Adherence to Documentation Criteria
Comments about this discussion:
Started
Chapter 2 of the WRG describes a rather extensive and strict set of Documentation Criteria.
I have been part of the record approval proces for about a year now.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the impression that these criteria are not strictly adhered to.
For instance, for the world records set at Nottwil, about half a year ago, did we ever receive, let alone review, documentation about how the timing was accomplished, or how the course was measured?
And do we ever contact witnesses to verify their statement? (This is not strictly required in the WRG, but there must be a reason that witnesses supply their contact details.)
If we want the WRG to be this strict about the requirements, then we need to make sure that we adhere to them before granting any world record.
Alternatively, we may want to "loosen" our criteria.
Either way, what we actually do must correspond to what we have to do.
Comment
In my opinion the documentation about course measurement is required for road races especially or for time trial records which are done on a not yet measured course.
The track in Nottwil is an official athletics track and we have never required any information about that since I am in the committee. It is also thought for Asian tracks which are not officially recognised as an IAAF athletics track. Or for example if a record is done on a 300m track.
Comment
Some of the requirements in Chapter 2 are repeated in Chapter 3, which is specifically about track records.
Not requiring information about official athletics track is not correct, according to the current WRG.
Section 3.1.1 states:
"Please supply evidence of the exact track measurements used to the closest 0.01m. This should be either a surveyors report, or a letter from the sports body in charge of the facility stating the size of the track and how this was determined."
In the current WRG, using a track of 300m for a standard track record is not even allowed.
Sections 3.1 states:
"Standard track records are held on a 400m Athletics Track".
I can see that this requirement makes sense for 400m and 800m records, since the number of turns is then standardised. These records should not be set on a straight track of 400 or 800m.
However, for 100m, wheel walk and 50m one foot the track length is not important in my opinion, as long as the attempt is done in a straight line.
Requiring IUF slalom on a 400m track doesn't make sense at all.
Often the inner court of an athletics track is used, so perhaps one could maintain it is "on a 400m athletics track". But ECU 2017 used an indoor location for the finals - and a WR was broken and granted. Again, not correct according to the current WRG.
By the way, records are not "held" on a track.
Section 3.1.1 repeats almost the same sentence but states they are "set" on a track, which is better.
Comment
I had also thought about starting a discussion about the documentation criteria mentioned in section 2.
Here are my thoughts:
I think the criteria are suitable for records set outside an official competition event.
For records that are set at official competitions, I find the criteria are unnecessarily complex in some places and should be simplified.
I would like to explain this in more detail using the track races as an example:
2.1 Witnesses
At each competition there are official judges, in particular the starter, the timekeeper and the referee.
In addition, there are other judges for the respective disciplines who, for example, check that the track is not left at track-bound races or who observe the 5 m line at the one-foot.
These judges ensure that a competition is conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations and that violations of the rules are sanctioned and lead to disqualification of the rider.
I am therefore of the opinion that records which are set at official competitions should be made with exactly these referees as required witnesses:
1. Starter: He must confirm that the starting procedure has taken place in accordance with the rules.
2. Timekeeper: He must confirm that the finish and the determination of the time have been completed in accordance with the rules.
3. Referee: He must confirm as chairman over all other referees that all rules for the respective race have been observed.
In my opinion these three statements are more valuable for the evaluation of a record than all witness statements, which are prescribed so far.
Five independent witnesses, who - if they were not explicitly instructed and positioned accordingly - will not be able to reliably confirm compliance with the rules.
The same applies to an official IUF representative or two independent representatives of the national or regional unicycling, cycling or athletics federation.
Similarly, reports from local media will never be able to confirm the compliance of a service provided, as they will simply not know the exact rules at all.
All in all, all these statements are rather suitable to capture the overall conditions of the event and to determine whether the event is basically suitable to set a record - but not to confirm a concrete record in detail.
I think the guidelines are very much based on those of Guinnes and are therefore rather intended for records where there is no fixed set of rules, which must be observed during a record attempt.
In addition, I think it is possible to dispense with an individual and signed testimony of each witness, provided that you have a form on which all necessary information must be entered and on which there is also room for the signatures.
2.2 Photos and Videos
Photos and videos can be helpful to capture the overall conditions of the event and the record, but I don't think they will be able to capture the details of the record in a satisfactory way.
