Documentation of Records - Part 1 - General information

This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.

Comments about this discussion:

Started 04 Jan 08:21

So far there is no information on what general information must be submitted to the WRC as part of a world record claim. In my view, there is a need for action here and we should always ask for some general information.
For me, this includes:

1. the event in which the performance was achieved, including the event venue/location
2. the competition in which the performance was achieved, including the date and time of the performance
3. the performance achieved

In addition, we should always receive information about the athlete / all athletes (in the case of a relay team) who achieved the performance:
1. first and last name
2. gender
3. date of birth
4. e-mail address
5. club
6. country

All this information is completely independent of the specific discipline in which a world record is set. I think we can therefore request this information for every record without any restrictions.

Furthermore, I would request the following additional documents for all records that were set within the framework of an official competition:
1. an call for competition or program of the competition
2. a complete list of results

These two things are not really applicable to Time Trails, as they are usually carried out as individual attempts and therefore both things do not exist.
As an alternative to the call for competition or the program, however, one could demand that the IUF WRC is informed accordingly in advance and that the planned procedure is communicated. Since the individual attempts outside of competitions require appropriate planning anyway and the attempt is usually made explicitly with the aim of setting a world record, this requirement seems to me to be easy to implement.

Comment 17 Jan 03:09

Does no one have anything to say about the topics concerning the documentation of records? In my opinion, this is one of the biggest open issues and I'm a bit surprised that no one has any comments. I would like to finalize the topic soon - so please give feedback, even if you agree with the rather general suggestions so far, then I would make concrete rule proposals based on that. But I had actually assumed that there would still be a need for discussion on some points.

Comment 17 Jan 05:35

I have read your comment two weeks ago and as I think it is a good summary of all we have already discussed either in the world records committee or here I have nothing to add.

Comment 17 Jan 12:27

In my opinion, we should reduce the paperwork of documentation to a minimum and make a difference between:

information that is required for the evaluation of the record and
information that is "only" interesting to know, but not required to confirm compliance with the rules.

To the mentioned points:

1. the event in which the performance was achieved --> required, because records must be done in framework of an official competition (see proposal 10)

the event venue/location --> required (for example, for the list of world records)

2. the competition in which the performance was achieved --> required, but I think "discipline" would be more clear than "competition"

the date --> required (for example, for the list of world records)

time of the performance --> maybe interesting to know, but not required to evaluate the performance; Or is it important to know if the record was done at 2:00 p.m. or 2:10 p.m. ...?

To the points in terms of the athlete:

first and last name, gender, country --> required

date of birth, club --> interesting to know, but not required

e-mail address --> required (to contact the athlete)

To the additional documents for all records that were set within the framework of an official competition:

program of the competition --> not required; To me it seems redundant if we have already asked about event and date. Furthermore, we know that competition schedules can chance within a short time.

call for competition --> Why the call for competition should be submitted? To verify if the competition exists?

a complete list of results --> In this point we have to make a difference between the following two cases:

records were done during the competition --> result list required to verify the result
additional record attempt on the day of competition (see proposal 10, number of attempts) --> result list not required, because the list doesn't include results from additional record attempts.

Comment 20 Jan 02:13

I would generally agree that we should strive to minimize paperwork - but of course we must ensure that all world records remain well documented and traceable over time. I would also consider the collection of all the data mentioned to be done so quickly that omitting information would not really reduce the amount of paperwork, but would result in poorer documentation.

Why I consider individual items to be important for the documentation:

time of the performance - I would definitely make the time required so that it is easier, for example, to identify other possible witnesses afterwards if things need to be checked. Without an (at least rough) time, this becomes much more difficult. A plausibility check of the information provided by judges etc. is also much easier if the time at which the performance took place is known. In addition, in my opinion, it simply makes a more professional and serious impression if the time of the performance is documented as precisely as possible and there is no more effort needed for the documentation, so it's quite easy to achive.

date of birth, club - In my opinion, this information is also essential for the documentation of a world record. The name of an athlete alone may not be unique. Together with a date of birth and a club, however, the probability that the performance cannot be clearly assigned to one person is close to zero.

