i was tempted to respond to rick frampton's query the other day.  i thought rick raised a good question but i think the answer is complicated.  today, messr. basler ups the ante by calling out mabra:

I don't usually get involved - but with this one I must-- I have raced all
across the country and the mid-atlantic region is probably the best racing for
one region . However , D20 , Is without question the worst I have ever
experienced for screwing up results - or delayed results - you get the point . I have
been told a portion of ever enter fee you pay goes towards the D20 budget - so
It is my understanding that the USCF officials bring all the scoring
equiptment with them to the D20 Races-- so If I am understanding it correctly the race
promoters have nothing to do with the results or scoring the results .. So my
question is - why - if a portion of every persons entry fee goes to the D20
-- why does D20 use a $400 video camera to score the race -- No wonder they
can't get the results right- or done quickly--

pb

I'm not sure if the assumption here is that a $400 camera is inadequate or that it's too much given that results are sometimes mistaken.  are we getting bad results because the camera is insufficient, or because of operator error, or is it something else?  there is a tacit assumption that mabra elected officiers and officials are not functioning up to snuff.  I would portray messr. basler's image of mabra officials as follows:

I disagree with this characterization and suggest to messr. basler that this is what he has coming:

only a warning this time.

there are, unfortunately, lots of places where things can go wrong, and there seems to be a lot of confusion about how results get generated.  i tried to explain parts of the process here when a parent became upset about a totally avoidable problem, and there was some good action in the comments below the post.  when a race concludes, the officials use the camera footage to record the numbers and finish order of riders on the following form:

MABRA form - Prelim Finish Order 2005 02 11.doc (255.5 KB)

this is the form that usually goes up for the protest period.  it does not have racer names, only numbers.  if racers cannot be identified, it will carry some information like "red jersey".  it usually has the time written on the form somewhere to indicate when it was posted.  this is when the protest period begins.  you may try to work the refs if you disagree with the results.

after the results are "final", they are transcribed, generally by someone from the promoter's staff, onto the following final race result form:

MABRA form - Final Results 2005 02 11.doc (187.5 KB)

by this time, results should be complete.  that's not to say that they are error free at this point, but in principle, the officials should have produced an accurate numeric transcription of the finish order, the riders should have had a chance to evaluate them, and the numbers should have mapped accurately to names. 

okay, so this is all nice in theory but there is this gestalt out there that it never seems to work out exactly.  is this true, and if so, why is it?  i don't have ready access to data on the normal error rate in reporting results for sporting events like this.  i can only guess at it.  i suspect that the vast majority of correct results are under-recognized while incorrect results are discussed repeatedly.  in the absence of reasonable data, one could make a simple economic argument that if the error rate was, in fact, very high, promoters would be feeling the pinch from racers who refused to do their events or events in general due to the risk of being missed or mis-reported in the results.  but that does not seem to be happening based on how quickly races are filling on electronic registration systems.  whatever the marginal risk of a mis-reported result is, it isn't nearly enough to deter most people from paying $30 well in advance of a given event.

but lets assume that there is a problem, either with the cameras or the procedure for generating results (most parts of which we share with virtually every other cycling distict in the country).  rather than bitch about it, suggest where the process can be improved, either in the work flow or the implementaiton.  if you think the camera is inadequate, propose that we sell the ones we have and get better ones.  in considering this, tell us how much would it cost, and whether it would eliminate the problems you are mentioning.  (note: if it's operator error, then replacing the camera won't help) 

incidentally, i think that there are some real issues out there that do impede the flow of results.  racers wrinkling and then incorrectly placing their numbers for some perceived aesthetic or aerodynmaic benefit is a chronic problem, and i am at least as guilty as anyone of this particular infraction.  racers do not attend the protest period as often as they should.  running lots and lots of events back to back in a race day causes the officials to have to spend inordinate amounts of time looking at tape and less time adminstering the events and answering the inevitable questions that come up during the protest period. 

a final note with regards to race errors: i have previously provided usac official guidance from the quicksilver wrap up post which points out that officials should not stand on demonstrably false results because the protest period is over.

i think rick's original email was clearer in that he was specifically curious about the delay in reporting results by email or web page.  i do not believe that he was upset with the results themselves, just with the timeliness of their release.  if there is a problem with turning the results around, maybe the district should consider procuring a third party event management product such as eric marshall's combined bar code scanning software and results management system.  the advantage of any system like this is that it draws from a database of rider information and can allow race number linkages to accurate rider data.  all the promoter would need to do is to key in the race number and a nice report format would come out.  it's important to note that producing the numerical results is a race obligation of the officials, but much of what happens after that is a bit murky.  the numerical results are generally transcribed onto the final finish sheets by someone on the promoters staff, but there's no usac or mabra obligation to get the results posted in a timely fashion.  you wants results posted?  bring up the following as a proposal for the mabra annual meeting:

require promoters to post a $200-$500 check ont he morngin of the event that is 115% refundable if the results are posted online with 24 hours of the last race concluding, and is lost otherwise.  make the determination subject to appeal by the mabra board of directors.

i'm not convinced whether this is the best approach, and i'll let you make that call.  however, i can guarantee you that racers would see timely posting of results under that policy.  and if that's what you want, go for it.  there is a take-home point here.  mabra is, in principle, an association of member clubs **.  if you are dissatisifed with the current conditions, use your collective voice as racers and promoters and make a change.  the other teams in the district will evaluate your proposal and vote yes or no.  you may get all of what you want, or part of what you want, or (if past history is any guide) all of what you did not want.  but you won't be

- - - posted by scott

** this is actually in the process of morphing, as mabra enters into contractual relationships directly with the usac to reprsent them as a local associaiton.  more on this later.