Sacked!

Well fuck me (for the second time this week). For the first time ever in my life, I've been sacked.

Yes, a nice e-mail yesterday from the IOF (International Orienteering Federation) informs me "following the announcement of your resignation as President of NZOF, Council determined not to reappoint you for a further term" on the IOF's FOC (Foot Orienteering Committee).

Following my resignation as Head Honcho? WTF???

The letter they probably wanted to send would have been along the lines of:

Rob, we do appreciate your work but you have a big mouth. We don't like people who don't toe the line. We don't like people who offer criticism, even if it is warranted. So naff off.

At least then I would have appreciated their honesty. That has to be the most lame-ass excuse for a dumping I've ever seen. Still, over the last couple of years I've tempered my criticism of IOF on various things because of my "position". Now, I can come out full guns blazing - heh.

Prophet Rob

I'll give cricket a rest today - nightly all-nighters on a flea-infested couch is starting to wear me down and I can't wait for a 2 day break after tonight's game where Oz will thrash WI (or will they? it 'tis afterall on the Mumbai Minefield and bad pitches can turn games into a lottery).

I haven't done an Orienteering post for a while and with all the kerfuffle over the World Cup rules for 2007 and the allocation of places for nations, why should I change the habit of a lifetime and not chuck in my 2 cents worth?

In some respects, I feel a mountain is being made out of a molehill. Given the history of participation by non-European (excluding Australia) and financially weak European nations in World Cups, whether you have 1 or 3 places is not exactly critical - the chances are participation from some of these nations will still equal zero. Yes, there is a chance the new format of the World Cup will be attractive to these countries and the entries will increase, but given the financial state of these countries (and their elite runners), there is also a chance that it will not. As an aside, one of the benefits of the new World Cup being attached to existing high-profile events is runners from the likes of USA and Israel will be able to get into the elite fields at these events, something that was a pipedream in the past - but I guess no-one has stopped to recognise that.

The negative reaction to the rules was initially voiced by a Canadian runner who has a 9th placing at a World Championships in her resume, and for those in the Orienteering world who hasn't read her thoughts, they can be viewed at her blog here. While I don't agree with everything she says, I certainly admire and respect her for voicing her opinion and more importantly making sure it was heard. Her initial reaction has led to debate and possibly concessions in the rules, which she opines don't go far enough.

But personally I wonder at the wisdom of fighting so hard for the 3 guaranteed places for these nations. History has shown they are not exactly used with any great frequency, and the economy of these nations and their runners suggest that won't change in a hurry, so why the big song and dance? As Sandy herself points out in her blog, "I can't guarantee that we will be able to use our spots if we get them", well sorry Sandy, now that this has become an issue of Micr-O proportions, you have now created a situation where nations such as yours and mine are virtually compelled to ensure their quota (whatever it may be) is filled to "save face" politically. In sporting politics when you are a flea (sorry, they are on my mind - or more correctly my legs at the moment) you pick your battles carefully; I don't know if this was a wise one to fight.

Certainly I can understand and am not surprised at the reaction - as those close to me know I like blowing my own trumpet and an article written for the magazine "Orienteering Today" 12 months ago should be re-read (it's in the blog archives under Orienteering and it's called Global Growing Pains) and applied to the current debate over World Cup quota. I especially like this bit - "too many decisions that benefit one section of the international orienteering community at the expense of another will divide, rather than unify, our sport" - and if it wasn't for the malaise I feel in that statement I would be gloating over such prophecy. So the reaction to the World Cup rules has as much to do with yet another perceived benefit for the "haves" over the "have nots" as actual substance, and it's fair enough, there's only so many times you can stand being kicked when you're on the floor.

But the debate over the quota masks the real problem that needs to be addressed, and something that Sandy touches on in her latest piece - the global development of elite orienteering. To use her words: "The development of elite orienteering in general outside of Europe is a much broader, long-term and important concept which the IOF should be deeply interested in" (I have to bite my tongue here otherwise this article will get deeply cynical). If as much time and effort went in to addressing elite global development as there is bickering about whether Mongolia gets 1 or 3 places in the 2007 World Cup, perhaps the optimism levels would rise. But they won't, because the bottom line is there is not enough willpower within the powers that be to tackle the issue - either because of vested self-interest or it's in the "too hard" basket, possibly both.

So chalk up another episode of divisiveness in international orienteering, something a sport with no money and little visibility can afford. I don't look forward to reading these words in 12 months time and thinking nothing has changed, but as a cynical ageing gambler I'd bet that's what will happen.

Still sick

Man, this 'flu is an absolute bitch. The last 4 days have been hell, and it gets even better as stepson has had 3 days off school with it, and now wifey is in bed with it. This household is sure a fun place to be ... NOT.

But before I crawl back to bed I have to remark on Hanny Allston. Now non-orienteers will not know who the hell I am talking about, but Hanny is a 20 year-old girl from Tasmania who shocked the Orienteering world by winning the sprint distance at this week's World Championships. An amazing feat for many reasons - the first non-European ever to win a gold medal, the first junior to ever win a gold medal, and to do so she had to beat someone who is generally regarded as the best female orienteer ever (with 9 individual world championship wins).

But what made me smile was remembering Orienteering Australia had their government funding cut by 40% last year. Yep, I just love to see sports who get their funding cut turning around and basically giving the bird back. Now, if only NZ could produce a shooting world champion ...

NZ will win

Of course I'm talking about the only important sporting event this weekend, the New Zealand v Australia test match being held in and around Auckland. Yes, I am talking about Orienteering.

Australia's finest have come across the ditch to go home with an ass-whooping and their tail between their legs. First up is a publicity sprint race at Auckland Zoo / Western Springs this afternoon before the real events over the weekend in Woodhill Forest and other places Helensville way. Our organiser has been talking (well, pleading) with the Herald and TV to come out - so here's hoping for another slow news day in the sporting world.

Wrong + Wrong = Right? Wrong!

At the recent European Orienteering Championships, half of the women's field in the final of the Long Distance race were issued with control descriptions that contained an error - a wrong control code I believe.