call for competition (or program) - We had already talked about this in the original discussion and I can only repeat here what I had already written there:
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.
So in my opinion, the call for competition should always be submitted - only if this is not available would I consider a program of the competition sufficient as an alternative. But of course one can also ask oneself how official a competition is if there is no call for competition... but I would still allow the program as a backup.

complete list of results - You are absolutely right that if we allow records outside of official competitions, these performances will of course not appear on official results lists. This is definitely a problem for the documentation, because for outsiders such a performance is no longer comprehensible in retrospect. In a record list, the performance would be listed as if it had been achieved in an official competition, but the performance does not appear anywhere in the officially available results lists - this is anything but transparent and comprehensible. Perhaps we should reconsider whether we really want to allow performances that were set outside of an official competition as world records... The alternative, of course, would be that the organizers of events would somehow have to list additional world record attempts separately in the official results lists - but I doubt a little that something like that can actually be implemented.

Comment 21 Jan 08:00

I have created a concrete proposal taking Ana's comments into account. However, the question remains open, if we want to keep 4.2 or only allow performances achieved in official competitions? If we want to keep 4.2, how should the results be documented?
I think it should be some kind of official document of the event organizer, which is also published by the organizer. In the best case scenario, the additional attempts would somehow be integrated into the official results lists and marked as additional world record attempts outside the normal ranking. A simple handwritten note would not be sufficient documentation for me.

Comment 21 Jan 08:44

I would not delete section 4.2. However it must be clear how the results should be documented. For example I don't think that it is enough to have just a handwritten paper which says that a record has been broken. If there are clear guidelines what needs to be documented I don't see a problem for an official form. And technically it should also be possible to integrate the result into the result list with a * or something.

Comment 21 Jan 09:15

If the additional attempts would be integrated into the official results list, then that would be ideal from my point of view - because then the results would be just as publicly accessible as all other results. The question is, of course, whether we can/want to include this as a requirement in the Gudelines?

I could also imagine simply eliminating the additional attempts outside of official competitions. At the same time, I could imagine that in disciplines where the riders have multiple attempts, it could be included in the rulebook that the winners of a final can get additional attempts for a world record - but these attempts would then be counted as normal competition attempts. Since the attempts would be onlyy given to the winner the ranking couldn't change anyways.

Comment 22 Jan 09:57

I like that idea. We are basically talking about disciplines like slow balance, high/long jump or IUF Slalom if I understand your proposal correctly.

As I wrote, technically it wouldn't be a problem to integrate, however it's always extra work and if we require it for a record we should also make sure that it is then made like that, which could lead to problems because somebody forgot or didn't know.

Comment 22 Jan 10:55

> We are basically talking about disciplines like slow balance, high/long jump or IUF Slalom if I understand your proposal correctly.

Yes, I would say essentially all disciplines in which the athletes have more than one attempt anyway. That would be stillstand, the slow balance disciplines, track gliding and track coasting, IUF slalom and all jumping disciplines.

> however it's always extra work and if we require it for a record we should also make sure that it is then made like that, which could lead to problems because somebody forgot or didn't know.

I totally agree with you - so it might be beneficial if the IUF Rulebook allows additional attempts for the winners of certain disciplines and these are to be counted as normal competition results. This would make it much less likely that they would not be included in the results lists and we would not need a special rule in the WRG.

Comment 22 Jan 11:31

I would suggest that "club" should not be a requirement of submission? Not every county has clubs and hence their competing competitors wont have one. I would suggest it is an optional field/request. "Address" is a more common field to request as an identifier.

Can you please explain "call for competition". In all the events I have organised these words have never been used. I have looked within the IUF rule book and can not find it used. If I do not understand them, I suspect others will not either.

Comment 22 Jan 12:38

I don´t understand why we have now to discuss if we allow additional WR attempts or not, because Proposal 10 says the following:

"For any discipline that is governed by the IUF Rulebook, a rider has the same number of attempts as specified by the Rulebook. For races this would normally be once (but twice for IUF slalom, slow races etc). For jumps the number in the current Rulebook (2017) is three attempts per height/distance, and twelve attempts overall.
This maximum number of attempts is allowed once per day (date), with the exception of a record attempt on the same day of a competition and using the equipment and officials already in place, in which case the attempt counter is reset."

