Training Log Archive: iansmith

Event: NEOC: Hammond Pond
 

For the first NEOC meet of the season, Lori and Stephen set a novel course: the merry-go-score. The race consisted of five score courses, each with five controls. The courses were numbered 1-5, and on the nth course, the controls were worth n points (course 1 controls were worth 1; course 2 controls were worth 2, etc). You were allowed to advance from the ith to the (i+k)th course at any time, but you couldn't go back to a previous course.

My strategy from the beginning was not to maximize my score, but to collect all the controls. The five courses were fairly similar - two or three close controls, two or three remote controls. I was surprised - when I flipped over the first map, I imagined all the controls would be nearby. I immediately considered skipping the two remote controls, but decided to stick to my effort to get them all. I returned to the map exchange at around 11:45, and I concluded that I would not be able to sustain that pace for four more loops. I skipped one control each on courses 2 and 3. I made a silly 30 second error on course 4 (around minute 37) where I ran to the wrong hill. I started the fifth course with 14 minutes left; each control was worth 5 points and critical to a good performance. One control in particular looked like it would have a slow exit. I fought hard to keep up the pace for the entire race, and ran like hell for the two-minute run-in from the last control. I finished with 25 seconds to spare.

I found it helpful to set short goals - e.g. finish this loop by time T, or get to the next control by a certain time. Had I optimized, I would have skipped the two remote controls on the first loop; I think 73 points was attainable. Ross or Giacomo could probably have gotten all 75.

Kudos to Archimedes Stuk, who at his first orienteering event won white and yellow and finished sixth in the Score-O. Thanks to Lori and Stephen for a novel and fun event.

Warmup to confirm the absence of a white control; easy out-and-back.

Between running at Hammond and returning to pick up equipment, I drove over to World's End - of which NEOC has a map, and ran around to examine the place for suitability for a meet. Despite laying the maps out last night, I forgot the O map at home, so I ran with a park map.

World's End is like a larger scale Peter's Hill - few point features, large open hillsides, and a set of prominent trails encircling the hills. There are a few small technical areas with white woods, but they are isolated. The park would be great for white and yellow courses, and perhaps even better for a trail race. It would make a great picnic location. It's a 40-45 minute drive from most places in Boston.

Biking to Malden before the 5k race, from Malden to Bellevue Pond for Skyline action, and to home with a pit stop at a Hoagie joint on Winthrop St for some much needed calories. I fixed my tire (after about two months of flatness) yesterday, but I managed to punch a hole in the tire itself while resetting it. I swung by Broadway Bikes and replaced both the tire and the tube after the innertube burst when inflating it. With some lubricant on the chain and some attention to the brake mechanism, my bike is functioning very well.

Magnus suggested that we run a time trial at the conclusion of the CSU indoor track workout sessions to gauge our progress. Neither he nor I felt fantastic going into the weekend - he had been sick the previous week, but we decided to run the race for kicks. The 9th Malden Rotary Road Race has a 10k and a 5k; the 10k attracted most of the fast people, and there were maybe 150-200 runners in the 5k.

I didn't have much time to warmup - they started us somewhat before the planned noon time. I started fast, and attached to the front pack of three other guys. After the first kilometer, the front two guys had gained some distance, and the fourth guy had backed off behind me. I ran alone for most of the race apart from two or three forays by guy #4 and another chap who made moves on me. Guy #4 had a strange approach of sprinting just past me and faltering as I gradually edged past him; it was very unsuccessful. I kept the guy in second in sight for the entire race, but I failed to close the distance and finished 15s behind him. The winning time was 17:45, and I finished in third. I'm quite disappointed; my only previous 5k was a track time trial in June 2010 with some orienteers. I had hoped to flirt with 18 flat, and I hope to run faster than that. This is a useful benchmark, and it will encourage me to train more. Magnus finished well in 20th place. I fell off the pace for the middle three kilometers; with a rabbit, perhaps I could hold 3:35/km. I did enjoy the road race, and we all got a substantial swag bag for our $20 entry - hat, shirt, gloves, water bottle and two loaves of bread (?).

Magnus and I joked about bringing a healthy Stephen to the race to shut down the pre-race discussion. The 10k winning time was around 33:30.

C • 5k 2

I felt ok after the 5k, and since I was near the Fells, I decided to run the Skyline. I was a bit mopey after the 5k and resolved not to race the Skyline (since two hard runs in one day seemed stupid), but to enjoy it. I warmed up by overshooting the first trail access point and wandering around for a bit.

I haven't run the Skyline solo in over two years. I settled into a comfortable pace, though it probably was aggressive, since I have more fun when I'm running aggressively. I lost the trail twice - the costlier was at minute 54, where I hit a three-way fork and explored the other two routes, losing about two minutes. This was still a personal best on the Skyline, and I think that if I were fresh and racing, 1:05 would be attainable. The day was pleasant - clear skies, a steady breeze, 9° C; I ran in shorts and short-sleeves.

And wandered off trail on the return to Bellevue, picked approximately the correct direction, and moseyed in. A good day.

Attended a concert by Sherman Jia - his last before he starts his residency. He played Mozart Duo for Violin and Viola (K423), Ysaye Sonata No. 6, and Brahms Violin Sonata No. 1. The Brahms was my favorite piece, with the rich emotive range one would expect from Brahms.