You will not be able to check on a video, if someone left the track at the 400 m race nor you can check the time someon has reached at a race. Photos anyway will not. I therefore think that photos and videos can be useful as additional information, but I would not make them necessary for the recognition of a record.
In my opinion, the official results list of the competition should be sent along with the documentation.
I would also make the call for the competition or the program of an event a necessary document, which must be sent in any case.
This also makes it possible to evaluate the setting of the event, to obtain information about the organizer and thus about potential contact persons in the event of queries about the event and the record, as well as about any additional rules that might apply during the competition.
2.3 Course an Time Measurment
For athletic tracks there are usually measurement protocols to confirm the compliance to the IAAF rules.
Together with an indication about the used finish image system I think one has a good documentation for the track races here.
I think the specification "Standard track records are set on a 400m Athletics Track" makes sense - even for the short distances, because it doesn't only give a statement about the length, but also about the ground condition, which is therefore comparable with all track records.
Comment
Good thoughts, I agree with most of it.
I'm just not sure if we should make the call for competition, or the program of the event, a required document. What does it add, if we have the other items of proof that you describe?
I know you gave some answers already but why do we need to evaluate the setting of the event, or to have other contact persons than the witnesses you mentioned, or to know about possible additional rules?
Comment
I hope that no one will ever get the idea to fake a record attempt in unicycling - but I don't think it harms to have as much (already available) information as possible for a record attempt. And since every official competition event will have a call for competition or at least a program, I think it is possible to send this information to us without any additional effort. For me these are simply further proofs for the credibility of the other statements.
Maybe we wouldn't necessarily need them, but since they are already available information, my question would be rather: Does it harm anyone if we also request this information?
Especially at competitions where nobody from the WRC was present or does not know anybody personally who was present, it might be helpful to have a lot of different information about the competition and to be able to document it. An additional contact person from the organizer might be useful if we want to check things the judges might not know (e.g. details about the timing system or the early start monitoring).
Comment
OK, I go along with that. How about the others?
Comment
agree!
Comment
I agree with Jan Vocke's opinion that no one will create fake data for WR updates.
Although it is necessary to confirm the WR member in order to complete the process, I think it is also necessary for the supervisor of each event to respect the confirmation.
Comment
I agree.
Comment
In general, we seem to agree that the official referees should be named as witnesses rather than randomly present persons or spectators. For any form of race, it seems that starter, the timekeeper and the referee are a good choice.
Two questions remain:
1. What do we do in the technical disciplines? So in high and long jump and other disciplines that don't have a starter and timekeeper?
I think there will be at least two judges at each competition in these disciplines who will judge one attempt - these two judges I would demand as witnesses. In addition, a referee will be responsible for the entire competition, which could be requested as a third witness.
2. What do we do with attempts that are not performed within the scope of official competitions?
At the races a time measurement will also be necessary here, which will be started in some form. Also with the technical disciplines we have to measure someone's height/width - so I think we can demand that the tasks of the judges prescribed for the competitions are taken over by persons even in the case of attempts other than official competitions and that they confirm the adherence to the rules after the attempt.
In summary, the following witnesses would be the ones for each attempt:
1.) 1st judge / starter
2.) 2nd judge / timekeeper
3.) referee
Comment
Basically you propose that if an attempt is done outside of competition ("competition" includes immediately after competition, with all equipment and officials still in place), that the tasks normally done by officials are now carried out by persons dedicated to this task. And that they are the required witnesses. Sounds good to me.
One question. The starter and the referee are usually single individuals - no problem there.
But what about time keeper? I think that in competition events this is often a system (laserbeam / computer / camera / whatever) and usually operated by more than one person simultaneously. So, who should be the witness?
Of course this question may also apply to attempts outside of competition.
Comment
I guess the witness should be the person RESPONSIBLE for the system.
Comment
Yes, the judge "timekeeper" is perhaps a little undefined (I think that would be another issue for the rulebook committee...).
At races there is in fact usually an electronic system, which records the times.
However, especially in track races and time recording with a camera, there is no fully automatic determination of the times. Here you have a finish-image evaluator who determines the times based on the finish-image made by the system and assigns them to the riders. In this case I think the finish-image evaluator would be the timekeeper and the required witness.
With other systems, like the transponder measurement for road races or a photoelectric sensor system at the IUF Slalom, the times are usually determined directly by the system and assigned to a driver. In this case, the person who monitors the assignment would be the timekeeper and thus the required witness.
But I would also agree with Mirjam's suggestion that the person who is responsible for the system is the timekeeper in this case.