This proposal has already passed and so we have to accept the mentioned rules.

According to proposal 10 an additional attempt (or two additional attempts for certain disciplines) is allowed for every rider in every discipline.

Aside from that, the idea of giving an additional attempt only to the winner seems not realistic and would make the whole process more complicated:

First, you have to wait until all riders have done their competition attempts. Then the equipment will be dismantled. Results often will be published hours or days later. So, when you know who is the winner, the equipment and also the judges are not available anymore....

Comment 22 Jan 13:50

I agree that it would make a professional impression, if results of additional record attempts were published. But that should not be a criterion, whether a record will be acknowledged or not. Just the fact that a result is published, says nothing about the performance. To me it seems also irrelevant if the result is handwritten or typewritten. What we need is the result of the attempt and the signatures of judges, referee and director.

I suggest the following documentation in the form:

For disciplines in which riders have one attempt (100m, 400m...)

Attempt 1 (competition result):

Attempt 2 (additional WR attempt):

For disciplines in which riders have two attempts (IUF Slalom, Slow Balance...)

Attempt 1 (competition result):

Attempt 2 (competition result):

Attempt 3 (additional WR attempt):

Attempt 4 (additional WR attempt):

Comment 22 Jan 14:08

To the proposal:

Instead of

"iii Performance achieved"

I would write something like

"iii Performance achieved: results of all attempts (competition attempts and additional world record attempts)"

In my opinion that is a valid documentation in terms of 4.2

Comment 23 Jan 02:25

> I would suggest that "club" should not be a requirement of submission? Not every county has clubs and hence their competing competitors wont have one. I would suggest it is an optional field/request. "Address" is a more common field to request as an identifier.

I admit that I was perhaps looking at things from the perspective of a professional sport and unicycling is still a long way from that. It is certainly true that not every unicyclist is in a club - but I would still continue to ask about the club and make it mandatory for everyone who is in a club. We could change the point to the following:

iv Club, or city of residence, if not affiliated to a club

The disadvantage of making the address mandatory would be that, for example, an event director would no longer be able to complete the World Record form without contacting the athlete, as the address details are usually not available. All other data must usually be provided to register for a competition so they are available anyways.

> Can you please explain "call for competition". In all the events I have organised these words have never been used. I have looked within the IUF rule book and can not find it used. If I do not understand them, I suspect others will not either.

Maybe it's not the right word - in German it would be “Ausschreibung”. In other words, the document that officially announces a competition and thus (in my view) makes it an official competition. However, it is true that in unicycling such a document does not exist in any case, which is why I have included the official program of a competition in the proposal as an alternative.

> I don´t understand why we have now to discuss if we allow additional WR attempts or not, because Proposal 10 says the following: [...]
This proposal has already passed and so we have to accept the mentioned rules.

We can change rules as often as necessary during the revision process. Just because something has already been voted on once it does not necessarily mean that it will not turn out in the further course of the revision that the rule can be problematic together with other rules and therefore needs to be reconsidered. Especially with such an extensive revision of the rules as we are currently carrying out, it is probably unavoidable that rules will have to be adapted several times over the course of time in order to come up with a consistent and coherent set of rules.
In my opinion, the problem of documenting attempts outside of the official competition is a very serious one, so I think it is justified to consider whether we really want to keep these attempts or whether we would rather completely eliminate them for the sake of better documentation and the traceability and transparency of records.

> Aside from that, the idea of giving an additional attempt only to the winner seems not realistic and would make the whole process more complicated:

The objection is indeed justified in cases where no final is held - otherwise, of course, it is clear immediately after the final who is the winner and it would be no problem to grant them additional attempts.

>I agree that it would make a professional impression, if results of additional record attempts were published. But that should not be a criterion, whether a record will be acknowledged or not. Just the fact that a result is published, says nothing about the performance. To me it seems also irrelevant if the result is handwritten or typewritten. What we need is the result of the attempt and the signatures of judges, referee and director.