Such a basic error should result in the race being declared invalid. Period. Half of the runners were affected, it certainly had a significant affect on the results to the point that they are meaningless (save for the fact that the winner, Simone Niggli, would still have won), so why are the results allowed to stand and be recorded in history?

Orienteering has a problem in that it competitors are reluctant to complain - it happens in New Zealand, and it seems to happen in international elite events. We all recognise that a huge amount of work is involved in organising an event, and when mistakes occur, while some competitors are left seething, the majority don't want to penalise organisers for the amount of work they have put in.

Orienteering needs to grow up. Guess what - mistakes sometimes occur, it's part of human nature. Rather than get embarrassed about how such imperfections can invade our perfectionist sport, and allow sympathy to get in the way of making rational decisions, we need to accept than when mistakes occur, it is not in the interests of our sport to allow meaningless results to stand.

While it would be unfortunate in this case for Niggli not to be crowned European Champion (there is no question she deserves to be so recognised), a race is not just about one person, it is not held to just find the winner. There are over 50 competitors in the race, half of them were sent on a wild goose chase - their rights are also relevant.

In House-Of-Honcho land, ideally common sense would prevail and someone should make the decision to invalidate the race, but it is probably too late. The IOF Event Advisor should not be in charge of an international event again - not for allowing the mistake to happen, but for allowing the results to stand. Part of his role is to (Rule 31.6) "ensure rules are followed, mistakes are avoided and that fairness is paramount".

Well, rules were not followed, mistakes were not avoided and fairness has gone out the window. That the Senior Event Advisor allowed the results to stand just because no-one protested the result is wrong, and it is time in such situations that some balls are shown and the correct decision made. Two wrongs do not make a right.

The Future of O in NZ

I haven't done an Orienteering-related post for a while, so while I slowly wake up with my second cup of coffee, a bit of crystal-ball gazing before settling down to work for the day.

Into the last 12 months of the Head Honcho role (and a bit of a lame-duck role at that as I'm well past my use-by date), and if I had three things to say "watch out for" to whoever replaces me, it would be these:

1. ACCESS

In New Zealand, we have been fortunate that getting access to areas we wish to orienteer on hasn't really been an issue. I'll never forget my first trip to Europe and talking with people there about the trouble they sometimes have gaining access and the conflicts they have with other recreational groups (e.g. hunters).

However, I fear that may be about to change. The Auckland clubs are reliant on Woodhill Forest and the owners, Carter Holt Harvey, now charge for recreational use and I suspect will also restrict access. The Taupo club had a problem with the Dept of Conservation over one area. We are not blessed with a huge amount of runnable forest here and if forest companies such as CHH start charging for, and restrict, access it will have a negative impact on our sport. It's one thing we need to be pro-active about.

2. MAPPING

To orienteer you need a map and a compass. Well, the compass bit is easy - you just go out and buy one, but the map? These are finely crafted works of art that take an extraordinary amount of time (and usually money) to make. Take a look around at our current stock of mappers - they are few, and more to the point, they are getting old. We can't rely on the likes of Michael Wood and the Aspins for ever, so unless we can convince some of the younger brigade that mapping might be a good way to earn some dollars (the days of making maps for free are going the way of the Moa), we might find in 10 year's time we have to use overseas mappers, and that will be even more expensive and a hindrance to the development of our sport.

3. VOLUNTEERS

A problem that is not peculiar to our sport - a dark cloud that hangs over us and sport in general. In many respects, Orienteering is more fortunate than most - most of the time the people who voluntarily contribute to our sport in whatever form, are generally competent and extraordinarily generous with their time. Will it last? In some repsects, I think we'll be OK as I see the likes of Flynn, Addison, Kerrison, Peat, Smith (apologies to any young'un that I've missed) already putting back something into the sport - fine young men who will be the role models of the future.

On the other hand, reading the local paper here in Waiuku and seeing soccer teams without coaches, badminton cancelled because no-one is available to organise it, how long before Orienteering has similar problems? Hopefully never, but it is not something we can ever take for granted.

Winning at all costs

It's good to see even in Orienteering the "winning at all costs" mentality that has become the catch-cry for sports is beginning to show its face.

At the Nopesport forum you can read about foot tripping, abusing a 10 year old boy and antics at the control during the recent JK relays in the UK. It's great to read such tales as after all, winning is the only thing that matters in sport and you should do everything in your power to ensure you (and/or your team) reach that lofty goal. Compare these stories to the NZ relays last weekend where the only tripping that occurs is due to a lack of co-ordination from getting absolutely plastered at the prizegiving the night before.

No wonder New Zealand is declining as a sporting nation - values of sportsmanship, fair play and enjoyment are relics of an ancient sporting age and we MUST adopt the aggressive (some would say Australian) approach that demands the only focus shall be on winning.

PS: For anyone who thinks I'm serious, look up the definition of "sarcasm" in the dictionary.

No.1 in the World

The trouble with blogs is they become an avenue for venting the spleen and become unduly negative. So today, it's accentuate the positive time.

We, in tiny New Zealand, currently have the world's No 1. female mountain bike orienteer. Yes, you read it here last - I haven't read the papers lately but I'm sure it was headline news in the sports pages up and down the country.

On the back of her trend-setting fourth place (yes, we orienteers are ahead of our time) at one of the races at last year's World Championships, together with recently going over and shoving it up the Aussies in their world champ selection trial races (who knows, this may also become a trand in NZ sport - see, I told you this was going to be positive), our own Marquita G. is currently ranked No.1 in the world.

This is going to be so positive I am even going to thank SPARC. Yes, SPARC have a hand in this - anything good that happens in NZ sport is usually down to them (and anything bad in NZ sport has nothing to do with them). Last year (or 2004, can't remember), they changed the rules for elite athletes' Performance Enhancement Grants for non-carded sports (i.e. sports that do not matter to New Zealanders, in other words sports they wish would drop off the face of the earth) from Top 3 in World Champs to Top 8.