But the responsibility is again somewhat difficult to define:
Is it the one who is "technically" responsible for the system (i.e. that everything works and can be worked with) or is it the one who is rather "administraively" responsible for it (i.e. responsible for the volunteers who work with it and for ensuring that the data are correct).
Comment
As to the question Who is responsible for the time keeping system: I think it is the one "administratively" responsible for it. The other person is rather a technician but not someone that has a responsibility to the outside world, so to speak. If a rider were to file a protest against the timing results, the "administratively" responsible official would have the last say about it (*). He might in turn consult the person who is technically responsible, but the latter is not the qualified official to decide on the protest.
(*)Or maybe the race director but he in turn will rely on the "administratively" responsible official rather than (directly) on the technician.
Comment
A little story about checking records... The accrediting body for Guinness for Lands End to John O'Groats was a separate association, although you can apply to them directly as well. They were asked to accredit a record for a running record. The record was submitted to Guinness simultaneously and who immediately put it in their book without checking. The LEJOG association checked the gps data and found that she had run on a non permissible road (UK motorway) and hence broke the rules. They disallowed the record... oops on Guinness.
Comment
Goes to show that there are valid reasons for checking the submitted data.
Comment
I agree with most of what Jan said above- the documentation criteria was to satisfy the WR committee that a record actually happened. This might not be an issue in a competition event (where there are lots of witnesses/organisers). Prior the the WR Guidelines, people were posting things like high jump and long jump records on internet forums with next to no documentation or witnesses.
The documentation criteria were aimed at people making solo attempts outside of competition (eg 24hr and other time trial records), but attempted to make it easier for people who broke records during competition (eg Unicon), but we have seen the limitations of this over the years. There is a lot of non-Unicon competition which are of a very high, or higher, standard than Unicon.
The only problem I see is what constitutes an 'official competition'. In the proposal, it might be important to define this (eg 'an official competition is one where there are XX number of competitors and it has been run according to IUF rulebook, with a starter, a timekeeper and a referee). A club or even a national event in New Zealand might be an 'official competition', but is not comparable in standard to a major European championship. The IUF needs discretion in terms of how much documentation it requires from organisers and riders.
Comment
In another discussion we talked about "IUF-sanctioned competitions". That would mean competitions in which the IUF is behind the organisation. This includes at least all Unicons, and I believe also all European Championships. Possibly more.
We can trust that these competitions follow the IUF Rulebook.
Organisers of other competitions might state that they follow the IUF Rulebook, but how can we be sure that they do that correctly? The only way, I think, is to check against our full set of requirements.
Regardless, I would be against requiring an XX number of competitors. To me, that doesn't matter in itself.
Comment
I used XX number of competitors just as an example, but I think we need to think about how we define an 'official' IUF sanctioned competition, if we decide to loosen the documentation requirements.
When you say the IUF is behind the organisation, the question is 'who is the IUF'? Are we talking about the IUF board of directors? The World Record committee? Anyone with IUF membership? Even a major championship may not have anyone from the IUF board of directors involved in the organisation, yet the IUF board may get asked to 'sanction' the event simply because it is a major continental or regional event. As a director on the IUF board- I'm often asked to vote on recognising events I've never heard of, run by people I do not know.
Comment
Let me try to summarise the discussion so far in terms of what we seem to agree on, and remaining issues.
The discussion was started to apply to all documentation, but has mostly narrowed down to track races.
We seem to agree on:
1. For records on athletics tracks, we generally trust that an official track has been properly measured, and thus we remove the requirement for a surveyor's report or a letter from the governing sports body as currently in 3.1.1.
2. We want to maintain the requirement that track records are set on a 400m athletics track. Not only does this standardise the number of curves and their approximate radius, but it also standardises the quality/nature of the riding surface. We still need to make a list of exemptions such as IUF slalom.
3. In section 3.1, replace "held" by "set".
4. We have agreed elsewhere that records in disciplines that are mentioned in the Rulebook, must be set during competition or immediately thereafter. Can't find it back right now. In above discussion we talked about track records set outside competition, but this seems obsolete and we can ignore those comments.
5. For track records, we require a copy of the call for competition, and a copy of the official results list on which the relevant result appears.
6. Witnesses for track records must include: the referee or director of the relevant competition, the starter, and the person 'administratively' responsible for time measurement. For lane-bound races also the witnesses that check that the rider stayed within their lane. The witness requirements in 2.1 do not generally apply to records set in competition, i.e. track races, jumps, slow races, stillstand.