I would like to strongly disagree here. I am not (only) concerned about a professional impression - I am mainly concerned with the fact that a public list of results is, in my opinion, decisive proof of the performance. I would never trust the testimony of four individual persons without further evidence, only together with the other evidence does it become conclusive evidence as a whole and the results list is, in my opinion, decisive evidence. Why? All official results can be protested, so that an official results list can be regarded as approved by all athletes on it. This means that the performance is verified by significantly more people than just the four from whom we require signatures. It can also be assumed that the competitors are the “most critical reviewers” and that an objection to the results would very likely be made if there were any doubts about the conformity of a performance with the rules. This entire review does not apply if results are not achieved in official competitions. From my point of view, the crucial proof of performance by the “community” is therefore missing for these performances.

In addition, world records based on unpublished results are not transparent or comprehensible for outsiders. In these cases, the world record list would contain performances and a competition event - but if you search for the event and the results lists, the performance listed as a world record will not be found anywhere. This will lead to the records appearing dubious.

Comment 25 Jan 11:59

Thanks Jan for restarting the momentum. I'm trying to catch up.

1/ For the “club”, I also think that this should be an optional argument, given that many unicyclists are not affiliated to a club (those who have a club will be able to inform you). I don't think any other information should be required if the competitor doesn't belong to a club.

2/ For the “call for competition”, I agree with Roger's comment.

3/ As for the “number of attempts”, I'd like to thank Ana for raising this point. Perhaps this topic should be discussed again. I went through the discussion and Proposition 10, which was voted on 6 years ago. I think that limiting the number of attempts to that for the competition is in the same spirit as the discussions that took place 6 years ago. Admittedly, it's more radical and also simpler. It would make it possible to assert that these records took place in competition, under competition conditions. I can't think of any other sports where additional attempts are made outside competition.

Generally speaking, I think we need to make rules that correspond to the current state of unicycling. It's a trap to insist on making time-proof rules. For example, when there will be “calls for competition”, there will always be time to modify the guidelines.

Comment 26 Jan 03:24

Thank you for your feedback.

To 1/ If the majority is in favor of not asking for any other information if the athlete is not affiliated with a club, then I will remove the alternative from the proposal and leave the club optional.

To 2/ Then let's find another term. The IUF Rulebook has a section on communication in many chapters - in the end it is exactly about summarizing this communication in one document and making it available to the athletes. In Germany (and to some extent also in Italy and Austria) it is absolutely standard for an official competition to have such an official document with all the communication for the athletes. As I said, perhaps “call for competition” is not the right English term - how about “competition announcement” or “announcement of competition”?
We could also improve the link to the rulebook in the upcoming rulebook update by introducing the same term in the communication sections.

To 3/ I think it is indeed worth discussing this topic again for the reasons mentioned. Yes, it would be even stricter to completely eliminate the attempts outside of an official competition than what was decided back then - but it would also be much simpler and much easier for outsiders to understand. And it would have some advantages for the WRC in terms of documentation and validation of performance.
In addition, in many cases it is not possible to carry out additional attempts outside the official competition anyway - for example, in all road races or in time trials (if they are held as part of an official competition). But even in other disciplines, it may be anything but easy to arrange additional attempts outside of the competition. This could also lead to athletes feeling unfairly treated if an additional attempt is not possible. It would be fairer to generally only allow attempts from within the competition.
I don't know 100% how it is in other sports, but I also can't think of any sport where you can attempt world records outside of the official competition within an official event. In athletics, for example, it is the case that the best X athletes in a final round get additional attempts in certain disciplines - but these are just normal attempts within the framework of the competition and such additional attempts would be a topic for the rulebook and not for the WRG.

Comment 26 Jan 04:15

Sorry for the tardy reply, I've been busy with a record attempt the last couple of weeks.

- I agree with the comments regarding the club being optional. I don't belong to one, and neither do a good portion of participants at Unicon. Why does the event director need to contact the athlete? If they break a record, it is their responsibility to work with the event director to submit the record to the WR committee, if they want to be recognised.

- call for competition/ programme- would it be easier to contact the competition organisers, look at the event website/social media etc to verify the competition actually took place?

- Regarding the number of attempts- do you want to limit the records to competition only, or include outside of competition? For something like jumps, if someone makes a 100 different attempts outside of competition, and it is well documented and measured, why should this not count for a world record?