So in went the application, out came the money, which allowed Marquita to travel to Oz and thus gain the No. 1 ranking. So it's SPARC we need to back-slap for this outstanding achievememnt.

Well done Marquita. Well done SPARC. Now been ranked No. 1 in the world does not necessarily mean she is the best (but I will be very very VERY VERY happy to be proved wrong - no pressure now Marquita, we are not going to put expectations on you and threaten anatomical surgery if you don't come home from this year's World Champs without a medal), and by the time the European season kicks in she might find herself sliding off the top of the tree, but for one month at least, we can say:

New Zealand has the world's best female mountain bike orienteer.

P.S. The normal shit-stirring sarcasm from this sad cynical sack will resume tomorrow.

ORIENTEERING: Time and volunteers

At times, I wonder how our sport survives, let alone progresses, in New Zealand. And other countries for that matter, but I'll restrict my comments to Godzone.

New Zealand has about 1600 "registered" orienteers, that is 1600 people who belong to an orienteering club. It's not a huge number, but I do wonder when comparing to other countries and other sports whether we have actually reached the level of membership that we can realistically achieve given our status and resources.

Certainly compared to other (anglo-saxon) countries, our membership is quite good. Reflect on the following:

New Zealand - pop. 4 million, 1600 orienteers
Australia - pop. 20 million, 5000 orienteers
Great Britain - pop. 60 million, 6000 orienteers
South Africa - pop. 48 million, 400 orienteers

Looking at other sports in New Zealand, higher-profile sports do not have necessarily have huge memberships. Examples (of individual sports):

Badminton - 9,000
Boxing - 1,800
Equestrian - 9,000
Kayaking - 3,000
Rowing - 5,500
Table Tennis - 5,000

Is it an unrealistic dream to have 5,000 orienteers in New Zealand? That would put us on par with Australia with only a fifth of the population. Perhaps we have already reached the saturation point our sport is going to achieve?

Maybe I am being pessimistic, but my assumption is it is more likely Orienteering will continue to experience static participation/membership than any growth. If my assumption is correct, then how does our sport survive in the immediate future, in our internal environment where workload and a strain on resources are major issues?

Let's do an exercise. For a sport to exist, it requires resources, both financial and human. I'll save the money talk for another day; here I'll concentrate on labour, and more specifically, volunteer labour.

There are over 300 orienteering events in New Zealand each year. Each event requires a planner, controller and co-ordinator. Others help out on the day, too (collecting controls, putting up tents etc.). The time spent on organisation obviously depends on the level of event, but let's make a stab in the dark assumption that on average, a planner and controller spends 10 hours and a controller 5 hours in their respective roles. There's 7,500 hours per annum right there, just in event organisation.

NZOF has over 20 volunteer positions. Again, the level of time required for each position depends on the role, but if the average time spent by an NZOF volunteer is less than 5 hours a week I'll run naked through the neighbourhood. Clock up another 5,000+ hours there.

There are 20 clubs in New Zealand. Each club has a secretary, treasurer, other committee members; making another wild assumption that it takes 5 people 2 hours a week to run a club, the time spent in club administration = 20 x 5 x 2 x 52 = 10,000+ hours.

So we're up to say 23,000 hours per annum to run our sport in New Zealand. I'm not going into mapmaking (which is still partially done on a volunteer basis) or other areas I've possibly overlooked, or count the hours that are paid for. But to maintain our current level of event organisation and club/national infrastructure requires a volunteer effort of IMO at least 23,ooo hours from a base of 1600 members. Return to my opening statement.

Our greatest challenge is if we want to grow and develop our sport, we need to expend extra effort, additional to that outlined above. And that effort would need to come from the people who are already putting in more than their fair share of volunteer labour. Or find the money to pay them to do it. Not an insurmountable challenge, but pretty close.

What has prompted these musings is a remit shortly to hit the NZOF doorstep from my club wanting a national competition structure. In other words, adding to an already overloaded infrastructure, and requiring clubs to put on A-level type events in the autumn (in addition to the ones in the spring). For that reason I don't think it will succeed (will clubs readily commit to putting on those extra events?).

As my own personal time has become more crowded with family responsibilities and trying to make a few bucks so I can retire at 50, I've become a lot more sensitive to the pressures of time and the impact it has on accepting volunteer roles. Looking at our sport as a whole, I wonder if it isn't time to (in the words of the late David Lange) "sit back and have a cuppa". In my opinion, while trying to grow our sport is important, we also need to get a lot smarter in the way we handle our existing infrastructure. The last thing we need to do is add to it (without good reason), otherwise like an ever-growing house of cards we might find one day it all comes crashing down.

ORIENTEERING: BJ - Brave or Stupid?

The news that David Brickhill-Jones ("BJ"), one of Australia's leading orienteers, has decided to take advantage of his Welsh father and dual nationality to run for Great Britain from next year, is sure to have fired up the emotions across the Tasman. It's a pity Australia don't have an equivalent of Maptalk as the voyeur in me would love to see the reactions from our friends across the ditch. Some idea of the feelings can be gauged from the British forum nopesport where some Aussies have expressed their opinion, both for and against.

Of course, sportspeople switching nationalities is nothing new. This weekend, New Zealand takes on Australia in netball, and the fact that we are currently the world champions has something to with the fact that a tall goalshoot from South Africa emigrated to our shores a few years ago. She's not the only South African to leave their country for good (think Kevin Pietersen and Zola Budd), and such lifestyle decisions can be somewhat understood. From Kenyan middle-distance runners running for Denmark or Qatar, to washed-up All Blacks turning out for Samoa or Scotland, country-hopping is an accepted part of the sporting landscape.

However BJ's decision is not to do with lifestyle. If you believe his statement ("this decision is based on my personal circumstances, being based permanently in Europe, and the support available to me from British Orienteering to support me in my goal of becoming World Champion"), it's purely a decision of "I've got a greater chance of being the best by running for GBR, than AUS"

Sorry BJ, that doesn't wash. One only has to go back to May this year, when BJ finished second in the World Cup sprint race held (ironically) in England, to see that despite the apparent disadvantage of being an Australian orienteer, you can still achieve on the world stage. One only has to look at the examples of the trailblazers before him, especially Grant Bluett and his win at the World Games in 2001, to see that it doesn't matter if you come from Australia or Outer Mongolia, or live in Sweden or Timbuktoo, if you're good enough, you can win.

