful to not overload Unicon hosts with paper work. For most Unicons we can assume that requirements are fulfilled.
It has been on my to do list for a long time to create such a document - I still haven't though... What I can offer - I don't work for the next three weeks so I can try and create a document Unicon hosts could use during the next days.
Maybe you have got some ideas what must be included in that document?
Comment
Mirjam, you say that we can assume that at most Unicons the requirements are fulfilled, and that you don't want to overload Unicon hosts with paperwork. It would seem more logical if you would tend to (a).
The record documentation form/document is covered in Discussion 4. I have a list of discussions to either restart (#4 is one of them) or initiate. I will shift #4 higher on the priority list. :-) And yes, I have some remarks about what should be on it.
Comment
No, in my opinion they should fill in a paper but not as detailed as for example I do when I break a record at a national race. Maybe let that be not more than one A4 page with e.g. rider name, discipline, name of responsible race director and so on...
Comment
Unicons are the top events in our sport. They occur only once every two years. (At most, he added with a grim smile.)
Would it be an idea if someone who breaks a record in Unicon competition, gets it automatically if all requirements are met (which we can work out with the Unicon host and their officials, without involvement of the rider)? That would mean that we and/or the Unicon organisers have to go through all the data to check which records have been broken, a task to be done only every two years. The advantage of this system would be that the record list is up to date, even if some rider who actually broke a record didn't bother to claim it.
I suggest this only for Unicons, not for regional or national competitions. Unicons are visible worldwide, and a discrepancy between Unicon results and World Records list would be confusing at least.
Or is is it somehow required that someone needs to claim a world record him/herself, before it can be awarded?
Comment
I don't think it should be required that a rider needs to claim a record him/herself, because there still are riders who break a record and don't even notice (however this is hard to understand for me).
So I quite like the idea that for Unicon (and only Unicon) there is someone (either from the WR committee or somebody else) who check the result lists (only track racing and road racing, this is done in a short time). In this way the WR list can be up to date.
Comment
I think that sounds like a reasonable approach.
The only thing I really want to make sure, is to document Unicon records in an appropriate way, so that e.g. the history of the records remains traceable. In other words, if we -for non Unicon records - archive the measurement protocol of the track, the finish photo of an electronic timing system, the signature of the referee, that everything was done according to the rules or whatever will be written in the documentation guidelines, then we should also document and archive this for Unicon records. In the end, we or the host of Unicon have to check in advance anyway, if the criteria are fulfilled, then it is only logical to document this. I think every record should be fully traceable in retrospect - and by that I mean many years later, if necessary as a historical record to document the development in unicycling.
Perhaps even the software used for the evaluation of the competitions can automatically mark new records (in athletics this is a standard feature of many competition management software) and thus simplify the work of the person who is responsible for the documentation of the records at Unicon.
Comment
I agree to what Mirjam wrote. By the way, besides Track Racing including so-called Technical Disciplines, and Road Racing, it's also about Jumps.
If no further views are posted, I'll see if I can create a proposal.
Jan, the point you bring up about archiving documentation for World Records is a valid one. I think it deserves its own discussion. I'm not sure if we want this topic to be regulated in the Guidelines themselves, but I think not, because in my view the Guidelines are primarily intended for prospective record holders, not for the workings of the WR Committee itself. So I think a discussion about archiving would best fit in the 'committee' Additional World Record Issues (not in Guidelines).
Are you willing to create a discussion?
Comment
I think it is not in our competence, as World Record Committee, to require that a Unicon host appoints someone who is responsible for the documentation of records at Unicon. But of course we can suggest that this be added to the host section of the Rulebook.
Regardless, I tend to think that any rider breaking a WR at Unicon should not have the task to claim a record him/herself. Whoever wants to check/trace/verify such a record (assuming we as WRC have granted it), should be referred to the documentation of that Unicon.
Not sure if everone in this discussion is happy with this.
Comment
I just think that it needs to be clear WHO is in charge of the task to keep the records up to date. If there is a rider who breaks a record and maybe doesn't realize it - what happens if nobody checks and therefore the record is "overseen" and the record list is not updated?
Comment
It could be the task of the WR Committee (or if you want to assign an individual, perhaps the Committee chair) to go through the results after each Unicon, looking for possible new records. That is not much work.
