Grouping of runners: EOC Long Final

Posted by Jan Kocbach, 29 May 2008@12:00

grouping.jpgAt the EOC Long Final yesterday, runners running together in packs was a big discussion due to the fact that most of the men within the top 10 probably had some use of other runners to keep up the speed and lower their errors. The below analysis of the results regarding runners running in packs from the WOC Long Final is done by Henning Spjelkavik as a part of a work done on separation methods in orienteering (read more about the work here) – and the way to display the material is inspired by methods shown by Martin Lerjen for WOC 2007 results.

Note! Colored boxes in the below figures show that two runners have been within 15 seconds of each other at a control. Boxed in the same color show that two runners are together. In each box, the position the runner has at this control is shown.

Updated 2008-02-06: Now the runner who is first in the pack is marked with bold. Also, a tooltip is shown which shows how much a runner is behind.

Being within 15 seconds of each other does not necessarily mean that the runners get help from each other for the orienteering or to keep up higher speed – but if two runners are within 15 seconds of each other in a large part of the course, it indicated that at least one of the runners has gained time due to the grouping. These types of graphs are especially interesting in order to find out how effective separation methods are in orienteering.

Please add your comments below! There is a lot of material for discussion here!

EOC Long Final Men

Name 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Anjala Topi 48 16 39 39 19 15 17 . . . . . . . . 17 17 18 19 24 22 21 21 22 22 28 34 35 35 34 34 36 37 36 36
Dlabaja Tomas 48 31 27 22 24 21 20 . . . . . . . . 41 42 42 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 42 42 42 43 42 42 42 42 42 42
Breitschadel Felix 48 45 44 42 44 45 45 . . . . . . . . 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 45 45 44 44 44 44 44 44
Bortnik Alexey 48 42 30 24 16 29 27 . . . . . . . . 28 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 26 24 28 28 29 30 30 30 30 30 30
Mrazek Jan 48 43 45 44 43 43 43 . . . . . . . . 45 43 41 37 36 36 37 37 37 37 35 31 32 32 32 31 31 31 31 31
Prochazka Jan 48 11 13 18 15 14 14 . . . . . . . . 13 12 12 11 13 13 16 17 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 15 18 18 18
Skjeset Lars 48 35 27 30 32 30 28 . . . . . . . . 34 33 34 38 37 42 40 38 40 40 38 39 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
Tervo Tuomas 48 29 17 11 6 6 6 . . . . . . . . 8 8 8 11 14 15 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 15 15 15
Lind William 48 44 46 37 42 38 36 . . . . . . . . 21 20 19 40 39 35 35 35 35 36 41 40 39 39 40 40 40 40 40 40
Lehto Jonne 48 30 29 25 36 40 40 . . . . . . . . 33 30 31 31 31 38 38 39 39 39 44 44 46 46 46 46 45 45 45 45
Kerschbaumer Gernot 48 21 33 28 28 25 25 . . . . . . . . 23 21 22 23 23 23 24 27 27 25 37 37 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41
Osterbo Oystein Kvaal 48 18 16 22 47 47 47 . . . . . . . . 47 47 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48
Teich Christian 48 42 34 38 29 29 29 . . . . . . . . 36 34 35 42 43 43 41 40 38 38 36 35 34 33 33 32 32 32 32 32
Smola Michal 48 23 21 12 46 46 46 . . . . . . . . 40 39 40 35 33 30 27 26 24 24 22 22 23 23 22 22 22 22 22 21
Sadeckas Darius 48 38 43 43 37 35 33 . . . . . . . . 35 37 36 36 38 40 42 43 42 42 39 41 40 40 39 39 39 39 39 39
Millinger Mattias 48 11 43 32 26 24 21 . . . . . . . . 11 13 13 12 11 10 11 11 10 11 9 10 11 11 13 12 10 11 11 11
Karner Olle 48 47 47 47 45 44 44 . . . . . . . . 37 41 38 33 35 31 31 30 30 30 30 36 36 36 36 37 37 36 37 37
