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.