I could speculate as to the real reasons behind the decision, but in deference to the many friends I have in Australian orienteering, I'm not going to. And even though I may think BJ's decision might turn out to be the wrong one, I'm not going to be critical - it's his life, and he has to live it the way he wants to. But I will say if this was a Kiwi orienteer turncoating, I'd be mightily pissed off and can understand the disappointment no doubt many Australians feel.

Here's the irony: BJ has displayed his talent, while running for Australia, by finishing second in a World Cup sprint race. There's only one race more important than the World Cup, and that's the World Championships. There's only one place better than second, and that's first.

So BJ is basically telling us that to improve one place, he needs to swap countries. Brave or stupid? I guess time will tell. I hope for BJ's sake he can improve that one place needed to become World Champion, because I imagine there will be a few of his ex-countrymen lining up to take potshots at him should he not do so, and in some respects, who can blame them?

ORIENTEERING: The latest joke

My plans to do some work this morning were side-tracked when receiving an e-mail which managed to both amuse and anger me.

The IOF Foot-O Committee have considered some rule changes, including this change to Rule 6.6:

6.6 (WOC)Give the 6 best placed at each individual distance at the previous WOC an extra place to their nation, max 1 extra pro (sic) nation. The winner from last WOC still have a personal place. Race (sic) the number to go to the final from the qualification to 17 from each group, so that there are 51 in the final.

The reasoning behind this is "To ensure that the best runners at each distanse are present, especially on the sprint we learnt this last year in EOC and WOC."

The creators of this wonderful idea obviously have thought that by adding 6 places at the top and giving an extra 6 places at the bottom, they can slip this little masterstroke through the system without anyone blinking an eyelid. Er, wrong, think again.

What sport (that wants to be treated seriously) panders to the top nations by giving them extra chances to get it right? If this is such a brilliant idea, let's have two Brazilian teams at the soccer world cup, three Australian teams playing test cricket, NZ Maori in the rugby world cup and a World Cross-Country Championship consisting of 50 Kenyan and Ethiopian runners and some token white guy from Italy or somewhere.

The fact is in most sports, if you happen to live in a nation that is the best in the world, it is almost as hard to represent your country as it is to become world champion. A Norwegian orienteer is in the same situation as an American sprinter, Kenyan middle-distance athlete or Australian swimmer. C'EST LA VIE!!!

Top-level sporting competitions demand equality in participation. Anything else, quite frankly, is a crock of shit. Especially in a sport trying to portray an image that it is ready for the Olympics. "Yes, Mr Rogge, we allow 4 runners from Norway, Sweden and Switzerland because runners from outside the top 6 nations are so shit they don't really deserve to be here". That really is going to fast-track our sport's progress to the Olympic stage.

Given this latest masterpiece from the corridors of international orienteering, I'm tempted to lead a crusade to have the extra place given to the defending world champion kicked out (not that I will get anywhere, but it would be fun trying). Perhaps those in Scandinavia need to reflect on the fact if an orienteer, even from Norway, cannot make their national team, then they don't have much claim to be considered one of the "best runners" in the world.

Footnote: Also included in the proposed changes is an increase in team size to 9. If accepted, that allows the strong nations to have their best 3 at each discipline race at the World Championships. So the reasoning given - "to ensure that the best runners at each distanse are present" - becomes redundant.

O'ING: The Best of Maptalk 1

I've struggled to get into work mode today - always takes a while to wake up after watching a late night cricket game (and how I love those Aussie cricketers - they've started at about $2.20 for both one dayers so far). So a cursory romp through the old threads on maptalk gave me an idea to occasionally post some of the more mildly amusing comments on this blog. Some of the contributions to maptalk deserve to be recorded for posterity. I haven't gone through them all yet, but I have enough to get started.

The trash-talking that sometimes appears was started by none other than Brent Edwards:

Posted: 6 November 2000, 10:44 AM
Due to Neils poor results in the last several meetings it is my understanding that he is considering giving up orienteering. In my view this is a good thing, there is a certan standanrd that New Zealand Orienteers set themselves and I'm afraid Neil falls well below these standrds. I have heard a rumour that the NZOF will be discussing the pros and cons of baning Neil from all badge events until he can show them that he has any ability at all! Basically I have the understanding that Neil needs to prove himself to the New Zealand Orienteering popoulation ASAP. What better way to this that at the summer series Park events. He has allready proven that he has the ability to lose these races, now it is a question of if he can ever beat Fraser again. I personally doubt it.

Posted: 9 November 2000, 9:58 AM
Frasor, I'm afraid that your calculations are in error. In the first summer series event at the Domain Brent the Champ Edwards came home in second placing. This gives me a total of Hmm 4 points. On the second event Brent the Champ Edwards came home in fourth placing. This gave him another 2 points. If my calculations do not fail me this gives Brent the champ Edwards a total oh hmmm 4+2=6 which puts him in an anascalable lead. In your summer series report you have given me the total sum of a feebilish 5 points. This is sadly in error as it puts me in second equal place with the likes of Dave the hole in the wall Stuart, Fraser the inhanced performer Mills and Rob back from Europe Jessop. I suggest Fraser that you ammend your error without delay before you get accused of "fiddleing the books" (I know this will be a change for you as you are normally accused of fiddleing with something much smaller). If you think that you have a chance at beating me by fiddleing then then I suggest that you bring out an oversized biscuit.

It's a pity Brent can't spell; but I think his lack of education actually adds to the quaint charms of his postings - you know, an intelligent mind trapped inside a semi-intelligent body. More examples of Brent's semi-literary and illiterate wit will again appear one day.