- For road racing records like 10km and marathon- why do you need competitors to race with? Outside of competition, the main difference with a time trial record is that you are allowed to draft, so it can be a paced record. It also allows course flexibility, as it does not have to be a track circuit.

- Section 2.v: 'country of residence' should be replaced with nationality, which, for most people, is more important. eg, when I set my Hour record- I lived in, and broke, the record in Australia. It doesn't mean I want to be listed as Australian.

- I would add documentation requirement for equipment. Obviously a standard unicycle is a standard unicycle, but for 29" class you want to know the crank length, and for unlimited class, you want to know the gearbox ratio/s, crank length and wheelsize.

Comment 26 Jan 05:15

Thank you also for your feedback.

> Why does the event director need to contact the athlete? If they break a record, it is their responsibility to work with the event director to submit the record to the WR committee, if they want to be recognised.

For example, we had discussed elsewhere that we still don't want to make it the responsibility of the athletes to claim the world records for Unicons - the event director, for example, would have to do that. But that doesn't matter if we don't want to ask for a full address anyway and also want to remove the alternative to the club.

> Section 2.v: 'country of residence' should be replaced with nationality, which, for most people, is more important. eg, when I set my Hour record- I lived in, and broke, the record in Australia. It doesn't mean I want to be listed as Australian.

We can change this to “nationality” if you like - but it may also be more difficult to find out if the data is not submitted by the athlete themselves, as nationality is often not asked for when registering (e.g. for Unicon, no nationality is currently requested).

> - call for competition/ programme- would it be easier to contact the competition organisers, look at the event website/social media etc to verify the competition actually took place?

We have already discussed this elsewhere - if the WRC receives information about the competition directly in the form of an official announcement or a program, it is definitely easiest for the WRC.Since there will be some kind of information about the competition in any case, it will be easy for the person claiming the record to simply send it along. So all in all, it's easy to obtain evidence.

> - Regarding the number of attempts- do you want to limit the records to competition only, or include outside of competition? For something like jumps, if someone makes a 100 different attempts outside of competition, and it is well documented and measured, why should this not count for a world record?

This has already been discussed in detail, as Ana has already pointed out. The question that remains, however, is whether we want to allow records outside of official competitions at all - and to be honest, I'm strongly tending towards not allowing them any more, as several reasons have already been mentioned above.

> - For road racing records like 10km and marathon- why do you need competitors to race with? Outside of competition, the main difference with a time trial record is that you are allowed to draft, so it can be a paced record. It also allows course flexibility, as it does not have to be a track circuit.

A record that was set outside of a competition is different from a record that was set inside a competition. Psychological aspects also play a role in setting a record and the situation outside of a competition is perhaps completely different to that inside a competition. I think there is a reason why records in other sports are also set in competitions and not in separate attempts.

> - I would add documentation requirement for equipment. Obviously a standard unicycle is a standard unicycle, but for 29" class you want to know the crank length, and for unlimited class, you want to know the gearbox ratio/s, crank length and wheelsize.

But wouldn't that be more of a requirement for discipline-specific documentation? Is there really something that we must always require in general in order to recognize a record? We could of course include a general reference to discipline-specific documentation criteria - although in my opinion this belongs more in section “2.3 Venue, Technical Equipment and Measurements”, where there is already a reference to discipline-specific documentation.

Comment 26 Jan 11:29

> As for the question of the athlete's involvement or not, I don't know if this is the place to talk about it. I have in mind recent examples of records broken and not claimed with the IUF, but the record is claimed on social networks... I hope the new version of WRG will help limit this.

>Now that Ken points it out, I find that nationality seems preferable to country of residence. In international competitions in other sports, it is most often nationality that is put forward (more than country of residence or club).

When you go to the list of participants of a UNICON, there is always the column "country". This gives the false impression that it is the nationality. It may be necessary to see if it is a problem to collect the nationality during registration. And what this implies for the national championships, foreigners are generally in a separate classification, but it can happen that a foreigner temporarily resides in the country... I am going a little too far, but I suppose that there are these kinds of implications.