Easy evening run. I donated platelets today, though the effect on my condition seems negligible. I ran in silence - without audiobook or music - and reflected about life and various challenges I am facing at present. I have lately been in a funk - lacking enthusiasm, sluggish to act, and uninspired. I suspect fatigue is a source of the problem; specifically, lack of sleep is sapping my strength, and I awake not fully replenished.

Monday was a prudent rest day - my legs were exhausted, and I had some minor pain in my right quad and right ball of my foot, but yesterday was unacceptable. I felt ok today once I started moving.

Posted quickroutes from the weekend.

Why I signed the Petition to stop the ban on GPS

For the 2012 US Classic Champs in North Carolina, BOK took unusual steps to enforce Sections B.36.3 and B.36.4 of the OUSA Rules for competition. A highly polarized discussion emerged in several threads, culminating in a petition by Peter Gagarin to the OUSA rules committee to allow GPS devices with displays. After consideration, I decided to sign that petition; this entry records my reasoning.

In the January 1, 2011 version of the IOF Competition Rules, section 21.3 bans the use or carrying of navigational aids besides compass, the map provided, and control descriptions. Section 21.4 explicitly allows GPS recorders that provide no display or audio feedback. Section 2.1 defines the rules to apply to a set of events, including WOC, JWOC, World Cup races, and WREs. This class of events is the highest level of orienteering competition in the world, and it is reasonable that it should be held to the strictest standards for fairness and objectivity.

Local orienteering events (specifically C-meets, as defined in OUSA Rules section A.3.2.3) do not have a prohibition on GPS devices. The reason for this is that the objective of local meets is to provide orienteering as an opportunity, not enforce the highest standards of competition. People show up to have fun, to learn about the sport, to practice, and so on; there is negligible incentive to cheat. Assuming a continual progression of rules (e.g. IOF 2.2, if you like), there exists a level of competition at which GPS devices should be allowed. One component of the GPS feedback debate is where that boundary should lie.

As is unsurprising for an internet forum, the discussion was protracted and at times rude. Reductio ad absurdum was liberally applied to arrive at hyperbolic and unnecessarily critical conclusions. I find merit in both arguments in the discussion; this is not an obvious decision. It should be noted that OUSA B.36.3 (and the redundant B.36.4) prohibit exactly the sort of behavior proponents of the ban describe: the use of a GPS device (e.g. a Garmin Forerunner) for navigation. Proponents of the rule change argue that the tolerance of such devices makes the information available to competitors, that it is inevitable that someone will eventually make use of this information to navigate, that such use will result in a fundamental shift in the sport, that the benefits of such devices were negligible, and that A-meets are a sufficiently high level of competition to warrant the restriction in favor of objectivity. Other rules that are enforced at A-meets with some inconvenience were used as examples supporting the change. Opponents of the rule change argued that the impact on competition would be negligible, that it was not feasible to use a GPS feedback device to improve your result appreciably, and that there were benefits from the GPS for attracting new competitors and post-race analysis.

The Garmin forerunner (I own the 305) is a quintessential O-training implement: it captures the functionality of a heart rate monitor, a splits stopwatch, and a GPS logger. With attackpoint and software like quickroute, it is trivially easy to make use of this data. For the sake of argument, I assume that it is possible to improve your performance with a GPS (this seems apparent, at least to some degree). There exists an alternative to GPS-feedback device: the GPS logger, which provides similar information. Acquiring such device (for me, at least) would be an insignificant expense; the only additional cost would be the inconvenience of an additional device. It has been demonstrated that similar results to a GPS-feedback can be obtained from a logger/split/HR monitor ensemble. For all other purposes except IOF events and potentially for A-meets, the GPS-feedback devices are more convenient. Many novices may only attend a small number of orienteering events per year, and restricting training data at A-meets - which are of typically higher quality than regular events - could interfere with their improvement. I have benefitted from the use of the forerunner, and the data from training camps and A-meets has been the most valuable because of the novel, unfamiliar terrain.

I know of no instances in which GPS devices have been used for navigation. I recognize the possibility that GPS could be used beneficially, but it's not clear to me that a ban would offer any improvement over B.36.3 - a competitor could simply put the GPS in his pocket and take it out during the race. It's not obvious a ban would have an effect, except on compliant competitors. Adding a ban either removes the data from the O-community or puts an (admittedly small) inconvenience on enthusiastic competitors to acquire a logger. It puts the onus on already busy meet crews to enforce the rule. In the US in particular, orienteering rules are porous, and enforcement relies heavily on the honor system. There are no doping tests, the embargo is weak and unenforceable, following seems to happen - particularly at the Interscholastic championships (though I only have anecdotal evidence), the system for ensuring maps are left at the start is horribly insecure, and there is no enforcement of out-of-bounds areas. I could hide a computer with a download and e-punch unit in the woods near the start and generate artificial results that would win any race.

The cost to implementing a ban is small - loggers are available, and certainly if the rule is enforced, I would encourage developing orienteers to buy a logger, stop watch, and heart rate combination instead of a forerunner. However, the potential benefit from implementing a ban is small; there are many other ways to cheat, and a determined cheater will not be deterred. I have mulled over what criteria are best suited for devising the suitability of a rule change, and I have not made up my mind. In this case, in my evaluation, the cost of the rule change outweighs the benefit. For the vast majority of competitors, a reminder that the use of devices like GPS (and stopwatches) for navigation is prohibited would have the same effect.

It may be that in the future, such a rule change would be warranted. In the interest of consistency, I request that if GPS-feedback devices are banned at A-meets, stopwatches are also banned.

C • You'll send this to the Board? 13