Runners Association / Quality Mark for races

--amadeus--

I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I want to try and make sense of what's in my head and gague other peoples feelings a bit...

The AAI are responsible for permiting all road races in Ireland. They have a strict set of criteria for a race covering course accuracy, insurance, medical and the like. In theory it is an excellent system.

But in practice it's a failure. Chief among it's failings seems to be that Clubs seem to struggle to get permits in time from the AAI. With a running boom more and more people (enterupenurs and charities, in the main) are rushing to establish races and permits are very much an after thought.

And so runners look at online calenders or see adverts for runs and it's very much pot luck as to the quality of teh event. Lot's of high quality races lack permits but lots (and lots) of races also seem to lack the fundametals.

So what's teh solution?

Well I think it is an independent body who would provide a "quality mark" to races. This could be divided into three categories:

Cat C: Entry fee €10 or less
This is your common or garden local road race. No frills should be expected at this fee level but the basics should be in place. You should expect a course measured and accurate by GPS (2 different units measured a set number of times over the course of a week, perhaps). This course should be signed off as approved a minimum of 2 - 4 weeks in advance of teh race by the relevant authorities (AGS, council). There should be medical assistance booked in line with best practice. And if there is a "chosen charity" then explicitly state the probable donation (% of entry fee, profits, etc)

Cat B: Entry fee €10 - 25
Bigger local races, half marathons and teh like. You're starting to get into decent costs here so runners can expect more. A course measured and signed off by a certified measurer with a Jones Counter. An independent referee. A secure bag drop. Adequate water supplies for expected numbers. If numbers are beyond a certain level then toilet facilities, obviously all this is in addition to the Cat C requirments.

Cat A: Entry fee above €25
The top races. In addition to Cat B&C requirments at this level you should expect changing facilities (not luxury, not showers even, just a room available for runners if needed). Toilets in teh start and finish area. Chip timing and results online with 5 days. With numbers over a certain level there should be segregated starts (faster to the front).

The new organisation would independently assess the plans and documentation by the race and provide one of three ratings:

Approved - Race has a proven successful history and all documentation is in place and satisfactory

Approved in Principle - New race or race with historical issues. Documentation looks good and teh expectation is of a well run race

Not Approved - speaks for itself!

A logo would be provided for use in race promotion and literature and the body would maintain a website with a listing of all races and links to the reports (positive or negative) from the pre-race auditors. After the race the new organisation would independently follow up with a sample of runners and get feedback. Again this would be made available online. The idea being that - in time - runners would use this new body as thier main resource for finding and entering races.

Revenue to pay for this would come from race organisers - a small levy per runner should cover expenses. This could be scaled according to the race category to keep costs low for smaller races. EG 50c per runner for Cat A races would yield €750 from the likes of the Aware 10k. This would pay an auditor for a day to verify documents and admin to follow up with runners. For smaller, local races the fee could be nominal as the verification would be nominal - literally a couple of hours.

This would be strictly for road races falling outside teh current regime. BHAA do a brilliant job and don't need anything like this. Likewise IMRA. I'm really thinking of the mushrooming numbers of other races, especially those run for profit or charity.

Any thoughts?

tunney

An interesting idea but I fear one frought with heart ache and confrontation. Dealing with race organisers can be a nightmare, some are excellent, some don't give a toss.

If it were set up and was strong enough to resist bending and pressure then I think it would be great.

But then when a race organiser gets support for his races pulled whats to stop him setting up his own "association" and confusing average punters?

tunney

To clarify I really like this idea.

thirtyfoot

Couple of devils advocate questions.

Would the new indepedent body have clearance from the IAAF, the international governing body for road races?
Would Athletic Clubs have to apply to this body to get a grading or approval?
Will it supercede the AAI permit system or will we have 2 grading/permit systems?
Will this be creating yet another organisation/body in the sport?
Who will approve fixtures?
Will Ballycotton clash with Inter-Clubs and if so will Ballycotton be happy that Mulvey and others aren't running their race?
If the main problem with the AAI permit system is getting permits out of time, would it not be easier to put resources behind that to ensure the bottleneck is eased?