>Concerning the call for competition, I think that what is problematic is that today this document is not formalized. It seems to me that the organization in Germany is particular with several federations and most of the events are specific to a discipline. In France, we have the CFM which is on the same format as the UNICON. The call for competition is not formalized, it is often an email, a post on social networks ... and the event can be canceled after the call. I don't see how this constitutes reliable proof that the competition took place. As more universal alternatives, I prefer: the website of the event (if the event is canceled, this is where we will know), the contact email of the organizations, and the competition program.

> On the other points I completely agree with Jan.

Comment 26 Jan 11:32

> For the “club”, I also think that this should be an optional argument, given that many unicyclists are not affiliated to a club (those who have a club will be able to inform you). I don't think any other information should be required if the competitor doesn't belong to a club.

I absolutely agree. The date of birth should be enough to assign the performance to the rider.

Call for competition/program:

The IUF provides an event calendar which includes many national and international competitions. But if a rider has broken a record, he has to submit the call for competition/program to the IUF to proof that the competition exists. That's absurd.

In case of a time trial record, that is only attempted by one person, you will never find the discipline in the program.

So, my suggestion is to require the call for competition/program only

if the competition can not be found in the IUF event calendar and
if the discipline in which the record is attempted is included in the program.

> We can change this to “nationality” if you like - but it may also be more difficult to find out if the data is not submitted by the athlete themselves, as nationality is often not asked for when registering (e.g. for Unicon, no nationality is currently requested).

Based on the unicon registration I would ask for the "represented country" instead of "country of residence" or "nationality".

> […] All official results can be protested, so that an official results list can be regarded as approved by all athletes on it. This means that the performance is verified by significantly more people than just the four from whom we require signatures. It can also be assumed that the competitors are the “most critical reviewers” and that an objection to the results would very likely be made if there were any doubts about the conformity of a performance with the rules. […]"

Competitors are interested in result lists, they want to know their result, their place and if an error was made.

But in case of an additional record attempt or a record in a discipline which is not part of the competition program, who should protest?

> In addition, world records based on unpublished results are not transparent or comprehensible for outsiders. In these cases, the world record list would contain performances and a competition event - but if you search for the event and the results lists, the performance listed as a world record will not be found anywhere. This will lead to the records appearing dubious.

I wouldn't criticize this point, if the current list of world records would be transparent. But in reality the situation is another:

If I have a look at the list, I can see records which can not be found in the result list because they were broken by an additional record attempt. In the list of world records you also can find records in certain disciplines which were not applied as official competitions in framework of the event in which the records were set up.

And on the other hand, I can see records in several disciplines that are not up to date. In other words: In official result lists you can find better performances than the results in the WR list.

In reality also the process of documentation is very time-consuming for riders during a competition. First you have to print out the form. Then you have to wait maybe for hours, if judges and/or director are not available anymore to sign the form.... In this context it seems crazy to say: "I would never trust the testimony of four individual persons […]".

Another problem is that world records were often acknowledged moths later after they were set up. So, the next competition will be hold until the record is acknowledged. And at this next competition the record maybe will be broken again.... What I want to say: If the documentation process gets more and more complicated, the process of acknowledgement will take longer. The consequence is that the list of world record will never be up to date.

Number of attempts:

For me both would be ok: to allow records only in competitions or to allow also additional record attempts (see proposal 10)

But the documentation criteria must be realistic to meet.

I am against a rule that allows an additional attempt only for the winner because in my opinion all riders should have the same number of attempts.

Comment 27 Jan 03:20

Regarding the question of nationality or country of residence: I think the fact that Unicon currently only asks which country someone wants to represent is indeed a big problem. This statement can't really be used for anything, because nowhere is specified which countries someone can represent. And it doesn't make any sense at all that someone can just freely represent any country they want. For records, I would therefore agree that nationality is the most meaningful, even if the country of residence is perhaps easier to determine (for an Event Director).
I think we can agree within the WRG that we want to ask for nationality - I would definitely agree with that and I could imagine that in the long run the IUF will also ask for something else in the UDA to end the arbitrariness of a country's representation.