I think the question is more about how to deal with documents about time measurement, distance measurement, witnesses etc of world records achieved at a Unicon. In my view we can in principle trust records coming from Unicons, and demand proof only in case of doubt. But Jan may think otherwise.
Comment
If the timing system is not as bad as in Korea for track racing, yes I also think that we can trust Unicon records! :-)
Ok, I agree with that we can do that, it is really not much work and in most cases it is seen by other people either in the moment it happens or later on the result list. So it's not likely to be overseen anyway.
Comment
The timing problems in Korea were quite obvious, and would fall under my phrase "demand proof only in case of doubt".
This highlights the importance that at least someone from the WR Committee (or in fact from the core team verifying records) should attend Unicon. If that would not be the case, we should seek advice from some knowledgeable person who did attend. This is probably not something for the WR Guidelines, but rather for our internal way of working.
Comment
I think we have all been at Unicons where some conditions did not necessarily meet the (new) standard for world records. If the rulebook stipulates that all standards must be met on a Unicon, I think this must be proven and documented accordingly. Why should e.g. the measurement of a competition course have to be documented for every other competition and not on a Unicon?
And if these documents and proofs that all requirements for world records are met are available, then they should be made available to the WR Committee. These documents could then be used to document Unicon records as well as non-Unicon records. I completely agree with you that on a Unicon, the rider should not be responsible for the existence of all these documents - nevertheless someone should do the documentation and send it to the WR committee.
I think with appropriate competition programs the referee can see directly at the evaluation when a performance is a new world record and can simply fill out an appropriate form. This is uncomplicated and ensures that it is always well documented how a record was set. As a proverb says: "Trust is good, control is better" The more our sport develops, the more important perhaps one day the documentation of world records will be. If there is no documentation for some records because we trust that everything would fit, then I think that seems a bit strange. Who knows how long records will exist and how the sport has developed over that time...
Comment
Every Unicon has different organisers. There are language barriers, financial constraints, course and facility limitations. Event directors and the IUF have little control over this, and have to rely on local organisers who may or or may not have world record standards high on the list of priorities.
I wouldn't assume Unicon measurements to be accurate without proof. The only thing Unicon has is plenty of witnesses, so perhaps that requirement can be relaxed during competition.
Comment
I think we are (almost?) ready for a proposal on a new text for 1.7.
The requirement for Unicon organisers to provide documentation on course length, timing systems etc, is already worded in the current 1.7 (first sentence of last paragraph), but a new text can make this more explicit and clear.
Comment
Should we record if records are set "in competition" or "out of competition"? I have been looking at the IAAF records and as far as I can tell they are all set "in competition". I remember commentators of athletics races talking about times for races being described this way. I think we all agree that a record set under the strict criteria we are setting whether at UNICON or else where is a record we should accept.
Comment
In proposal 10 (which has passed) we have agreed that all records except time trials can be set either in competition, or on the same day of a competition and using the same facilities. Is this the distinction you want to make?
Time trial records are set out of competition anyway, this is purely one rider against the clock.
Comment
I think we can make a proposal, or do we have any open issues to discuss?
Comment
I have been busy the past week with a family visit and other issues. Am planning to get back to World Record Committee work next week.
Comment
I think this topic is also ready for a proposal :)
Comment
Let me summarise the situation.
We as World Record Committee require documentation on every claimed world record, in order to decide if it is accepted or not.
For claimed records achieved outside of Unicon, the burden is on the record claimant to provide this documentation.
For claimed records achieved in Unicon, we don't want to burden the record rider. He or she doesn't have to do anything themselves after achieving a record performance, the record is awarded without their involvement. We as WRC should still have the required documentation, but in this case it should be provided to us by the Unicon host.
My point is: in my opinion, we don't have the authority to demand (in the WR Guidelines) that the Unicon host provides us with the relevant documentation. Rather, I think this should be a clause in the agreement between IUF and the (prospective) host of Unicon. So our task is to propose to the IUF board that this documentation requirement becomes part of any future Unicon agreement (between IUF and host). This task is not part of the WR Guidelines, but something we have to do separately.
(This is another example of things we have to get in place besides just editing the WR Guidelines. Other examples are changes to the IUF Rulebook.)
If we agree on the above, I think I can make a proposal for a new text for 1.7.
Comment
I completely agree.