Olsen Rune 48 20 22 48 48 48 48 . . . . . . . . 48 48 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 46
Zinca Ionut 48 29 21 17 14 34 32 . . . . . . . . 39 40 37 39 41 41 39 41 43 43 45 45 44 44 45 45 46 46 46 47
Haldin Mats 48 8 6 5 23 20 22 . . . . . . . . 43 45 44 41 40 39 43 42 41 41 40 38 37 37 37 36 35 35 35 35
Krumins Janis 48 16 43 36 34 33 34 . . . . . . . . 30 32 30 26 26 24 29 29 31 32 34 30 29 28 28 28 29 28 27 26
Mihalkin Dmitry 48 8 48 45 39 37 39 . . . . . . . . 31 29 32 32 33 32 33 33 29 29 25 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
Nikolov Kiril 48 38 36 34 31 29 41 . . . . . . . . 38 36 33 27 28 21 22 22 21 21 20 19 19 19 19 18 18 16 16 16
Efimov Roman 48 35 28 26 19 36 37 . . . . . . . . 22 22 21 15 16 16 15 14 13 12 12 13 12 13 12 10 11 10 10 10
Mukhidinov Vyacheslav 48 36 32 41 35 32 31 . . . . . . . . 24 27 27 30 30 29 30 31 36 34 33 32 31 31 31 34 33 33 33 33
Tsvetkov Dmitriy 48 9 6 6 3 3 3 . . . . . . . . 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Gristwood Graham 48 26 24 16 14 17 15 . . . . . . . . 29 31 29 28 27 26 23 24 23 23 26 24 24 24 26 26 26 26 27 27
Kostylev Egor 48 6 10 14 9 13 12 . . . . . . . . 18 15 15 16 15 17 18 18 17 18 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 22
Schneider David 48 46 39 35 22 31 30 . . . . . . . . 26 35 39 34 34 33 32 28 28 29 27 29 30 30 29 29 29 29 29 29
Johnson Oli 48 42 36 32 25 23 26 . . . . . . . . 27 24 24 21 20 19 17 16 18 17 17 17 17 18 17 17 17 17 17 18
Krepsta Simonas 48 24 24 19 20 19 19 . . . . . . . . 20 18 20 18 18 18 19 20 20 20 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Bertuks Edgars 48 23 12 10 8 9 8 . . . . . . . . 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 5 4 5 5 6 7 8 7 7 7 7 7 7
Nomm Marek 48 42 40 41 38 42 42 . . . . . . . . 44 44 43 43 42 37 34 34 34 33 31 33 33 34 35 35 34 34 34 34
Stevenson Jamie 48 33 25 24 17 17 17 . . . . . . . . 25 23 23 22 22 28 26 23 26 27 23 25 26 26 25 25 25 25 25 25
Lucan Vladimir 48 32 32 29 21 22 23 . . . . . . . . 15 19 17 17 17 15 13 13 12 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Wickholm Jorgen 48 13 15 13 12 12 14 . . . . . . . . 10 28 28 29 29 27 28 32 32 31 29 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 28 28
Wingstedt Emil 48 2 1 1 1 1 1 . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3
Lundanes Olav 48 4 2 7 10 11 11 . . . . . . . . 19 17 16 24 22 20 20 19 19 19 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19
Lakanen Jani 48 20 18 34 40 39 35 . . . . . . . . 16 14 14 14 12 11 10 10 11 10 11 8 9 9 9 9 10 12 12 12
Troeng Mats 48 48 37 27 33 26 25 . . . . . . . . 12 10 10 13 10 12 12 12 14 14 13 11 13 11 11 13 13 13 13 13
Weltzien Audun Hultgreen 48 3 9 15 5 3 2 . . . . . . . . 5 3 3 5 4 5 5 6 7 6 6 12 10 12 10 12 12 9 9 8
Rollier Baptiste 48 1 4 3 31 5 4 . . . . . . . . 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 10 9 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Johansson Martin Per 48 26 9 8 4 4 5 . . . . . . . . 14 11 11 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Hubmann Daniel 48 6 7 4 7 8 9 . . . . . . . . 7 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2
Nordberg Anders 48 12 3 2 27 18 18 . . . . . . . . 42 38 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 44 43 43 42 43 43 43 43 43 43
Merz Matthias 48 27 11 9 2 8 7 . . . . . . . . 3 6 5 4 6 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Ohlund Erik 48 14 15 46 41 41 38 . . . . . . . . 32 26 27 20 19 34 36 36 33 35 32 26 25 25 24 24 24 24 24 24
Ikonen Pasi 48 18 19 20 11 10 10 . . . . . . . . 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 7 6 7 8 8 8 8 8 9