RoyMcC

Fraught with difficulty and heavy on administration imo.

I like the Runner's World system under which competitors give their feedback and marks out of 10 for various aspects of races they enter. These marks are then collated at year end and a top 50 or so sorted out. This table is also split into 'big' and 'small' races to take account of the fact that not all facilities can be expected at all events.

Each race director can then see how his/her race is perceived and it forms a benchmark for all races and encourages improvement year on year.

I suggest that this could be incorporated into the Events sub-forum in some way.

(We did talk at some stage previously about grading races - this might be a way forward?)

aburke

--amadeus-- wrote: »

You should expect a course measured and accurate by GPS

Oxymoron.

An accurate road race is Jones counter measured.

Clum

I like RoyMcC's idea of rating races by reviews.

Amadeus, the three categories stated above seem to be identified by entry fee. This is definitely not the way to do it. I've taken part in races this year which cost 5 or 10 euro and have been very well organised, acurate and with great facilities. For me these races were category A type events but to make it to this category by your definition I'd have to fork out an extra few bob.

Using a review based rating scheme new races would go without a rating, which I don't think is a problem as any new venture is a gamble. New races can promise the world and charge a fortune to enter but then deliver very little (I've been to a few of these races too!) so giving them a pre-race rating can be flawed.

However the overall rating of an event from multiple reviews would more than likely reflect accurately how good or bad the event was. I'd like to see us on A/R/T come up with a rating scheme for events this way so we can rate all the races we've taken part in and be able to choose wisely which races to enter the following year.

That's my preference though.

tunney

Clum wrote: »

I like RoyMcC's idea of rating races by reviews.

Amadeus, the three categories stated above seem to be identified by entry fee. This is definitely not the way to do it. I've taken part in races this year which cost 5 or 10 euro and have been very well organised, acurate and with great facilities. For me these races were category A type events but to make it to this category by your definition I'd have to fork out an extra few bob.

Using a review based rating scheme new races would go without a rating, which I don't think is a problem as any new venture is a gamble. New races can promise the world and charge a fortune to enter but then deliver very little (I've been to a few of these races too!) so giving them a pre-race rating can be flawed.

However the overall rating of an event from multiple reviews would more than likely reflect accurately how good or bad the event was. I'd like to see us on A/R/T come up with a rating scheme for events this way so we can rate all the races we've taken part in and be able to choose wisely which races to enter the following year.

That's my preference though.

problem with this is novices and newbies tend to think that all races are fantastic due to being their first race or new to the sport and don't have valid benchmarks. I know in triathlon this is a huge problem. Lots of very very bad races that people rave about - its their first race and they're just excited.

Hard Worker

I think it should be left with AAI. There are too many things wrong with the current permit system though. Currently, permits are issued by county boards. Some may have their act together and some won't, and most permits are issued with no thought for what happens at an event. Take an example of someone who might get injured at an event that was badly organised with no backup. The injured party would obviously sue the race organisation and also AAI ( if they have any sense ).
To rectify this, the permits should cost more. At the moment, they are ridiculously low in cost. The extra money received should be used to hire a professional to oversee that the event has a proper event plan. It amazes me how a county board will just sign a permit without seeing what or who is involved in an event. Road races, by their very nature, are held on open roads. There are huge safety issues for runners, volunteers and spectators and also the general traffic. As I am involved in event management in two different sports, it amazes me how slipshod some athletic events are compared to my other sport.
Major events, Dublin Marathon, London Marathon or most other city marathons, don't have changing facilities, so they would fail under Amadeus' category grading. Otherwise, the idea is good, but only if it has the blessing of the governing body.