I found one of the more creative contributors (when he was not comparing Orienteering to rugby), was Dave Barr, sadly lost to the sport and Orienteering's loss has been Speight's gain. Oh well. I suspect the following was alcohol-induced after listening to Eminem too many times but it reads well even in the cold sober light of day:

Two mahoenui girls go round the outside; round the outside, round the outside
Two mahoenui girls go round the outside; round the outside, round the outside
Guess who's back Back again Rayney's back Tell a friend
Guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back..
He created a monster
Nobody ever sees neil no more
They want rayney he’s chopped liver.
Well if you want rayney then this what he’ll give ya.
A national dns chopped up in a file shredder.
Some coruba that'll jump start his suby quicker
than a knock when he got knocked at the wailing bongo
by the proctor when he was being a drongo
When crossed the line like henry olongo (hey!!)
You waited this long, now stop debating
Cause he’s back, he’s a snag and he’s masturbating
I know that you got a job there rayney
but enrons money problem's complicating
So the SFO won't let him go
or let him show, at champs of O
so he didn’t go to tekapo
But it felt so empty when he didn’t show
So, come on and dip, rum on your lips
---- that, --- on your rack, account for some tax
get ready, this shit's about to get heavy
enron settling on it’s lawsuits, ---- YOU JAMIE!

Now this looks like a job for neil
So everybody, just follow neil
Cause we need someone to keep it real
Cause it feels so empty, without neil
I said this looks like a job for neil
So everybody, just follow neil
where should I put this orange peel
Cause it feels so empty, without neil

Little Rayney, he’s going insane he’s
working so hard it’s driving him crazy
He’s feelin like a prisoner long gone
'til someone comes along on a mission yelling ENRON!!!
A visionary, vision of o-league
Could fart a revolution, pollutin the airwaves
not a rebel, so just let him revel and rant
about his prized possession nike rip-off pants
And it's a disaster, such a castastrophe
for rayney to be the subject of my poetry
Hairy back, na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na
Fix your damn subaru tune it up and then he’s gonna
enter in, in the back of your heels like a blister
The center of attention, back for the winter
he's interesting, the best thing since wrestling
Investing in your kid's ears and nesting
Testing, attention please
Feel the tension, as soon as you mention money
give him ten cents, and soon he’ll be
in the bank, banking, saving pennies
a-tisket a-tasket, he’ll go tit for tat with
anybody who's talkin this shit, that shit
rob garden, you can get your ass kicked
he‘s a pool hall ace he thinks the police said
And Jamie? You tried dissin rayney
You twenty-two year old baldheaded fag, dissed him
said you’d beat him, he’s too slow, let go
It's over, if you’re going to DNF don’t go!
Now let's go, just gimme the signal
he’ll be there with a whole bag full of ripped clothes
Not on dope, suspected of using his own tool
ever since Rob C turned into an old fool
But sometimes his shirts just seem
like they were bought in ‘83
So this must mean the’re ripped and torn
But he just says, there quite well worn
No he’s not the first king of waikato uni
he is the worst thing since goodoldandy
to use black sayings selfishly
though they make him sound moronic really (Hey!!)
There's a concept that works
Twenty million other white rayney’s emerge
Has anyone seen my fishing reel
It'll feels so empty without neil.

Finally, in light of the current debate around the introduction of Micr-O to next year's WOC, here were a couple of ideas to improve our sport that sadly did not make it past the conceptual stage:


AndrewT
Posted: 9 November 2001, 4:47 PM
(the subject is supposed to say Who thinks Orienteering needs more (insert anything here) ) Who thinks that Orienteering needs more DRUM AND BASS?! I do! At the start we need big 18" speakers pumping out the 6 beeps (along with plenty of subbass and synth stabs) when you start! When ever you punch your sportIdent card, a massive bassdrop should crank, followed by some rough amen breaks...and at the finish, there needs to be a DJ, playing some light breaks so you can warm down. Come on the O Massive, lets get this new trend going, and NOW!!

bendover
Posted: 12 November 2001, 6:09 AM
i think that orienteering needs more porn. instead of start officcials, theres just a load of playboy bunnies in thongs getting rammed by men with mustaches called jungle stud and jake snake. then each ident unit is artfully sculpted as female genitalia (on the mens course) and on the womens course a chocolate starfish. instead of a beep, a variety of groans and whiplash sounds are available. every race is sponsored by 'Whiplash Trash' online web store, with prizes of john holmes blow up dolls for winners and blow up sheep for first new-zealanders. australian men are automatically disqualified for being bastards. Female entry is restricted to scandinavian countries, and every runner is subject to strict vital statistics contols before being allowed to run. all in all, orienteering will benefit from the worldwide media interest and the spin off merchandise deals, including a series of videos - 'bushy ditch', 'crossing the dyke', 'wet pit', 'slippery marsh', 'love in lycra', 'frasers festival of fun'. i will be submitting these reccomendations to the IOF along with the Drum and Bass ideas. Together we can make things happen. Its time for a change. please

ORIENTEERING: Nationals

I guess I was hoping for a bit much when starting a thread on maptalk about the timing of the Nationals, that the oldies with strong opinions would keep out of it! Oh well, there were enough comments from our younger brigade to give me a flavour of what they are thinking. There were some good comments too - but first, some background.

Personally I don't really care when the Nationals are. Nor should I, as I don't run around anymore. My personal opinion counts for diddly squat. But I do have some responsibility to ensure that all sections of the orienteering community that may be affected by an issue have a voice. Simon makes a good point - "it is more obvious now than ever that students are the future of the sport" - and in some respects, the opinions of our younger orienteers are ones I will listen more closely to. That is why I was so interested in James' letter to the Auckland mag; I thought if there are a lot of students who don't mind the Nationals at Labour Weekend, then one of the reasons for not holding them then goes out the window. However judging by the comments on the thread, the split mirrors that of the wider orienteering community.