EOC Long Final Women

Name 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Rantanen Merja 44 11 16 12 8 8 . . 6 . . 4 4 5 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 6 6 6
Voskoboynikova Tatiana 44 42 38 44 43 43 . . 41 . . 38 38 43 43 43 43 42 42 42 42 42 42 41 41 41
Rebane Kirti 44 34 35 43 42 42 . . 40 . . 37 36 36 37 35 35 37 36 36 35 35 35 34 34 34
Kokina Kristine 44 41 36 31 32 32 . . 35 . . 34 32 31 33 29 30 32 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 31
Muller Lea 44 33 30 23 20 15 . . 15 . . 15 16 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Shandurkova Iliana 44 35 43 39 39 39 . . 42 . . 40 41 41 40 40 40 40 40 40 41 41 41 42 42 42
Jurenikova Eva 44 29 22 21 21 14 . . 17 . . 17 17 18 19 16 16 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Rollins Sarah 44 15 18 15 14 33 . . 31 . . 26 25 23 23 20 20 17 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19
Johanson Liis 44 43 41 32 34 34 . . 32 . . 36 43 42 41 42 42 41 41 41 40 40 40 40 40 40
Vinogradova Galina 44 28 40 40 40 41 . . 43 . . 43 42 38 38 38 38 38 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37
Vanjuk Merike 44 31 31 41 41 40 . . 38 . . 35 34 35 35 36 37 36 35 34 33 33 33 33 33 33
Vercellotti Capucine 44 44 44 42 44 44 . . 44 . . 41 37 37 36 37 36 34 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
Depta Monika 44 26 33 30 29 30 . . 29 . . 24 23 22 21 21 21 23 21 21 21 21 21 22 21 21
Hagman Line 44 38 39 36 38 38 . . 36 . . 33 39 39 39 41 39 39 38 38 38 38 38 39 39 39
Palmer Helen 44 30 20 17 20 27 . . 39 . . 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44
Gyurko Fanni 44 38 42 38 37 37 . . 34 . . 42 40 40 42 39 41 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43
Stara Zdenka 44 7 10 28 28 26 . . 22 . . 21 22 18 19 25 24 25 24 25 25 25 25 26 26 26
Elder Rachael 44 18 18 17 17 12 . . 20 . . 22 21 20 22 19 19 24 25 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Gil Esther 44 27 26 33 31 29 . . 28 . . 25 24 24 24 23 26 27 39 39 39 39 39 38 38 38
Stanchenko Larysa 44 40 34 26 24 22 . . 27 . . 31 29 29 29 31 32 28 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 27
Dockalova Martina 44 36 32 24 23 23 . . 37 . . 33 30 32 31 32 33 31 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 29
Cejka Caroline 44 32 27 22 27 25 . . 21 . . 23 20 21 20 24 23 22 22 23 22 22 23 21 22 22
Sundberg Karoliina 44 16 14 9 12 11 . . 18 . . 16 12 12 14 18 17 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
Luscher Sara 44 13 19 18 15 13 . . 10 . . 27 26 25 25 26 25 21 23 22 23 23 23 23 23 23
Pauzaite Sandra 44 18 13 35 36 36 . . 33 . . 29 27 27 27 22 22 20 19 19 19 19 19 18 18 18
Stalder Seline 44 24 24 25 33 31 . . 26 . . 28 28 28 28 27 28 26 33 32 31 31 31 30 30 30
Kazlauskaite Inga 44 24 23 20 18 20 . . 23 . . 19 18 16 16 14 14 14 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Billstam Annika 44 22 7 8 9 7 . . 14 . . 13 11 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9
Valaite Indre 44 22 16 13 16 17 . . 16 . . 20 19 19 17 17 18 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
Gustafsson Linnea 44 20 11 37 35 35 . . 30 . . 39 35 34 34 30 29 33 30 29 29 29 29 29 28 28
Elson Grace 44 26 38 27 25 24 . . 25 . . 30 31 30 30 34 34 35 33 35 36 36 36 36 36 36
Holmstrom Bodil 44 9 9 14 13 16 . . 12 . . 11 14 10 10 10 8 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Novikova Yulia 44 2 2 6 6 4 . . 4 . . 5 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4
Dodin Celine 44 20 28 19 22 19 . . 13 . . 12 13 11 12 12 12 13 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
Brozkova Radka 44 1 3 4 7 5 . . 5 . . 9 33 33 32 33 31 30 27 26 26 26 26 25 25 25
Riddervold Marianne 44 9 21 12 11 18 . . 11 . . 10 7 8 8 8 10 12 11 10 10 10 10 11 11 11
Brozkova Dana 44 11 9 7 4 6 . . 9 . . 7 9 13 11 11 11 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8
Johansson Sofie 44 12 5 4 5 9 . . 7 . . 6 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5
Korzhova Natalia 44 15 25 29 26 21 . . 19 . . 14 10 7 7 7 7 8 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Persson Lina 44 6 12 10 10 10 . . 8 . . 8 8 15 13 13 13 11 10 11 11 11 11 10 10 10
Weltzien Ingunn Hultgreen 44 39 29 34 30 28 . . 24 . . 18 15 26 26 28 27 29 34 33 34 34 34 35 35 35
Ryabkina Tatiana 44 3 1 1 1 1 . . 1 . . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Hausken Anne Margrethe 44 5 5 5 3 3 . . 3 . . 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Engstrand Emma 44 4 6 2 2 2 . . 2 . . 2 2 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Percent of runners in packs

The following curve shows how many runners (in percent) run in pack at each control. As you can see, at the controls after the butterflies, the runners got together in packs.