7. We also mentioned that in disciplines that don't have a starter and/or timekeeper (e.g. jumps), these must be replaced by witnesses that acted as judges for the event.
8. For records from competitions, photo and video may be useful as additional information, but they are not required for recognition of a record.
Please speak up if you would not agree on the above.
Brought up but not yet fully discussed:
The strictness of the rules should correspond to the strictness that we actually apply for granting records. One example I gave (of where we seem to be more relaxed than the rules require) is track length for Track races, but this has been addressed in the above summary. Another example I gave is, do we ever contact witnesses to verify their statement? (This is not strictly required in the WRG, but there must be a reason that witnesses supply their contact details.) There may be more examples were the rules are stricter than how we apply them.
Some more issues that I would want to decide on:
1. Do we require electronic false start monitoring in order to grant a record?
2. If yes, would that include time trials?
3. Do we require electronic timing in order to grant a record?
4. If yes, then (a) would that include time trials, and (b) any more detailed requirements as to how?
New (but perhaps needs separate discussion(s)):
The discussion so far (summarised above) implies that many of the documentation requirements under 2 do not apply to track races. (And probably not to any records from competitions including jumps, slow, stillstand, road races.)
This has repercussions for the text of chapters 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Perhaps we need to rearrange things because Track Records, Road Race record and Jumps records, are all similar in that they must be done in competition and have corresponding rules for witnesses and documentation. Whereas Time Trials are done outside competition, which corresponds better to the rules currently in Chapter 2.
Where do Slow Races and Stillstand fit in? Have we discussed/decided that already, and in which discussion or proposal?
Comment
Klaas, thanks for the summary for points 1-8. It's already discussed and I think it is ok like this.
For your issues you want to decide on:
1. I'd say up to and including 400m yes (as it is also done in atheltics).
2. From my point of view not necessary.
3. Absolutely yes for all track disciplines (except Stillstand).
4. (a) If two stop watches are used like it used to be done up to now, I don't think it's absolutely necessary. (b) Important is that the start beep is directly connected with the timing system -> when the last beep comes time starts running automatically
I'm not sure if we already discussed the slow races and the stillstand but I suggest to have them under track (maybe track other) as it is in the rulebook.
Comment
I agree that we have discussed points 1-8 but I don't agree with all of that.
In particular with point 1, regarding the proof over the length of the track, I am against removing remove the requirement for a surveyor's report or a letter from the governing sports body. Not all athletics tracks have an IAAF certification and it could happen that there are some that do not meet the our requirements. If we do not check this, we make our records vulnerable. However, I would agree that proof that the sports facility in question has a valid World Athetics Certificate will also be accepted as proof. If this is not available, proof of surveying should be provided.
At the beginning of the discussion I wrote the following:
"2.3 Course an Time Measurment
For athletic tracks there are usually measurement protocols to confirm the compliance to the IAAF rules.
Together with an indication about the used finish image system I think one has a good documentation for the track races here.
I think the specification "Standard track records are set on a 400m Athletics Track" makes sense - even for the short distances, because it doesn't only give a statement about the length, but also about the ground condition, which is therefore comparable with all track records."
And I think that nothing else was really addressed in the discussion - but of course we can discuss this topic.
If this requirement is maintained, it would also apply to all record categories - and not only for track races, when a measured course is needed, it must be officially measured. If applicable, however, proof with a valid World Athletics Certificat would also be possible.
Regarding point 2, one could discuss whether an indoor track and field athletics facility would also be permissible for the short distances one foot and wheel walk, as it would have the same standard for quality/nature of the riding surface.
I agree with 3.
To point 4: I remember the discussion, but I am no longer quite sure what the outcome was. I know that I was in general against accepting records that are set outside of official competitions - as long as the record attempts are registered in time and all rules for competitions are respected. But I realize that this is not an easy issue and if the majority is to recognize only records from official competitions, then I will join them.
To point 5: I agree but I think we should also require the Foto Finish Image, thus we have prooven also the offical timing.
I agree with 6, 7 and 8. With this we cover the question of witnesses for all records except time trials I think.