I'll admit I have some bias against Labour Weekend. In 1982, I got picked for the NZ team for the ANZ Challenge for the first time. It was my first year at Uni. The challenge was in Oz during the Oz champs carnival, late Sep/early Oct. And there was no way I was missing that trip! I missed about 10 days of lectures, and had 2 or 3 weeks to catch up before exams started. Oh, and there were the Nationals at Labour Weekend in Rotorua as well. I think I had an exam the Tuesday after. It was a hell of a month; my exam results weren't great, and neither was my Orienteering. In 1999 (the last year the Nats were held at Labour Weekend), I was coaching someone who was really upset they had to miss the event due to Uni exams (and she was an Aucklander). Last time I looked, Uni exams are still held late Oct.

If I had to express a preference, I favour the Nationals remaining at Easter because:

1. The change to Easter has had no adverse (and can be argued the change has been positive) effect on numbers competing;
2. It guarantees those juniors and elites (and even masters going to WMOC) who will be competing internationally a high quality event in the first half of the year;
3. It has a minimal affect on juniors in relation to their education;
4. It is a 4 day weekend, allowing for 4 events (yes, you could run the middle and sprint on the same day but a 3 day, 4 event weekend with travelling would be hellish IMO)

So I declare a slight bias. But personal bias has no place in decision-making, and if all our students were siding with the Aucklanders crying out for the Nationals to move to Labour Weekend, I would probably be leading the charge to have it changed.

Internationally, Orienteering is a summer sport. That is because in Europe, where Orienteering originated and is at its strongest, an outdoor sport such as ours can't be done in the snow (except on skis). Our sport is climate driven; and so if we look at the southern hemisphere countries (South Africa, Australia, Brazil) we see that Orienteering down under is done in the winter. New Zealand is a special case; a small country with extremities in climate, and therein lies the crux of the problem. Aucklanders want to pig out at the bach in summer and orienteer in the winter, which doesn't exactly appeal to South Islanders who have a more European climate with snow to contend with. Everyone has the right to express when they would like to orienteer, but trying to marry the wishes of different areas of the country (and there is not only climate to consider, but fire risk, landowner restrictions at certain times of the year) into a nationally structured season would be IMO an exercise in futility.

So like any good politician when faced with a divisive issue that has a roughly 50/50 split, do the ostrich (i.e. stick your head in the sand). Not strictly true, but the status quo will continue until the anti-Easter brigade come up with compelling reasons to have the date changed (and having a structured season for competitive orienteers from the Auckland region is not a compelling reason), or avail themselves of the process available to them to try and get it changed (i.e. the remit process and NZOF AGM).

Back to the comments from maptalk:

Martin: "Yes there is a mindset that the season is based around january to december. this is because the age groups are defined by which calendar year you were born in."

Interesting to note that in ski-O, a sport where the (European) season straddles the end of the year, age classes are still defined by age at 31 Dec. Their international events are held early in the calendar year and you have the situation where many 20 year-olds aren't eligible for their JWOC! I suspect the history is classes are defined at the end of the year as it suits (foot) O in the northern hemisphere. IF O was a summer sport in NZ, there would be nothing stopping us defining age classes at, say, 1 July. In horse racing, horses born south of the Equator have an assigned birthdate of 1 August, while those born north are assigned 1 January.

Martin again: "Before asking the question of Easter/Labour/QBday, a question should be asked about when during the season the nationals should be held"

Chicken and egg! Should the timing of the nationals define when the season should be, or should the season define when the nationals should be!? At this point, I'll introduce another comment:

Greg: "The only problem with James suggestion is that you are asking for more events, I can't see any changes happening if it involves more events being added for clubs to organise. Ideally if you are talking about an 'elite' season it would be best to run it so that it ends just before the start of the serious part of the European season. But the people that do the planning are not elites, and are also worried about every other person wanting to orienteer, which leads to events scattered all over the year"

We need to remember that Orienteering is a small sport, reasonably labour-intensive and has issues surrounding volunteer workload. It is a sport where masters compete and elites are not the be-all-and-end-all of serious competition. Our sport's survival is significantly dependant on the goodwill of clubs (or more correctly, certain individuals within clubs) who need to remain motivated to put on events. Otherwise it will slowly wither away and die.

So from a national perspective, I don't have much interest in telling clubs what to do, especially when it comes down to when they should put on their events. Now the Nationals are exempt from this, as it is one of two "NZOF" events (the National Sec Schools Champs being the other one), and as such "NZOF" decide when they should be held. The current philosophy of "NZOF" is it is really up to the owners of "NZOF" (the orienteering clubs) to decide when the Nationals should be.

Those from the Auckland region should be a bit careful about leading the charge of trying to set up a structured season. Consider the following scenario: NZOF set up a think tank committee, their recommendation is Orienteering should be a spring-to-autumn sport, and NZOF "order" that the Auckland Championships are to be held in March. Wonder what the reaction would be from Auckland clubs?

So to get back to Martin's question, the Nationals are fixed at a certain time of year (because last time we checked orienteers want the Nationals to be at the same time every year), through a democratic process (although some Aucklanders still believe that it wasn't), and it is really up to clubs and regions to devise a programme of events that take that date into consideration.

In an ideal world, it would be great if the different areas would co-ordinate and a "national season" could be devised. But the world is not ideal: Aucklanders do not want to orienteer in the summer and always have the risk of a fire ban in Woodhill to contend with. Wellingtonians and South Islanders have restrictions on them if they tried to orienteer in late winter/early spring due to climate and access. So it doesn't matter when the Nationals are (Easter or Labour Weekend), there is always going to be a significant proportion of the orienteering community who view the date as "not ideal". Transferring the Nats from Easter to Labour Weekend would transfer the problems of an "orienteering season" from Auckland to Christchurch.

So our world is not ideal. Is it really that bad? Last word to Fraser - his post sums up my feelings perfectly:

The debate about when the season is seems like a lost cause to me. If the NZOF decided that, for example, summer is the season for orienteering then how do they enforce this? Are they going to ban orienteering in winter?? Even in this small country there seems to be enough local variation in climate or land use to make different regions have different ideas on when orienteering is best for them. So you can debate the timing of nationals but debating the season seems pointless on a national level.