lf_men_percent_s.jpg

longfmap_s.jpg

The following analysis by Martin Lerjen posted as a comment in the World of O article “Grouping at EOC Long Qualification” is very interesting in this regard:

At the Mens Top Ten today… (me looking at the results)

1. Tsvetkov: Together with Efimov (10.) since 11th control, together with Nikolov since 15th control, with Mihalkin since 22nd Control.
2. Hubmann: First contact with Johannson (5.) at the 8th control, running togehter with Johannson from the 16th control
3. Wingstedt: Some not very cooperative contacts with Wickholm. Together with Lucan (14.) from the 13th control (but Lucan always behind)
4. Merz: Ran the whole thing alone
5. Johannson: catched up by Hubmann at 16th
6. Rollier: Ran the whole thing alone
7. Bertuks: Together with Schneider (23.) from the 19th
8. Weltzien: Contacts with Troeng from the 12th, together with Troeng from 16th to 25th
9. Ikonen: with Öhlund (23.) 3rd to 6th control, and 16th to 19th, else alone.
10. Efimov, see Tsvetkov (1.)

Some comments to this:
1) 16th control is at the middle of the race, if two runners catch up there, they are running half the race together
2) I doubt that the competition is fair. See the case of Merz, Rollier and Wingsted (somehow) all considered running alone: Tsvetkov makes the difference from the moment he runs with Efimov. Hubmann and Johannson make the difference from the moment they run together.

So.I have nothing against Tsvetkov, he is the winner. Let’s just put some effort in avoiding that amount of mutual influencing among the top ten of a Championchip.

————— Second comment – also by Martin Lerjen ———————

The Ranking of Longest mutual influence* during todays long distance final:

1. Olson & Haldin 84 Min.
2. Smola & Millinger 64 Min.
3. Kerschbaumer & Letho 63.5 Min.
4. Tsvetkov & Efimov 53 Min.
5. Wingstedt & Lucan 51 Min.
6. Teich & Karklins 46 Min.
7. Tsvetkov & Efimov & Nikolov 45 Min.
8. Hubmann & Johansson 42 Min.
9. Prochazka & Mrazek & Breitschädel 37 Min.
10.Osterbo & Teich & Karklins 36 Min.
11.Lakanen & Lundanes 35 Min.
12.Schneider & Bertuks 34 Min.
13.Bortnik & Dlabaja 32 Min.
13.Gristwood & Kostylev 32 Min.
13.Troeng & Weltzien 32 Min.
16.Smola & Osterbo & Teich & Millinger & Karklins 31 Min.
17. Tsetkov & Efimov & Nikolov & Mihalkin 20 Min.
18.Krumins & Haldin & Olsen 10 Min.
19.Johnson & Schneider 8 Min.
…
…
No Ranked: Skjeset, Tervo, Lind, Sadeckas, Merz, Rollier, Ikonen, Norberg, Kärner and others.

*Punching every control not more than 15 seconds apart


Possibly related posts

36 Comments

70102

Comment by Jørn Sundby

May 29, 2008 @ 12:57

When the terrain is technical, runners will get together because of mistakes at the controls. In Denmark and Ukraine there were almost no groups, but then there were easy controls and not much mistakes made. Routechoices and running strength seperated runners. So what do we want??

It is also known that having short technical legs after butterflies makes runners get together again. A long leg should be preferred after butterflies.

70103

Comment by old

May 29, 2008 @ 13:02

Kind of ironic that IOF is trying to develop methods to prevent following, but never uses the most powerful method: Disqualification.

Following has never had any consequense for the runners. The more we talk about course setting and other methods, the more runners get the signal that following is OK.

The course setter can try to make courses that make the runners meet as little as possible. BUT it is the responsibility of the runners to not follow.

70105

Comment by Martin Lerjen

May 29, 2008 @ 13:52

:-) The development of the rank while running in the pack is indeed an intresting point.

An other possibility to visualize the packs dynamic would be to mark the packs leader instead. That way you could see if a runner is always leading or following or if the runners constantly switch leading position.

Not only in the pack Wingstedt/Lucan Wingstedt is always leading, but also in the pack Tsvetkow/Efimov (later with Nikolov / Mihalkin) Tsvetkov leads the whole time. Only Efimov takes the lead at one control.*
On the other hand Johansson** and Hubmann switched leader position more often with Hubmann hanging behind towards the end.

I want to point out, that that kind of analysis has no intrest in denoncing pack-runners. I suppose that all these runners are absolute top runners and top orienteerers and they are ‘forced’ into such pack-situations.***

Instead the analysis aims to show the influence such packs have on a competition and how organisational sanctions (for ex. bigger startintervals) could alter what i call the fairness of a Championchip.

—
* How many time saved Tsevkovs there ?? :-)
** Sorry for misspelling earlier!
*** You get in unintentional and it is hard to get out

70106

Comment by Martin Lerjen

May 29, 2008 @ 13:56

Tsevtkov, I mean.