Woddle

Maybe an ART panel voted in by it's members to rate races possibly using the poll tool, and then put it in the biki where each race can be found easily and done similar to the style of road races by gps.

shels4ever

Hard Worker wrote: »

I think it should be left with AAI. There are too many things wrong with the current permit system though. Currently, permits are issued by county boards. Some may have their act together and some won't, and most permits are issued with no thought for what happens at an event. Take an example of someone who might get injured at an event that was badly organised with no backup. The injured party would obviously sue the race organisation and also AAI ( if they have any sense ).
To rectify this, the permits should cost more. At the moment, they are ridiculously low in cost. The extra money received should be used to hire a professional to oversee that the event has a proper event plan. It amazes me how a county board will just sign a permit without seeing what or who is involved in an event. Road races, by their very nature, are held on open roads. There are huge safety issues for runners, volunteers and spectators and also the general traffic. As I am involved in event management in two different sports, it amazes me how slipshod some athletic events are compared to my other sport.
Major events, Dublin Marathon, London Marathon or most other city marathons, don't have changing facilities, so they would fail under Amadeus' category grading. Otherwise, the idea is good, but only if it has the blessing of the governing body.

Yep charge more for a permit and enforce the current rules, I think some permits are recieved after events which should never happen, and events witha permit should promote that more. Still should be ok to reject licences for events that done meet standards, they can still run the race just wont be with the aai permit. So mayb no need for diff levels just either permit or no permit.

asimonov

Woddle wrote: »

Maybe an ART panel voted in by it's members to rate races possibly using the poll tool, and then put it in the biki where each race can be found easily and done similar to the style of road races by gps.

This is a good idea, at the very least we will have an opportunity to share opinions with other boardsies for the future.

At the moment, its those with complaints who get the most airtime on boards which can rightly or wrongly come across as negative. With structured feedback through a poll or somesuch those who enjoyed an event or maybe were ambivalent would be more likely to express their opinions.

The race market could get overcooked in 2010, its important that the best survive and those race organisers who take the time and effort to do things really well are identified and rewarded with postive ratings and those who fail to deliver on the basics are also identified as such.

plodder

Hard Worker wrote: »

I think it should be left with AAI. There are too many things wrong with the current permit system though. Currently, permits are issued by county boards.

I agree, while reviews are a good idea and can be done by anyone, certification should really be done by people who already know how to organise events. A regional structure might be better for it though, eg. Dublin and the four provinces. It might be easier to avoid scheduling problems that way.

robinph

I think it something along the lines of RoyMcC's rating system should do us for starters. Not sure if you can do multiple polls in the same thread in vbulletin so might need to be a manual x/5 in each of a few different categories about each race from people that took part. There may be issues with people voting 6 out of 5 for races when they may not know what to expect of a race, but having a pre-selected panel of "judges" would create more issues I think.

We have a broad range of people here, their opinion counts, we should make that opinion visible to race organisers if possible.

--amadeus--

Ok, I'm caught for time so I've only skim read the responses...

The OP was just a splurge of ideas, not a set in stone thing. And it's in direct response to a permitting system that is currently - frankly - irrelevant to road runners. From what I can see there are unpermitted events in every county, in every month and at distances ranging from 5k to 100 miles.

And the real kicker?

It doesn't matter.

And it doesn't matter because an AAI permit (or a lack of a permit) generally offers no guarantee as to the quality of the race. If teh AAI can sort out the permit system so that it is as relevant to Mary the fun runner as it is to the elites, if they can sort it out so that having or not having a permit actually matters and will help runners have a degree of confidence in the race organisation in advance then great.

If they don't or can't or won't then I think that someone else should.

On the race review thing I like the principle but I have doubts about how it would work in practice.

Krusty_Clown

I think it's a fine idea, but agree with other's thoughts around:
* Detaching ratings from cost. Instead, focus on value
* Independant (i.e. no relationship to AAI, permits etc)
* More of a rating system than a stamp of approval - similar to a Michelin star system - i.e. default is zero stars, stars have to be earned, stars can be lost, races must maintain standards or lose stars
Zero stars = Standard/Run of the mill race that has not been given a superior rating
One star = Very well organized race, catering for most people's needs, representing very good value for money, great facilities, a solid recommendation
Two stars = Ticks all of the boxes. Very few comlaints (if any). Almost guaranteed an optimal experience. Delights and suprises.