I think it is a very good idea that the IUF should include the documentation requirements in their contract with the hosts. After all, the Unicon is supposed to comply with the rules of the WRG anyway, so it just makes sense to demand the corresponding documentation in the contract.
Comment
I agree as well.
Comment
I agree. It will need a dedicated person to collect up all the documentation and perhaps write a report. So included with photos of track, timing system, course measurements for 10km/Marathon road events, etc. This should be archived by the WR committee for future reference.
Comment
I just submitted a proposal.
I wonder if we need to clarify "IUF-sanctioned". What I mean by it is not just that the IUF Rulebook is followed, but also that IUF is involved in the organisation, and that the convention is organised under responsibility of, or at least under the flag of, IUF. This would always be the case for Unicons, and as far as I know also for European Championships. Not sure if any other recurring conventions also have this status.
Comment
"IUF-sanctioned" indeed does not seem so unambiguous. To me, it does not necessarily mean that the IUF is involved in the organization. In any case, it means to me that the IUF approves the event and also takes responsibility for ensuring that the IUF rules are followed. So taking some control of the championship, that would be perhaps what is meant by "organized under the responsibility or at least under the flag of the IUF"....
Probably it would be really good to define what "IUF sanctioned" means.
Comment
Thinking more about it, I believe we should not use the word "sanctioned" at all. It has two meanings which are almost opposite, and this can be confusing. Obviously I aimed at the meaning "given official permission or approval by the IUF". But actually, this is not exactly what we need in this case.
I tend to specify that the burden to supply proof is not on the participant but on the host, if the competition is approved by the IUF and if IUF takes responsibility for ensuring that the IUF Rulebook is followed. In this regard, there is no need for the IUF to be involved in the organisation. They may often be, but it doesn't matter.
But then still, I wonder two things:
(1) Borrowing from another discussion: is it clear enough what we mean by "(the) IUF"? The Board of Directors?
(2) Is it ever made explicit that the IUF officially approves events like Unicon and European Championships, and takes responsibility that the rules are followed? I mean, does the IUF issue statements like this. If not, we can't lean on this.
Comment
I agree with you and would also prefer to go in the direction you suggest.
The questions seem quite reasonable to me:
Regarding (1): For me it would be clear in this case that the approval of an event and the responsibility for compliance with the IUF rules can only be given by the IUF Board of Directors or someone delegated by them. I would therefore say that it is clear enough to speak of "the IUF".
Regarding (2): I wish that the IUF would take responsibility for ensuring that their rules are adhered to at the events they approve - but I am actually afraid that this is not really made explicit.
Ultimately, it would be an unbelievable shame for the athletes if they assume that all the rules are followed at an IUF-approved event, but the organiser does not do this and records cannot be recognised in the end. However, I believe that this problem can only be solved if the IUF actually accepts a certain responsibility and thus also checks that the rules are adhered to respectively that all preconditions are given so that the necessary rules can be adhered to.
Comment
From your last sentence I would rather delete "respectively that all preconditions are given so that the necessary rules can be adhered to". Because if such preconditions are given, there is still no guarantee that the rules are adhered to. Or do I misunderstand you?
Maybe I should, as chair of the WRC, write a message to the IUF Board (addressed via email to the new president Maksym Siegienczuk) explaining that a difficult situation arises in IUF-approved competitions if the rules are not fully adhered to, especially if this is not clear to the riders sufficiently in advance - and asking if the Board is willing to accept responsibility for compliance with the rules for competitions they approve. This then needs to be in the contract between IUF and host, as mentioned earlier in this thread.
The other issue that we need the Board for, is the correspondence between WR Guidelines and IUF Rulebook (discussion #37). We may want to combine this with the previous.
Comment
Klaas, you're of course right, that even if all preconditions are given, there is still no guarantee that the rules are adhered. On the other hand, the only thing that can really be checked in advance by the IUF is likely to be that all the preconditions are given, i.e. that the rules can be adhered to. Of course, I see your point that a check in advance in no way guarantees adherence to the rules on the day of the competition - but without the check in advance, it may simply be too late on the day of the competition.
On the day of the competition, it is actually the referee who is responsible for ensuring that all the rules are adhered to - so if it is made sure in advance that all the conditions are in place for this, I would trust the referee to ensure that they are adhered to. Nevertheless, I think it makes sense to have someone from the IUF or someone commissioned by the IUF on site at IUF approved events to fill the referee position.