70107

Comment by Peter

May 29, 2008 @ 14:15

We may try as many butterflies as possible but the best spreading method are simply longer start intervals.
Lets have again 3 mins interval for long distance and I believe it will have much better effect that any other splitting method.

70108

Comment by Martin Lerjen

May 29, 2008 @ 14:28

>OLD
Following is not sanctioned because it is hard to define and even harder to provide evidence.

I am quite sure, that following is not happening on an EOC. What happens is ‘influence’, providing a runner with some additional informations* during his race. A runner did not seek for these and he can’t avoid to get them. You can see in my examples, that after Tsevtkov made a small mistake at the 16th control Efimov instantly took the lead.** The guy was most likely not follwing, but orienteering influenced by Tsevtkov.
Influence is something a runner can’t ignore without severly damaging his own race. So, I would suggest not to start messing with ‘did one follow?’ and to focus on avoiding the necessity to ask this question.

___
*on routechoice, mircoroutechoice, former routechoiches, own speed, own fitness, standings at the passing a.s.o

70109

Comment by me

May 29, 2008 @ 14:36

Lets have:
1) 5 min start interval
2) only 30 runners in the finals
3) really long courses, with route choices, not long technical middles

70110

Comment by old

May 29, 2008 @ 15:31

>Martin Lerjen
>A runner did not seek for these and he can’t avoid to >get them.
>Influence is something a runner can’t ignore without >severly damaging his own race.

I disagree with you. I think a runner can avoid ‘influence’, also without severly damaging his own race.
Of course I don’t think we can avoid ‘influence’ completely, but when runners stick together for 45 minutes it’s not a coincidence anymore that they always make the same choices. In these situations they are highly ‘influenced’ by each other and probably make conscious choices to let the ‘influence’ continue.

70111

Comment by Davids

May 29, 2008 @ 16:00

> ME
REALLY long courses?? WTF? Have you ever qualified for a one? How long it should be in your opinion? And if we take only 30 to the final than only 5 teams are represented….

70112

Comment by -

May 29, 2008 @ 16:19

Butterflies DO spread runners. Just because a pack is formed just after some butterly loops, it doesn’t mean that it was the loops themselves that made the packs form!

It was rather the effect of having run for another 3-4 km that has made the pack form. If you had the same course but without the “split” of the butterfly, the people would still come together. That’s because the faster/more stable runner has indeed had more time to catch up with the slower/less stable runner

70113

Comment by Gee

May 29, 2008 @ 17:00

I think the current debate is quite pointless, so far there has been no evidence that runners being within 15 seconds of each other provides any tangible benefit. If this discussion is going to have any meaning a proper analysis needs to be done to see if statistically runners are receiving any SIGNIFICANT advantage from being in a ‘pack’. Is there a statistically significant improvement in split times from an athlete who has caught a slower runner?

All we have seen so far is speculation there has been no evidence that runners catching other runners has significantly affected any of the results.

Much worse outstanding athletes are having their well deserved success questioned with no evidence! Unbelievably we also have the case of one athlete with a strong reputation having said to have lead his pack so gained no advantage while another without the reputation having his result questioned!

70114

Comment by Interested bystander

May 29, 2008 @ 19:18

Several points:

1. There is certainly a degree of “influence” when runners form in a pack. Even the “leader” of the pack (ie the fastest orienteer and the last to join the pack) can receive some assistance through, for example, small corrections around control sites. Based on the data above, however, it is usually the people who are caught that gain the most from teh influence. This is evident in the dynamics of the places over the course of the race. For example, Efimov went from 40th to 10th over the course of the race while in a pack with the eventual winner. Similarly, Kirilov went from 36th to 16th in the same pack. It very rarely works the other way though where packs go backwards in terms of placings!
2. Packs form accidentally – no-one deliberately waits for a runner to then join the train. However, once a good runner comes past, it is very tempting to jump on board. At the elite level, all these guys and girls can run similar speeds – the difference is in the navigation. And even if they are not following, there is often little route choice available and they may just not be able to get away. This also happens in the finals of the WMOC in my experience.
3. Once a pack has formed, what are runners supposed to do? Stop and let the better orienteer get ahead? This is a similar situation to triathlon where drafting on the bike leg is penalised with a time penalty (often in the form of having to dismount from the bike for a few seconds, which effectively stops the drafting). However, there are course marshalls to enforce such a rule in triathlon – no such thing would be feasible in a forest, except on an honour system.
4. Can graphic analysis like the one above be used to highlight such issues and administer sanctions after the event? Perhaps. But what about a situation where a good orienteer makes an error early in the course and then is caught by another good orienteer. They might reasonably be expected to run at the same pace for the rest of the course. Should the runner who is caught stop and let the other get ahead?
5. There is always the moral sanction of publishing such graphical analysis as it shows a much clearer picture of what actually is taking place in the forest – “name and shame”. But this needs to be interpreted and applied carefully.

