Liza's reply...

...in which she completely misses my point and gets all snooty and condescending...



Dear Mr. Galioto,
Thank you so much for the compliments!  It's our fun and friendly runners that create the convivial atmosphere of our race.  We certainly enjoyed hosting all of you..

Regarding the course:  If you look at the certification map you'll see that I myself measured it for certification.  And if you read the FAQ on our website you would know that my pet peeve, and that of many race directors, is being challenged by runners with "My GPS says..."  Please read the link that explains GPS discrepancies.  If someone tells me that a distance matches their GPS, that's when I worry.  There's a very good reason that GPS is not an approved method for certification.

The USATF course measuring manual is about 50 pages long, not counting sample forms.  Course measuring is labor intensive, and we measurers risk life and limb doing our job (riding against traffic down the middle of the road, steel taping distances from landmarks while traffic whizzes by, etc.).

The correct way to measure a course is via the shortest possible route, i.e. on the tangents.  Also note that a "short course prevention factor" of .1% (42.2 meters for a marathon) is incorporated in the measurement.

To quote from the USATF manual:  "...when measuring on a winding roadway, do not follow the side of the road.  Unless portions of the roadway will be closed to runners by cones and/or barricades AND will be monitored, measure the straightest and shortest path posible, moving from one side of the road to the other as necessary to follow the shortest possible route."
 
As it is not feasible to monitor an entire marathon course, I measured the straightest and shortest possible course as instructed above.  There is an alternative, though not feasible, and not very nice for the runners.

Also from the USATF manual:  "If your course is laid out to restrict the runners to a route which is longer than the shortest possible route (on pavement), traffic barricades or intensive coning is required.  Course monitors are nice but often are absent, mis-positioned, or simply ignored by the runners.  Instruct course monitors to disqualify on the spot, any runners they observe cutting the course as defined by the barricades and cones."
 
As I said, not feasible, and even if we charged everyone triple to cover the cost of cones, there would've been an unacceptable number of DQs.   I enjoy DQ'ing runners who flout the "no headphones" rule, but I would hate to DQ someone for inadvertently stepping outside the "cone zone" to pass a slower runner.
 
Please note that only the Rte 249 section (~14 miles) is restricted (runners must stay to the left of the double yellow line), and only a few sections have significant curves.  Most of it is straight and was measured as such.  There was no need for me to cross the double yellow line at any point when measuring on tangents. 

 Runners crossing the double yellow line after the monitored turnaround / Rte 249 crossing would be adding distance to their run.
 
 I measured the course properly, documented all measurements, and submitted the documentation to the Maryland state certifier (at that time, John SIssala),  Thus I don't think an appeal to USATF would be beneficial.
 
For more information, you can read the USATF course measuring manual at www.usatf.org.
I'll be glad to forward your comments to the current Maryland state certifier, Lyman Jordan.
 
Thank you again for the compliments.  We hope to see you at Piney Point again.
 
Liza Recto