I think a message to the IUF board is useful at this point, because otherwise different wording may have to be found for the WRG in respect of IUF approved events.
Comment
I have been quite busy over the last month, and will continue to be "hardly available" until 3 October.
That said, I'll try and get a message to the IUF Board (sent to Maksym) to make this point, before the start of my belated summer holiday that occupies most of September.
Comment
For your information: today, I have e-mailed the following to Maksym Siegienczuk, IUF President:
Adherence to rules in IUF-approved competitions
Hi Maksym,
I am writing in my role as chair of the IUF World Record Committee, to you as the IUF president.
The World Record Committee is in the process of updating the World Record Guidelines, i.e. the set of rules that governs IUF-recognised world records. We’ve come across an issue regarding adherence to the IUF Rulebook.
In the envisioned updated Guidelines, for claimed world records that were achieved in a typical regional or national competition, the burden to supply proof for the records lies in principle with the rider claiming the record. The same holds for records achieved outside competition, such as individual time trial records.
For IUF-approved competitions, we would like to assume that the IUF ensures that the IUF Rulebook and IUF World Record Guidelines are adhered to.
The Rulebook states on page 6 that all Unicons must abide exclusively by the rules in the Rulebook. It also states that all unicycle competition sanctioned by the IUF should be governed by the Rulebook. This probably means that besides Unicons, also European Championships (and possibly other large competitions) are completely governed by the Rulebook.
On page 7 of the Rulebook is stated that the Host (of such an IUF-sanctioned competition, I guess) needs not only the Rulebook but also the current IUF World Record Guidelines.
This implies, I think, that any IUF-sanctioned competition must follow both the IUF Rulebook AND the World Record Guidelines. (Exceptions are possible, but they should be communicated to the competitors at least two months in advance, as per 1A.5 in the Rulebook.)
Exceptions aside, if a world record-worthy result is achieved in such competition, one should be able to trust that the timing system, distance measurement and all other aspects around the competition are of sufficient standards and quality as required for recognising an official IUF world record. Both the competitors and the World Record Committee (whose task it is to evaluate record claims) should be able to rely on this.
Now our question is: is this trust justified? Is the requirement to follow the Rulebook and the World Record Guidelines part of the contract between Host and IUF? Is there a mechanism to check adherence? Does the IUF (I guess this means “The IUF Board of Directors”) accept the responsibility to guarantee this following of Rulebook and WR Guidelines?
If the answers are yes, yes, yes, and yes, this greatly simplifies the procedure to recognise world records achieved at the large competitions mentioned, for both the riders involved and for the World Record Committee. It also means that we can phrase the World Record Guidelines accordingly.
Thanks for your consideration of the above.
Best regards,
Klaas
IUF WR Committee Chair
P.S. Just a heads-up. We have another pending issue to bring up, related to the linking of IUF Rulebook and IUF World Record Guidelines. But it will probably take at least a few months before we have proceeded enough to contact you about this.
Comment
Maksym wrote back to me. He answered the four questions as follows:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
1..."is this trust justified? ",
It's not always the case, however the French organization has good experience in organizing national championships and I would trust them. The best instrument of trust is checking. We could potentially appoint a WR expert responsible for approval the venues, and timing, but I don't see the reason when we have experienced organizer and other events are not checked with such rigor.
2. "Is the requirement to follow the Rulebook and the World Record Guidelines part of the contract between Host and IUF? "
Yes, the requirement to follow WR Guidelines comes in the Rulebook, rule 1A.5. The host is required to follow IUF Rulebook by signing the contract, in this particular case it's called "Memorandum Of Understanding ''.
3. "Is there a mechanism to check adherence?"
Yes, In article 5, of Memorandum... (..."The IUF Board will establish one or more “IUF Unicon Liaisons” who will be responsible for ensuring the guidelines provided by IUF are followed and providing organizational expertise to the organizer as requested"...). The question is if this mechanism will work as desired. Are our Liaisons aware and proficient to follow WR Guidelines? Or, should the WR Committee Liaison be appointed?
4. "Does the IUF (I guess this means “The IUF Board of Directors”) accept the responsibility to guarantee this following of Rulebook and WR Guidelines?"