70115

Comment by old

May 29, 2008 @ 21:35

IOF competition rule 26.2:
“In an individual interval start race, competitors shall navigate and run through the terrain independently.”

Isn’t this enough to have a debate?

GEE: Do you honestly think that it is not an advantage to run a long distance together with other runners? If that is what you think; What planet are you from?

70116

Comment by GEE

May 29, 2008 @ 22:35

@OLD I think that the best orienteer on the day wins the race. I can see that a slower orienteer can gain an advantage when they are caught by a faster runner but if you want to tell me that an athlete has won a world championship only because they met another runner on the course then you have a simple task – PROOVE IT! Show a statistically significant improvement in their running speed after meeting another athlete.

Until that is done it is totally unfair to speculate about athletes and question their results on the basis of whether they ran with other athletes or not.

Yes it should be investigated but it has been taken a step too far before any real evidence or investigation has taken place.

70117

Comment by Pascal

May 29, 2008 @ 23:08

Since orienteering is a sport, running together is a part of this sport!
It´s good to use butterflies or/and other things (3min start intervals) to avoid groups – but there will be always groups! Is it unfair? No – because it´s a part of this sport!
The only difference is that clever guys have made nice analyses – about something we already know…
I totaly agree with GEE that it´s unfair to speculate (at least I did it for myself) with those analyzses about athlets and their results.

70118

Comment by ML

May 30, 2008 @ 8:08

>GEE
At the WOC 2005 Mens Long Final runners the boost factor of packs where 6.3% in average with a median of 5.9% and a standard deviation of 11.3%. This is only the effect on running speed.(Analysis made by B.O. Myvold)

>PASCAL
It WAS part of the game.

70119

Comment by Aigars Kokins

May 30, 2008 @ 8:17

I agree to Pascal. As much as I did not like in my youngster years, that the guys were following me, still the stronger runner won in most of the cases (hopefully it was me most of times). We have to accept – THIS IS ORIENTEERING. We may do whatever we want, but packs WILL form even if longer start intervals are introduced or more butterflies are made. The most radical measure would be longer start interval and the whole course to be made as one huge butterfly with say 4-5 loops. Needless to say – the sport will become less and less ‘user’ friendly.

If you look at cross country skiing – the same happens over long distances => large packs form and everyone gains. So what? Does the sport become less spectacular?

So – my main point is => do whatever you want, but please keep in mind the ultimate goal of orienteering – more TV coverage, more spectators and possibly even Olympic games eventually, i.e. the sport must become even more user friendly, even if it results in packs forming.

70121

Comment by Gee

May 30, 2008 @ 11:38

@ML I guess this includes the slower runners given a boost by faster runners, I would be really interested to see what the boost factor was for the faster runners and whether this had a major effect on the results (medals).

70122

Comment by old

May 30, 2008 @ 11:45

It is proven that group running is one of the best ways to finish an orienteering race fast. To you that think this is OK; Is it also OK to run in the terrain before the competition, see the map and the course before the race, use EPO, show your “soon to start” team mate the course after your run?

70123

Comment by Gee

May 30, 2008 @ 12:37

@OLD What planet are you from?

70124

Comment by Sandy Hott

May 30, 2008 @ 14:53

GEE you wrote: ” I think the current debate is quite pointless, so far there has been no evidence that runners being within 15 seconds of each other provides any tangible benefit. If this discussion is going to have any meaning a proper analysis needs to be done to see if statistically runners are receiving any SIGNIFICANT advantage from being in a ‘pack’. Is there a statistically significant improvement in split times from an athlete who has caught a slower runner?”

I think it is a fairly well established and accepted fact at least among Elite runners (even those who think that co-running/following is “part of the game”), that co-running/following increases the speed for those in the pack. To my knowledge there aren’t many “scientific analyses” to show a “statistically significant improvement” in split times for the runners involved but I know there was a detailed analysis of the results from WOC 2005 showing the effects. From memory, it showed that runners in the pack not only increased speed but also had a decreased probability of making larger mistakes. Maybe someone else can give the reference for this or other scientific analyses.

For me as a runner I think that following/co-running is unfair. It is quite clear that it affects the results of the race, also the medals. Please understand, I am a big fan (and also clubmate) of Daniel Hubmann, so this is obviously not personal… but it seems quite clear that by co-running he probably gained more than the 1 sec that he is ahead of Wingstedt in the finish. For Wingstedt who seems to have done the job alone, that must feel pretty unfair. Ditto for Tsevtkov. I am not questioning whether these runners COULD have achieved the same results by running alone… I think they could have, but now we’ll never know.