I agree with Mirjam for your issues you want to decide on. But I have a few more remarks:
1. I can live with not demanding electronic false start monitoring at 800 m, especially since this is not possible with a waterfall start. However, we must then ensure that the start is adequately monitored by judges. For this we have to distinguish between a staggered start and a waterfall start. In a staggered start one person can actually only monitor one lane adequately, in a waterfall start one person can monitor much more. For a staggered start, electronic monitoring is probably the easier way to ensure that the start is properly monitored. But I'm fine with not rwquire this and only require an adequately monitored start at 800 m.
4. (b) I think we should follow the rulebooks Unicon requrements (2D.9 Timing, Photo Finish and False Start Monitoring) with regard to the requirements for the electronic timing system.
A Fully Automatic Timing and Photo Finish System must be used for the track races at Unicon and is strongly recommended for track races at all other competitions. The system must have been tested, and have a certificate of accuracy issued within 4 years of the competition, including the following:
1. The System must record the finish through a camera positioned in the extension of the finish line, producing a composite photo finish image of at least 100 images per second, ideally 1000 images per second. The image must be synchronized with a uniformly marked time-scale graduated in 0.01 seconds.
2. The System shall be started automatically by the Starter’s signal, so that the overall delay between the start signal and the start of the timing system is constant and equal to or less than 0.001 second.
I think that the current chapter 2 of the guidelines is only suitable for time trials anymore. If everything else is done in official competitions according to the official IUF rules, the new elaborations are much more appropriate.
Comment
Trying to summarise again, I hope this is helpful:
AGREEMENT:
So far, we all agree on A3, A6, A7 and A8, as well as B2, B4a. (A refers to my first set of numbered points in my previous post, while B refers to the second set.)
In fact, we also agree on A4. For the discussion and its outcome on records to be set in competition or immediately thereafter, see Discussion 17 and Proposal 10 (which passed).
Slow Races and Stillstand (and Coasting and Gliding) have already been added to the new WRG under "Track: Other Records", see Discussion 10 and Proposal 14 (which passed).
REMAINING ISSUES:
A1, length of athletics tracks: the current WRG 3.1.1 do always require a surveyor's report or a letter from the sports body in charge. I understand from Mirjam that in the past this has not been adhered to, and that the length of athletics tracks has been taken for granted. Jan wants to maintain this requirement, although he is willing to accept a valid World Athletics Certificate as proof.
I see a problem with this. There is no requirement for track length measurement (or a report about it) in the IUF Rulebook - if it were there, it should be in section 2D.1 Venue. This could lead to the situation that a Unicon is done according to all the rules in the Rulebook, but the WRC don't recognise a record. How can we explain this?
A2, which track disciplines may be done indoors? I would agree that besides IUF slalom, also one foot and wheel walk would be OK. In fact, why could not ALL track disciplines be done indoors, as long as the track dimensions are OK? For one thing, it would mostly remove wind influence (although one must be careful... I heard of one indoor skating track where the ventilation system was set up to create a tailwind). By the way, here also we need corresponding rules in the Rulebook.
A5, Copies of call for competition and results list. So far, we all agree that we require these.
Jan adds that we should also require the finish photo. I agree. Note that the Rulebook requires a Photo Finish System, but the WR Guidelines do not. I think we should add this requirement.
B1: We agree to require electronic false start monitoring for distances of 400 meters or less. Longer distances (such as 800m) must be adequately monitored for false starts, but this needs not be electronic.
I would add an exception for the slow races forwards and backwards, and also for stillstand. To my knowledge, these are usually timed without electronic equipment.
B3 I agree that electronic time measurement is necessary for all track disciplines with some exceptions. Mirjam proposed an exception for Stillstand. I would add an exception for Slow Races.
B4b. I agree with Jan that we require the same as in the Rulebook 2D.9. That also covers Mirjam's comment so I think she will agree too?
Finally: indeed, Chapter 2 should only apply to Time Trials. This implies a restructuring of the Rulebook. I'll think about how to discuss/propose this, it doesn't belong in this discussion I think.
Comment
A1: Good question. I also think it is not always easy to find the right person to have these documents. Can we require this extra effort in "paperwork" from riders who set a record outside Unicon?
A2: I see no problem with indoor competitions. To the ventilation system with tailwind -> If there is wind measurement, it should not be a problem.
A5: agree for the finish photo
B1: In the past competitions also slow races where with electronic timing - the system started running as soon as the rider passed the starting line (so no false start system was needed) and it stopped again after the finish line.
B3: I don't like the idea to have slow races not timed electronically.
B4b: yes!
Comment
A1. For riders setting a record outside Unicon, I think we can require the extra paperwork.