O'ING: Global Growing Pains

A sneak preview of an article about to appear in "Orienteering Today":

THE GROWING PAINS OF BECOMING A GLOBAL SPORT

International decision-makers must quickly learn to assess issues on a global basis, or run the risk of damaging the sport’s long-term prospects, argues Rob Crawford*

Politicians, including sporting politicians, must always guard against the natural temptation of preserving self-interest at the expense of unity. The latest decision by the IOF to include Micr-O in next year’s WOC has motivated me to write the following article.

Allow me to indulge in the sharing of personal experience. Those who competed at a World Cup race in Leuk, Switzerland in 1996 will never forget the day. A sudden thunderstorm struck during the men’s mass-start race, eventually washing away a temporary bridge over a ravine used to get from the last control to the finish. The last third of the men’s field, including myself, was stopped at the last control and directed to the finish using a road bridge 1km away.

Some hours later, the official results were published and the last third of the field could not be ranked. A little puzzled, a visit to the event centre to find out why resulted in a lively discussion with the IOF Controller. I can still clearly remember being told by this person that, because the top 45 could be ranked (for World Cup points), the rest of the results “did not matter”.

Puzzlement quickly turned into rage, as I tried (and failed) to politely point out that I had not given up my employment, and spent thousands of dollars of my own money, to come and participate in an international race to be told that my result “did not matter”. My point was lost on him.

At times, I wonder whether such arrogance still exists in the orienteering world. Some readers may not care, but there is one word to explain why you should – “Olympics”. Orienteering has the Olympic dream. Personally I think the dream is too far away, and I will be very surprised if this happens in my lifetime. If it does, I will be very happy to be wrong, and eat my slice of “humble pie”.

Many decisions are based around the Olympic dream. We must make our sport more visible, attract sponsors and media, to move our sport closer to the dream. Annual world championships, professional arena production, and now Micr-O are all needed for this “progress”. I can see, and understand, this. But do the decision-makers understand the cumulative effect that all these choices have on the less-developed orienteering nations?

Why is this so important? To answer, let me refer you to the IOC report that assessed our bid for Ski-orienteering to be included in the winter Olympics. They state: “concerns were expressed over the low participation in ski orienteering of countries outside
Europe”. Have we learned the lesson this report gave us? International issues must be decided with more balance. It is not acceptable to continually make choices that benefit the strong orienteering nations which at the same time damages the ability of other nations to continue their own development. Another Olympic report published this year, relating to the evaluation of summer sports, listed 33 criteria that sports were evaluated on. It may come as a surprise, but it is not nearly enough just to have 75 affiliated nations and the sport on TV to become an Olympic sport. Under the heading of “universality”, here are some of the criteria sports were evaluated on:

Results of World Championships
Number of affiliated national federations
Participation by national federations in World Championships
Participation by national federations in Junior World Championships

Even the simplest analysis of this report can see that no matter if Orienteering has 100 affiliated nations; if only 40 countries are participating at World Championships and medals are won by the same 6 countries, the Olympic dream is no closer to reality.

Therefore the argument, in simple language, of “let us make the strong nations stronger and then worry about the rest” will not work. You may find, in 20 or 30 years time, “the rest” may be in such a bad state of affairs that the years of neglect will not easily be reversed.

The major decision affecting countries such as my own is of course the move to annual world championships. That has been a bullet to our ability to develop a high performance programme. I am sure our nation is not alone. Regular participation at World Championships is just as difficult now as when we commenced in 1976. The politicians will tell you that there were 37 nations at the recent WOC held in Japan. That may be true, but is only a simple analysis. Of more relevance is the number of nations competing in the relay, which indicates a significant presence at the event. In 2003: 37 men and 30 women; in 2004: 33 men and 24 women; in 2005: 27 men and 22 women. The alarm bells should be ringing. Will the New Zealand women’s team, 9th in 2005, be at the start line in 2006? The answer is not 100% yes.

The move to annual world championships is not the only example. Last year for WOC, we had an athlete available for the relay only. Unfortunately, our Federation could not pay the entry fees and the athlete understandably refused to pay the full entry fee (because the entry fee is a “package fee”). The organisers would not accommodate our request for a reduced entry fee for the athlete. Correspondence from the IOF stated, in part, “you will be happy to know that Council has decided to propose that the rules for all disciplines be harmonised with the new Ski-O Rules” (2 June 2004). Bulletin 2 for WOC 2006 has just been published and the entry fee is still a package fee; the rules have not changed.

Yes, this is only a small matter, but may I be excused for wondering how the IOF can make a major decision to include Micr-O in WOC in about 6 weeks, yet to change one line in the Competition Rules has taken more than 15 months (and counting)? Is this a symptom of the attitude first experienced in 1996?

The EPG report made the worthwhile suggestion that every 4 years the World Championships should be held outside of Europe. This idea is not new; it has been suggested before. Yet even if I believe there is the willpower within the orienteering world to make this happen (which I don’t), has anyone stopped to think how the increasing demands on WOC organisers (professional arena production, maybe Micr-O?) will affect this laudable aim?

This article should be viewed as an early warning. There will always be decisions on international issues where conflicts arise. The key to managing such conflict is to achieve a balance. Too many decisions that benefit one section of the international orienteering community at the expense of another will divide, rather than unify, our sport. If Orienteering truly wishes to become a global sport and reach the Olympic stage, self-interest must be put aside, a greater effort made to understand the needs and aspirations of all affiliated members, and balanced decision-making that provides incentives for achievement by all, as opposed to a select few.

*Rob Crawford is President of the New Zealand Orienteering Federation and an associate member of the IOF Foot-O Committee.

SPORT/BETTING: The Rugby World Cup, Ashes ... what next?

I've always regarded England (and/or the UK) as an underachieving nation in sports. Well, they can now claim the upper hand in two of the bigger anglo-saxon sports (cricket and rugby union) over their convict cousins, not to mention football/soccer and don't be surprised if they add rugby league to the list by the end of the year. What the hell is happening to Australian sport?