I can think back to several WOC’s where the medals were influenced by co-running/following. To those involved, the effect certainly feels “significant”.

In other words, co-running/following is an unfair (and also not allowed, according to the rules) way of gaining time in a course. So OLD has a valid point — why should we accept this form of unfairly gaining time when we certainly wouldn’t accept others.

70125

Comment by GEE

May 30, 2008 @ 17:56

But by the definitions set out above, having a runner within 15 seconds, Wingsted had more time in the race co-running than Hubmann did! This is exactly the problem, who is supposed to make the judgement that one person is advantaged by co-running but another isn’t, it is very clearly not fair!

70126

Comment by ML

May 31, 2008 @ 0:02

>GEE
Myrvold too expected higher boost-factors for the less good runners of a final but found no systematic tendency. Even the best runners profit about the same percentages from packs. An explaination for this could be: The better the rank in the qualification race the better the pack-mates = the same relative boost.

12 seconds! Research done by Henning Spjelkavik showed, that at the Swedish Middle-Champs 2007 the time difference between two runners of the same category had two peaks: One in between 0 and 12 seconds behind the former runner. Another around the start intervall behind the former runner. The 12 seconds can also be interpretet as the ‘time of effective influence’. The size of this window is assumed to differ a bit from terrain to terrain but 15 seconds at the EOC might not be to far from reality.

And b.t.w.

The average time difference between Hubmann and Johansson at a control during ‘their’ 32 minutes: 2.05 seconds. The maximum difference between them at a control was 4 seconds. Hubmann ran from 4. to 2.place, Johansson from 11. to 5.place

The average time difference between Tsvetkov and Efimov at a control during ‘their’ 42 minutes: 4.05 seconds. The maximum difference at a control was 7 seconds. Tsvetkov ran from 4. to 1.place, Efimov from 41. to 10.place.

70127

Comment by Gee

May 31, 2008 @ 2:51

@ML you started your post so well, i was really happy to see some more concrete information and informed debate but I take a big exception with the last part.

The average time difference between Wingsted and Lucan during ‘their’ 42 minutes: 3.76 seconds. the maximum difference at a control was 11 seconds. Wingsted ran from 1. to 3. place, Lucan from 17. to 14.

What does this mean? What do your examples mean? How on earth did Matthias Merz and Baptiste Rollier manage to improve their positions over the same last half of the course when they were running alone??

All i know is that we get pretty pictures and it is a fun way to discredit athletes when they have had outstanding performances.

What I would like to know is:

When a faster runner catches a slower runner and they form a ‘pack’ what is the % increase in the faster runner’s speed (ML: this is a different question to what you answered)

If there is a significant increase in the faster runner’s speed, what is the mechanism for increasing the speed of the faster runner? (increased confidence due to safety of having a ‘helper’? increased motivation from being in a ‘head to head’ racing situation? lesser frequency of mistakes or less time lost when a mistake is made due to assistance?

If a significant influence and effect is proved is it possible to remove this from the sport entirely? (Actually I already know the answer to this – NO)

If a significant influence and effect is proved what can we do about it?…..

70128

Comment by Neil

May 31, 2008 @ 8:42

Graeme Ackland did the pack analysis for WOC 2005 and made predictions on finishing times based on position after say a third of the race. Good correlations with actual results and it showed definite improvement.

I would second everything Sandy says.

And add: the 2006 World Cup Long Distance race in France was pretty atrocious for following, pack-forming and pack-hunting controls… being slow I got passed by a couple of them and they were big. This race also provided the most blatant example of cheating I have seen at this level with team-mates 50m apart conferring on where the control might be. In hindsight I should perhaps have complained. Also in the Relay I got asked where a control was by a competitor.

Moreover, there were some orienteers (top-twenty in the world) talking pretty openly in the team area about getting lost together, talking, following etc.

People run a race on their own as well as they can, but many will gladly take help when it’s there…

It seems some top orienteers don’t like (orienteering in?) technical terrain.

Three-minute start intervals please!!!

70129

Comment by Pascal

May 31, 2008 @ 11:38

We are just speculating about runner’s performances and THIS IS UNFAIR!

I would like to ask you: what should Tsevtkov, Hubmann, Wingsted do in the forest when they are catching other runners?
As you are discussing their performances/results, it seems it’s their responsibility to do something in this situation.
Now I´m really looking forward for answers!

70130

Comment by ML

May 31, 2008 @ 23:59

>GEE
The samples should just show that in both cases we are far from the 15 seconds margin and that it is most likely right to assume permanent influence. If you see a discredit in that, I don’t.