But my question is rather for records set at Unicon, especially in cases where the host does not have a surveyor's report of the track. For Unicon, this is within the rules of the Rulebook. But what do we do with a record then?
A2. The IAAF does not require wind measurements for indoor athletics. I think we should do the same. I can't imagine the ventilator tailwind (if there is any) to be more than 2 m/s.
B1 and B3. I remember having seen Slow Races at a recent Unicon that were hand-clocked. Or is that incorrect?
Comment
A1: Ok I see the problem. That's a good question. It would definitely not be ok to not recognize that record then.
A2: That's true, and I also don't think that we will have indoor competitions in the near future - most tracks indoor are only 300m long which is against our rules.
B1 and B3: For sure not at Unicon 19 (I was slow director there) and also not at ECU2017, not at Unicon 18 and not at ECU2015. I don't remember Montreal but that is already 6 years ago.
Comment
A1. I would like to hear Jan's view on this.
A2. We sometimes have indoor track results. The IUF Slalom finals at ECU 2017 which resulted in a WR, were held indoor.
B1 and B3. Apparently we can realistically require that Slow Races are electronically timed. In that case, that's OK with me.
Comment
Here is my opinion on the remaining open issues:
A1. I think in the past it was also not the case that all requirements of the WRG were included in the rulebook - the WRG include a sentence for that: "UNICON organisers must ensure they are compliant with the standards required for setting an IUF world record."
Strictly speaking, this means that up to now it was also the task of the host to make sure that the track meets the requirements of the WRG and is therefore officially measured. The fact that this was not handled so strictly is actually not to blame on the rules. But I completely agree that the rulebook should define the rules for a Unicon in a way that automatically covers the WRG as well - but I think for a transitional period it would also be conceivable to have the requirements only in the WRG.
I would like to explain once again why I am so strongly insisting that the track is officially surveyed: I think we all agree that we don't want to recognize a WR where the timing is doubtful (like e.g. at the Unicon in Korea), we want to make sure that the measured time really corresponds to the performance in the corresponding discipline - but performance in this case is nothing else than distance per time (under observance of some further regulations)... If we now make regulations for the time measurement, which ensure that it is exact to say 1/100 s but as far as distance is concerned, we simply trust that it will be right, then that is a contradiction in itself. The performance is calculated from two parameters to be measured and only for one of them we demand an exact measurement? I think that would simply be very inconsistent.
In other words: It happens that the Unicon track races are held in a stadium that does not have an IAAF certificate and (coincidentally) has been measured and would NOT meet the IAAF requirements - e.g. the 100m straight is only 99.98m long. Would it then be okay for you to recognize performances that were completed on this to short track as WR? I guess not. But if we just don't know that the track was too short, then it would be okay?
We draw up these WRGs to ensure that all WRs are set up under the same comparable conditions - I think we should then also ensure that the conditions are really the same everywhere.
A2. Indoor athletics tracks have a length of 200m and therefore offer different conditions than an outdoor facility, especially with regard to the curve radius and the number of curves/straight sections. However, for disciplines up to 60m there is a straight section within the 200m track. In athletics, records are generally divided into indoor and outdoor records, but there are no outdoor world records in athletics that are shorter than 60 m. I think for disciplines that have the same track conditions both indoors and outdoors, we can think about allowing indoor facilities, but not for the others.
B1 and B3. I think electronic timing is less critical for slow records (results not accurate to 1/100 s) than for other disciplines. But how good hand stopped times actually are depends on the judges - in principle it is realistic to get results accurate to 1/10 s with a hand stop. I think that possible micro-errors are much more critical than the stopped time for slow records. But of course I agree that whenever electronic timing is available it should be used and if an electronic system for WR is desired, then I would be fine with that.
Comment
A1. Earlier I wrote that if a Unicon host does not have a surveyor's report of the track, that is within the rules of the Rulebook. But that is incorrect. I looked only in 2D.1 Venue, which doesn't mention such a report. However, in 1A.5, this requirement is implicitly still included. I quote in full:
Especially for Unicon or other large conventions, the host is strongly encouraged to
ensure that the competitions are conducted and recorded according to the current IUF
World Record Guidelines. Competitors will in principle expect that the quality of the
results is suitable for world records.
If this is not realistically possible, then the competition results cannot be used for new
world records. In this case, every effort must be made that competitors are made aware
of this at least two months in advance.