This kind of system promotes improvement, rather than focussing on negatives.

Zuppy

I would prefer if it remained within the AAI. We only need one body dealing (for better or worse) with athletics. They might need to change a few bits and evolve the permit system but something along the lines of 3 different grades of permit. Or a 2 standard system and a 3 star rating.

Whatever, as long as it remains with the national body and it remains in the hands of all runners not a single individual.

--amadeus--

Some really interesting points.

First comment is to clarify that my A/B/C categories wasn't supposed to reflect a grading assigned to races. My idea there was that you cannot expect the same facilities at a cheap local race as you would get at (for example) the DCM. So higher priced races should have a longer checklist of items to get the quality mark

Purely personal opinion here but I'm not convinced about staying within the ranks of the AAI. Frankly it seems totally disconnected from grassroots running and seems to lack the time / resources to (re)establish the connection. As I said if teh permit system could be fixed that would be the ideal solution. Chances of that happening are...?

So as a body strictly interested in teh quality (or otherwise) of the race experience a lot of the devils advocate questions are no longer relevant.

It wouldn't need an association with the IAAF, that's for records, international selection and other AAI "stuff" and that's what AAI permits do. The IAAF don't care if the start is a pell mell mishmash of runners and walkers and all the runners bags are nicked during the race. the new body would. Likewise with fixtures and date clashes - that's beyond teh scope, all the new organisation cares about is the quality of teh race.

And I am aware of what an oxymoron is. And I know that the official rules state Jones Measure. But I also know that not every race is measured that way - I should do, I've raced one that was 600m short. We all know that some courses are not measured to AAI standards and I would rather RDs were transparent and said so so that I can make an informed decision. And if tehy are going to do a GPS measurement then at least have some standard on it to make it as accurate as it can be.

As for ART having a proper race review element I can't see how we can make it work without a huge administrative overhead. To do it properly you need a database at the back allowing users to add reviews and calculating grades automatically. We just don't have that capability here and doing it manually or using polls would be way too labour intensive.

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I think it's a fine idea, but agree with other's thoughts around:
* Detaching ratings from cost. Instead, focus on value
* Independant (i.e. no relationship to AAI, permits etc)
* More of a rating system than a stamp of approval - similar to a Michelin star system - i.e. default is zero stars, stars have to be earned, stars can be lost, races must maintain standards or lose stars
Zero stars = Standard/Run of the mill race that has not been given a superior rating
One star = Very well organized race, catering for most people's needs, representing very good value for money, great facilities, a solid recommendation
Two stars = Ticks all of the boxes. Very few comlaints (if any). Almost guaranteed an optimal experience. Delights and suprises.

This kind of system promotes improvement, rather than focussing on negatives.

Excellent suggestions there, clearer and more concise than mine!

I know there is a resistance to breaking teh AAI link but do you guys really think that the permit system can be overhauled and made relevant? Do you think the appetite exists in the AAI to do it? Or the resources?

If yes then I'd be all behind getting a plan together to bring to them. I'm struggling to see that being realistic though.

ZuppyLurk wrote: »

Whatever, as long as it remains with the national body and it remains in the hands of all runners not a single individual.

Need a big spoon to help stir that

Racing Flat

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Purely personal opinion here but I'm not convinced about staying within the ranks of the AAI. Frankly it seems totally disconnected from grassroots running

What do you mean by grassroots running? I think the AAI is grassroots running, i.e. the representative body of the athletics clubs of the country.There are plenty of people here in clubs. If they are not happy with the permit system, they can raise this with the AAI via their club.