That's difficult question, and I believe that answer is "no". IUF is not able to control the host and manage the event. The only pressure the IUF can apply to host is revoking him from organizing the event (stating that the event is not IUF sanctioned) and banning the use of name "Unicon" for the event. The IUF is responsible for the good name of Unicon by creating its high standards. This is done by providing the regulations and guidelines on organization the event. The Host is responsible for the course of event, he contracts service providers (e.g. time keeping) and he is required to obtain liability insurance.
Let me know your thoughts.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
You (plural, I mean the members of this committee) can discuss what we think about this. I probably won't contribute until early October because of my holiday starting tomorrow. Maksym knows that our response will wait until that time.
Comment
Thank you for sharing Maksym's response. I think he mentions some interesting aspects and ideas.
First of all, I would like to underline his statement: "The best instrument of trust is checking.". I think that is the most important thing when it comes to whether or not we can recognize a performance as a WR.
In any case, I think it is a good first step that the requirement to follow the Rulebook is part of the "Memorandum Of Understanding '' and that a certain control mechanism is also intended. I like the idea of appointing a liaison to the WR committee, and I think we should definitely consider that idea.
Regarding the last question, I think it is also a question of how far you define responsibility for compliance with the rules. Is the responsibility fulfilled, if in advance all possibilities of the control are created and used and is guaranteed that all conditions are suitable to adhere to the rules on the day of the competition? Or is the responsibility only fulfilled if the rules are constantly monitored on the day of the competition and interventions are made if necessary? Is it sufficient to transfer this responsibility to a carefully selected chief referee? All in all, I think this is indeed a difficult question.
Comment
(I'm back.)
Yes we could appoint a person to be liaison between the WR Committee and the host of IUF-approved competitions. We do need a knowledgeable person, aware of the potential issues in time keeping, distance measurement etc. Seems like a difficult task, or at least one that requires significant expertise.
This person could also 'scan' the competition results for any record performance, so that new record holders are identified automatically. This seems relatively easy.
I am in favour of including this, not sure where to state it though.
As to your last point: constantly monitoring is practically impossible, also because an event does not occur at one location. I mean, e.g. a marathon course may be up to 42.195 km long (if there are no loops), and you (however plural "you" is) can't be everywhere during the whole race. So in practice, I think responsibility is fulfilled (quoting you) "if in advance all possibilities of the control are created and used and is guaranteed that all conditions are suitable to adhere to the rules on the day of the competition". And indeed, a chief referee is the main person to trust in such cases, and of course our liaison can ask him/her about the checks she/he has put in place. I think this is the most practical way to guarantee compliance to the rules. It may not be 100% "water tight", but then again, what is?
Comment
We mentioned changing "IUF-sanctioned" into "IUF-approved", in the current proposal, which as it is states
"As per the IUF Rulebook, for Unicon and other IUF-sanctioned conventions, the host is expected to ensure that ..."
The reason for this would be that the word 'sanctioned' is not very clear. It can mean either approved, or be subject to sanctions e.g. in case of a violation of rules - which is quite the opposite.
But the Rulebook doesn't use the phrase "IUF-sanctioned conventions". In stead, it states in 1A.5
"Especially for Unicon or other large conventions, the host is strongly encouraged to ensure that..."
BTW, in the contract between IUF and host (so-called Memorandum of Understanding), 'sanctioning' does get mentioned, specifically in Article 5 which talks about "remove IUF santioning of Unicon".
I tend to think that both the Rulebook and the Memorandum of Understanding, should better avoid the words sanctioned and sanctioning, and in stead use the words approved and approval. But since this is not the case, I have edited the proposal to be in line with 1A.5 in the Rulebook.
Comment
I have 'approved' Proposal 17 that came out of this discussion. Therefore, it is now up for review.
Comment
We discussed above about assigning a World Record Committee liaison, i.e. someone who overlooks the race conditions on behalf of the World Record Committee and checks if they are fit for official records. It's not fully cast in stone yet if this will happen or not, but in any case this is IMHO outside of the World Record Guidelines document, it's more about our way of working.
If there are no objections, I will call for votes on proposal 17.
Comment
I have no more comments on the proposal.
I hope that enough people will take part in the vote so that the proposal can be accepted - participation in the discussions is rather low these days.