This statement is apparently easily overlooked. Therefore, I would like the Rulebook to emphasise/repeat some practical issues in other places (like the surveyor's report in 2D.1). Also, if IUF works with a Unicon host to make sure that everything will be in order, they should check this sort of things.
I understand Jan's argument, and because there is theoretically no inconsistency with the Rulebook (which I mistakenly thought there was), I agree to requiring a surveyor's report before granting new track WR's. We can require this from now on for any new track WR claims.
Would we need to devaluate current track WR's where tracks were not officially surveyed, or where we can't find the evidence (anymore)? I tend to think we keep them fully valid as they are, and only do better from now on.
A2. I think we now agree that indoor track records are valid as long as (1) the riding surface is comparable to a regular athletics track, and (2) the geometry of the track is the same as a regular outdoor 400m track.
Do we also agree that (like IAAF) we don't require wind measurement for indoor records?
B1/B3. In my opinion, the final WRG should not 'prefer' anything or request something 'ideally'.
The WRG should only 'require' and 'allow'.
Now the question is: do we 'require' electronic timing for Slow Races, or do we 'allow' hand-stopped times?
I would be OK with either 'require' or 'allow'.
It seems Jan would too.
Mirjam, with the current input it seems to hinge on you. You are the most knowledgeable about Slow Races.
Comment
A1: I also tend to keep records valid - it would seem strange if we had to contact riders in case of their record not being valid anymore. That would give a lot of negative discussions about our work up to now.
A2: I agree with no wind measurement indoors.
B1/B3: I am also ok if we don't require electronic timing for slow records. But in order to really keep it fair I'd still tend to electronic timing. Just to keep in mind: We have slow riders who take almost 3min for these 10m, so there is a big time period where judges could possibly stop the stopwatch. Is it at the moment when the front of the wheel crosses the finish line or rather when the middle of the wheel crosses it? It's either a rulebook question than a question to be discussed here but if it is electronically timed, it is the exact same moment for all riders. I will be slow director at Unicon 20 and also there I insist on having electronic timing for slow races.
Comment
B1/B3. In the Rulebook 2B.8.5.1, it is specified that timing is based on the tyre contact point. This makes sense, because it is far easier to judge by eye than front of the tyre.
Note that if you use electronic timing, then the light beam will be at some height above the riding surface. The position needs to be adjusted such that the trigger point is still when the contact point crosses the start and finish lines.
A similar adjustment is also done in track racing, except that there the front of the wheel is timed rather than the contact point. The light beam is much lower than the front of the wheel (at least in the setup of the Swiss Timing Team) and the position of the beam and receiver is adjusted accordingly, depending on wheel size.
Comment
To the question whether current records should retain their validity: I think with the current update of the WRG this question does not only arise with regard to the measurement of the track - but much more with regard to whether the other conditions that might now be implemented were fulfilled (Timing System/Finish Camera, false start monitoring, wind measurement) - I don't think it will be possible to check this afterwards, unless it happened to be documented back when the record was set. I also completely agree that it would seem strange if we were to write to the current world record holders and tell them that their records have been annulled. But I think we can state that our sport is developing and the old records will not necessarily comparable with the "new records". Perhaps it would therefore be most sensible to draw a line in the development/history of records with the appearance of the new WRG and to keep everything achieved so far as records before the introduction of the new Gudelines and to start a new list. Possibly with a kind of "dummy value" which, based on the previous world records, forms a limit from which a performance can be submitted as a new world record claim. Otherwise it could of course lead to a flood of new world record claims at the beginning. Nevertheless, in my opinion we should take into account that previous records could be set with e.g. a strong tail wind and therefore might not be achieved with the new rules.
Comment
Jan, do you agree with not requiring wind measurement for indoor records? That, I think, is the last open question in this discussion.
The topic (validity of old records) fits in another discussion that I am planning to start in "Additional World Record Issues (not in Guidelines)". Will do so in the next few days. Anyone can then feel free to copy the relevant text there.
Comment
I'm fine with not requiring wind measurement for records set indoor.
You're right, this is getting away from the original issue at hand. I will then copy my text into the new topic.
Comment
See the new discussion 36 for validity of old records.
Comment
I think everything has been clarified with regard to the documentation requirements, right? Then a proposal could be created for this?
Comment
I am working on disentangling this discussion. We have reached agreement about all the points discussed above (I think). But not all of them are about documentation criteria, and so they should end up in several chapters.