The news that Orienteering Australia has had a massive funding cut from their government may be a clue. From being world leaders in sports funding, they are now coming back to the pack. And over the last few years, money has been flowing into English sport more than ever. To my Orienteering friends, you may be interested to know that the British Orienteering Federation states on their website:

"BOF currently manages a budget of just under one million pounds a year. Over three quarters of this is either exchequer (taxation-funded) or Lottery grants from UK Sport or Sport England"

The fact that British Orienteering gets 750,000 quid gives you an insight into the amount of money pouring into UK sport. Expect that to increase with their hosting of the 2012 Olympics. While money doesn't buy success, it sure gives you a hell of an advantage. One day I'm going to have a huge rant about sports funding in New Zealand, because it is a joke. Before I return to the cricket, some figures for Kiwi orienteers to chew over:

UK: Population 60 million, 9,000 orienteers, government funding 750,000 pounds (1.9 million NZD)
Australia: Population 20 million, 5,000 orienteers, govt funding (2003/4) $136,000 AUD ($150,000 NZD) - although this is now getting cut by 40% I believe.
New Zealand: Population 4 million, 1,600 orienteers, govt funding $18,000.

Back to the ashes - bit of a pisser really. Draws are not good to my bank balance, and thanks to trading like an idiot on the final day (which is easy to do after five all-nighters) I've taken a wee hit - but that's gambling for you. I only lost what I made on the fourth test, and won on the first three, so I can't complain. Sharee's not too impressed this morning when I told her the rock she's about to get has been downsized - like many, she sometimes cannot sort the serious from the humourous when utterings spew from my mouth...

Shame that Warne dropped Pietersen. Would have been a helluva match with Aus chasing 220 odd in 50 overs, and a fitting finale to a riveting test series. (OK, cricket and riveting don't belong in the same sentence, but I'm allowed a bit of licence in my blog). And, I will say it again, Ponting is dumb. Dumb Dumb Dumb. I'm thinking of suing him for gross negligence. Yes, it's my wallet talking, but add the decision to go off for bad light, to bowling first at Edgbaston and declaring far too late against Sri Lanka last year, as stupid decisions that have had a significant affect on the result of a game.

And talking about dumb - this article about Tony Greig made me laugh.

England deserved to win the series - it would have been an injustice if Aussie scrambled a win last night. Is this the end of a golden era in sport? - the Australian cricket team have been outstanding over the last decade and will be judged as one of the best teams in the history of sport. Unfortunately we won't know if this is really it for a little while - they have a hit and giggle against the rest of the world next month, before wiping the floor with West Indies and South Africa during the summer. It may not be until a couple of years when the Ashes are in Australia they have their next true test (although I dream that a full-strength Kiwi team could challenge them); by then, they may be Warne-less and McGrath-less. And maybe Ponting-as-captain-less? I live in hope.

ORIENTEERING: An amazing ride

I've sometimes wondered if I ever would see a New Zealander win a medal at a World Orienteering Championship during my lifetime. To think that in some remote forest in Slovakia last week it nearly happened.

I've had a few days to reflect on Marquita's 4th place in the middle distance at the World MTBO Champs. The reoccuring thought to me is "don't belittle this achievement". Sure, Mountain Bike Orienteering is a developing arm of our sport, but there are plenty of people who take it seriously. There were over 25 nations at last week's championships, so when you compare it to WOC in Japan (37 nations), it is not exactly in the bog-snorkelling or tiddlywinks class. This is a serious sport, and we have just had a Kiwi a minute away from getting a medal. The more I think about it, the more I shake my head in awe at the result.

It's one of the great things about sport - results that come out of the blue to shock and surprise. I sent a fax to the WOC team saying if Bangladesh can beat Australia at cricket, Michael Campbell can win the US Open, and our junior men can kick Aussie butt in the JWOC relay, what can you do? One of the reasons I can spend hours in front of a tele watching sport (apart from making money) is the great unpredictability it can produce. Sport constantly shows the lesson that human achievement is only limited by the personal obstacles that we put in front of ourselves.

Read to the end; more about that later. Let's get back to Marquita. OK, she's a friend, and the partner of one my best friends and greatest influences in my life, but she is so deserving of getting something like this. To think that after doing her cruciates so bad at the 1997 Nationals, she can come back, be a World Masters Champion on foot and fourth in the world on a bike ... fucking marvellous. And I always like to see people who are so giving reaping rewards. She's our Convenor of Selectors and has spent a fair amount of time in this role, not to mention a lot of hours fieldworking maps, drawing them on OCAD, setting and controlling events, etc etc. A blog post would not be complete with advice from my Mum, who always told me you get out of life what you put in. Well, Marquita has put in a fair amount into our sport, so seeing her get a result like this is just desserts. Onya chainsaw, I'm so happy for you.

Now, to those of less life experience than myself, read on. Many years ago I asked Paul Dalton what makes a good runner (now he won't remember this). Paul, in addition to being a reasonable orienteer, was quite a handy runner and I envied him - one year he ran the Rotorua Marathon in a tick over 2 hours 30 and I thought bloody 'ell, if he was half decent at navigating he'd be dangerous (sorry Paul). "So Paul, what's the difference between a 34 min 10k runner such as myself and a 32min 10k runner such as you?"

I'll never forget the answer, which went along the lines of the top 6 inches. If you can run 34min, you can run 32 min, the difference is 90% mental.

Sport at the top level is all about between the ears. For every champion in sport, there are 10 people who have the same talent who don't get there. Now I know this will come as a shock to some people, but I don't profess to know everything - however I do have some clues about psychology in sport to know that the difference between 3rd and 1st in NZ, or 40th and 10th in the world, is usually what goes on in the brain cells.

Some of us think that the biggest barrier to New Zealand orienteers achieving internationally is physical - we ain't fit enough. That is partly true, but I truly believe that the greatest improvement that most elite or aspiring elite orienteers in NZ can make is getting their head space right. Mental strength can make the difference, even overcome physical and technical deficiencies.

So use Marquita's result as inspiration. Not only to show what can be achieved, but even at times when things may not be going your way. Remember she was in hospital with significant doubt about whether she would be able to run again. Now she has come 4th at a World Championship.

Now get your arse off the chair in front of your computer and go for a run!!!