Regarding the call for competition/competition program: I understand that this announcement of a competition does not exist everywhere in this form - but I wonder why we should not require it if it does exist? In organized sport, a competition announcement is the binding document that sets out the general conditions of a competition and is therefore a valuable source of information if, for example, the conditions under which competitions took place years later want to be looked at again.
For all those cases in which there is no such official announcement of a competition, the program is a permissible alternative, which also aims to obtain and archive as much information as possible about the competition.
I don't actually see it as the WRC's job to seek out information itself and then document it. The required documents are not only about the verification of a performance/competition, but also about its long-term archiving. A website is a very unfavorable option here, as it is usually no longer accessible some time after the competition or the information on the competition at the time is no longer available because new information has been added in the meantime. A website is therefore not suitable for the long-term documentation of records.

> But in case of an additional record attempt or a record in a discipline which is not part of the competition program, who should protest?

And that's exactly where I see a problem - additional attempts outside of the official competition are not checked by the community and so there is no additional validation, which in my opinion is very important.

> I wouldn't criticize this point, if the current list of world records would be transparent. But in reality the situation is another:

This is of course a serious problem that I would like to address. Would you please open a discussion in the “General issues” section (https://world-record-2017.committees.unicycling-software.com/committees/1) and further elaborate on the points so that we can come to a transparent and comprehensible list of records.
I just had a quick look at the list and many of the records listed were set at Unicons. For some others, I know that they were also set at official competitions and can certainly be found in the results lists. It would therefore be really helpful if you could explicitly address the records that were not set at an official event in the new discussion.
If you know that there are results from official competitions that are better than the records currently listed, please mention these as well. Then I would see if I could contact the athletes to ask why they did not claim the record.

> In reality also the process of documentation is very time-consuming for riders during a competition.

I have already documented several world records, and most of the documentation can be done in a few minutes. Measuring protocols for courses in road races or for stadiums in track races are more difficult - but if you know that you might break a record, it makes sense to take care of these documents in advance. Then you can also send the documentation to the WRC immediately after achieving a record worth performance. Collecting signatures would be considerably simplified with a form and the proposed new documentation criteria, as not every witness would have to write their own report, but would only have to sign one form, which would work quickly and immediately at the competition.

> What I want to say: If the documentation process gets more and more complicated, the process of acknowledgement will take longer.

The recognition of records takes a long time if the necessary information is not provided to the WRC in a bundled form or if the WRC has to search for the information itself. With the exception of the course measurement protocols, everything that is required by the new documentation criteria can be summarized in one form with a few attachments without any problems and directly at the competition. The proposed documentation criteria will therefore certainly not have a negative effect regarding the time.

Comment 29 Jan 05:52

I wonder if an additional description for attempts that take place outside of competition may be helpful to split competition criteria from outside competition criteria. I do not know where this would go, either at discipline level or at general level. I was thinking something like:

For record attempts that take place outside of competition you are required to provide evidence that shows irrefutably that record has been set. This will be a higher burden of proof than is required within an IUF sanctioned competition. Evidence considered may be:

Comment 29 Jan 10:09

> I wonder if an additional description for attempts that take place outside of competition may be helpful to split competition criteria from outside competition criteria.

But time trails are basically the only records that can be set outside of a competitive event. Paragraph 3 already contains an information about this: "For time trail performances achieved outside an official event, the equivalent documentation defined under 6.X Y. must be submitted."
I think if we want to have more information here, it makes the most sense to add it to the corresponding paragraph on Time Trials. The idea of section 2.1 General information was to list which information must always be submitted for each record. I would therefore avoid including too much discipline-specific information here. That's what the relevant sections of the individual disciplines are for.

I have revised the proposal in terms of making the club optinal, changing country of residence into nationality and changing the wording call for competition into announcement of competition.

How should we deal with the additional attempts? I would suggest that we open a new discussion for this and then integrate the adaptation of 2.1 - i.e. the proposal here - into the proposal there. Or should we first vote on the additional attempts and then finalize this proposal here and vote on it?

Comment 29 Jan 12:24

I prefer to vote first on the additional attempts.

Comment 23 Mar 04:40

I have gone through the discussion again and the points raised regarding the club, nationality, call for competition and documentation that were discussed here are all included in the current proposal.

Are there any further comments on this proposal or does everyone agree with the current version?

Comment 08 Apr 10:55

Since there were no further comments here, I would put the proposals to a vote soon and hope that all members of the committee will also take part in the vote.