Whether you are or are not in a club, the issue here seems to be finding out whether a race is suitable for you. I don't know if you need a permit or rating sytem for this. Just a bit of commonsense not to jump in with 2 feet and enter every new race out there, not spend money on races and then complain after that it didn't meet your needs. Most races have contact details when advertised - all you have to do is ring the contact person and ask them how it is measured, if there are facilities, etc. etc. Frankly if you turn up at a race and it ends up not being any good, well learn from it and don't do it again.

thirtyfoot

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Frankly it seems totally disconnected from grassroots running and seems to lack the time / resources to (re)establish the connection. As I said if teh permit system could be fixed that would be the ideal solution. Chances of that happening are...?

I think to say the athletic association is disconnected from the grassroots is way off the mark. What are you basing this on? It grinds my gears when I hear this as its lazy comment based on not knowing the facts or from what people read on messageboards which as we all know are the bastion of the extreme opinion. The athletic association is the grassroots. Even the athletic association executive is full of people who coach/official/admin at club level. There are no ivory towers in the athletic association, well very few. The majority (if not all) of the more knowledgable and experienced people in the sport are in the athletic association and very much part of grassroots. I think to say otherwise shows a disconnection or lack of understanding of the sport (as a whole). List the best road races in the country (say top 5) and look at the people involved - probably all grassroots people from within the association. You say BHAA is good. Based on what I have learned over the past while, much of the people involved here are also part of the athletic association.

Now, if you are talking about the recreational runner, yes, there is a disconnect but with respect to the recreational runner, they are not the grassroots of the sport as they have no involvement in the sport apart from furthering their own means or goals, ie, going for a run 3/4 days a week and racing the odd race. Having said that, there is work being done through Fit4life to improve this connection to bring these people into the sport.

If people want to really effect change in the road race permit/approval/standards world, then work within the system that can effect most change. Have an approval system in kilter with the permit system so they are the one and the same.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Likewise with fixtures and date clashes - that's beyond teh scope, all the new organisation cares about is the quality of teh race.

Have quality built into approval/permit system. This has been granted a Grade A permit or Grade B permit etc etc. Makes most sense to me.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I know there is a resistance to breaking teh AAI link but do you guys really think that the permit system can be overhauled and made relevant? Do you think the appetite exists in the AAI to do it? Or the resources?

Yes, there is an appetite. Is there resources, probably not but seeing as its probably the best vehicle for change put forward here then would it not be a good move for those who feel they are outside of the association maybe approach the association and put forward a suggestion or committment to help. Short of doing it within the offical ranks, then the RoyMcC RunnersWorld suggestion makes most sense to me. There have been a couple of letters in recent issues of Irish Runner on this and the Editor has the appetite. Could be worth a punt to head in that direction.

Just my opinion

hunnymonster

funnily enough there was a letter to the editor in the Irish runner annual (which arrived through the door yesterday) suggesting something similar.

TheRoadRunner

hunnymonster wrote: »

funnily enough there was a letter to the editor in the Irish runner annual (which arrived through the door yesterday) suggesting something similar.

Exactly what I was going to post. The main thrust of the letter is pretty similar to Amadeus' main points.

A bit OT but the Irish annual is actually not bad at all. I'm pleasantly surprised as it I felt it had gone to $hit lately.

Zuppy

I just get the feeling that something as large as this, needs the people with the drive to undertake it. Yes us poor runners out there on the roads have ideas and plans but if you want a system to be above reproach and transparent you will need either to do twice the work and promotion OR you do it under the AAI umbrella.

So a group doing it for/ within the AAI would be the most logical way of setting it up and running it with a degree of fairness. One of the problems I see with this is grading races outside the permit system (if you were to revamp the permits to do this)

I would probably suggest.
Grade A permit for Nationals and regionals
Grade B permit for races of a good standard (say BHAA, XC, half marathon on local level).
Grade C permit for 'aspiring' races
Grade D/ No permit

And the AAI insurance or present permits would be called a sanction. So an AAI race with their insurance, would be a sanctioned grade B race.

hunnymonster

I think the crux of the thing is that there has been an explosion of road races (5km - marathon) where traditionally there was a more select calendar for club runners, there are now hundreds of thousands of people out pounding the roads for fitness reasons. They are not club members so fall outside the AAI catchment but they do a couple of races a year to stay motivated. I know it's on the AAI agenda to figure out how to best include this group. They already have the fit4life programme but I would suggest they also need to look at how to include the more advanced weekend warrior who took up running later in life (i.e. hasn't been a member of a club since they were 7). These are the people who make up the bulk of entries in any given road race.


The model I favour personally is a A, B grade where A have to tick all the boxes (measurement, facilities, ......) which can count for championships and the pointy end of the pack and a B grade where they basic safety requirements are met but after that it's more about fun and participation than anything else. This seems to work well in the USA.

plodder

hunnymonster wrote: »

I think the crux of the thing is that there has been an explosion of road races (5km - marathon) where traditionally there was a more select calendar for club runners, there are now hundreds of thousands of people out pounding the roads for fitness reasons. They are not club members so fall outside the AAI catchment but they do a couple of races a year to stay motivated. I know it's on the AAI agenda to figure out how to best include this group. They already have the fit4life programme but I would suggest they also need to look at how to include the more advanced weekend warrior who took up running later in life (i.e. hasn't been a member of a club since they were 7). These are the people who make up the bulk of entries in any given road race.

95% in the case of the 2008 Raheny 5, for example. Roughly half of the club runners, would have finished in the top 150 or so, and the remaining 120 club members were scattered among the other four and a half thousand entrants. These figures aren't exact, but they're roughly right.

robinph

plodder wrote: »

95% in the case of the 2008 Raheny 5, for example. Roughly half of the club runners, would have finished in the top 150 or so, and the remaining 120 club members were scattered among the other four and a half thousand entrants. These figures aren't exact, but they're roughly right.

Which kind of proves the point that will come up in another thread which will be repeated at some point through the year along the lines of "Why don't more people join a club?", with the rest of the non-club people then answering "Because I don't think I'm fast enough".

mithril

The impression I get from other threads is that the primary goal of the AAI permitting system is to prevent clashes in the racing calendar and that AAI's own events will be favoured over other well organized externally organized events.

The runnners world web site with an overall rating, rating by category and reviews of previous races is exactly the information I look for when deciding whether to run a race.
http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/events/ratingsall.asp?sp=&v=2&ugn=4903

Maybe all that is required is to get Irish events added to this site?

HeavyRunner

I would break the permit in to 4 parts.

1. Measurement and timing. The course measurement is either done by a certified person or not. Anyone can buy a Jones counter but if it is not used by a certified measurer then you are taking an organiser word for it. Similar with timing. So

A = Certified measured + Chip timing (managed by certified timer)
B = Certified measured
C = All other

2. Safety. Roads closed, Garda involved, paramedics.

Again A,B,C for different levels

3. All other. Facilities, look and feel etc. This is more subjective.

4. Commercial or charity. Punters sometimes are under the impression that a race is for charity and it is not. This should be highlighted.

The AAI would apply different levels of scrutiny for different levels. E.g. CCC cert would get automatic certification and would speed up the process. AAA would cost more and take more time.

Every race permit application should be given a permit number and published on an AAI web page with the status. Received, in progress, approved etc. This would help stop clashes in fixtures and allow people to verify races are what they say. This number should be quoted on all promotonal material and web-sites. Permit could look as follows

Commercial AAB permit number 12345 (Granted)
Charity permit CCC number 122344 (Applied for)

This way people looking for a PB could be happy with ACC races for example.

mithril

I think I would be more interested in the reviews of previous runners who have run or race or comments in this forum when deciding to run a race rather than a formal rating system .
Personally, I don't care whether a race I run clashes with another fixture which appears to be the AAI's main criteria for approval.

HeavyRunner

mithril wrote: »

I think I would be more interested in the reviews of previous runners who have run or race or comments in this forum when deciding to run a race rather than a formal rating system .
Personally, I don't care whether a race I run clashes with another fixture which appears to be the AAI's main criteria for approval.

Avoiding clashes is important. You might care if a race you really like ends up clashing with one ot two other races close by to it.