I propose to make a difference between ‘hierarchical-packs’ and ‘even-packs’. In h-packs you can see a constant distribution of roles: one is pulling and the other hanging. The puller doesn’t profit a lot, the hanger does. (That was your question, wasn’t it?)
At this level and especially at the top of the race the more common form are e-packs (due to the start-order): You can have a bad quali, but not a good quali by case -> only good runners at the end of the finals startlist -> encounters form e-packs. e-packs are packs were both are pushing each other. They keep the pace very high and they do not make any mistake, because are both fully orienteering, correcting each other. (e-packs are typical for relays (with forkings))

Looking at the splits I’d say the packs I mentioned were e-packs, the pack you mentioned was an h-pack.

At the moment I don’t have no statistical prove for that. But give me some time…

70131

Comment by Gee

June 1, 2008 @ 0:30

@ML that is great stuff but as you say I think proof and some statistics to back that up is needed.

The next question is what do you do with that can we have a rule that h-packs are okay but e-packs are not??

Your comments on individual runners also proves my point that the speculation is unfair and is being used to discredit runners well deserved and earned performances, Tsvetkov was clearly leading his pack (apart from one control) in exactly the same situation as WIngsted yet we have several people on here implying that he had an unfair advantage over WIngsted (in an e-pack rather than an h-pack).

I think it is great to discuss whether packs are forming and to use statistics to determine whether the results are being affected, and perhaps follow this through to find a better system for long races but I really strongly disagree with it being used in this way to discredit an athlete’s performance.

Particularly the type of graphic which has been used in this story and for the long qualification is an easily misinterpreted and unfair system of looking at the results, many people may look at this and come up with an unsubstantiated opinion about who may or may not have deserved their results.

All the athletes competed in this race under the same conditions and all deserved their results, perhaps in the future a better condition or system can be used to make a better competition but that will not change the results from this race.

70132

Comment by ML

June 1, 2008 @ 22:41

>GEE
My final comment:
1) the number of (pure arithmetical) packs visualized by the grafic is impressingly high
2) the grafic shows that packing COULD substantially have influenced the results up to the top
3) the grafic shows, that not every athlete had the same conditions

So the grafic is useful:
1) To qualify the efficency of organizational actions taken to reduce the number und duration of packs (eg. the butterfly did not work as expected and maybe should have been placed later in the course??)
2) To put some pressure on the athletes to really run independent by reminding them that running together with others is evident to the public and other competitors.

70133

Comment by Gee

June 2, 2008 @ 1:02

Almost all of the important information about whether packs formed and how well butterfly’s or other anti-packing actions have worked could be shown equally as well in a different way which does not single out individual athletes.

The quality of the information in the graphic is not high enough that it can be used to make an informed judgement on whether packing could have substantially influenced the results. Further analysis COULD show this but it is not included! Also many people will look at it and take it at face value that people with lots of coloured blocks next to their name have in some way cheated. I don’t think you can expect that most people will go back to the splits themselves to try and work out what has happened.

70134

Comment by Gee

June 2, 2008 @ 1:32

Quote Martin Lerjen “I doubt that the competition is fair. See the case of Merz, Rollier and Wingsted (somehow) all considered running alone: Tsvetkov makes the difference from the moment he runs with Efimov. Hubmann and Johannson make the difference from the moment they run together.”

This statement suggests that somehow Tsvetkov receives an unfair advantage over WIngsted, lets consider the mechanics of the two packs.

Tsvetkov catches Efimov and leads into every control (except one) to the finish, apparently in this type of pack the puller (Tsvetkov) gets little benefit.

Wingsted begins to catch Lucan and for 5 controls is in the position of chasing Lucan into the flag (by ML’s terms being a ‘chaser’, and gaining advantage) before he overtakes and becomes the ‘puller’ and for the rest of the course gets little benefit.

Now first let me state that I do not believe that any of these athletes have done anything wrong and that they all fully deserve their success, medals and positions.

Second, somehow it has been accepted by many posters here that Tsvetkov has had an unfair advantage over Wingsted in the race. HOW CAN YOU MAKE THAT CLAIM BASED ON THE EVIDENCE.

There are so many holes in the analysis, so many qualifications about what sort of pack creates an advantage, which sort of pack doesn’t. Can you really say that it is a fair way to judge an athlete’s performance?

70135

Comment by Jan Kocbach

June 2, 2008 @ 1:49

> Second, somehow it has been accepted by many posters
> here that Tsvetkov has had an unfair advantage over
> Wingsted in the race. HOW CAN YOU MAKE THAT CLAIM
> BASED ON THE EVIDENCE.

My view is that it is impossible to know WHO had an advantage due to the grouping evidenced, but that with very high probability SOMEBODY had a significant advantage due to this. There is no strict evidence to the fact that a certain runner does not deserve his/her position, but in my opinion there is enough evidence to show that one should utilize / develop methods which minimize grouping for future championships.

70138

Comment by HF

June 2, 2008 @ 12:54

I completely agree with the last post.

Yes: running in packs gives you unfair advantages, whether you run in the lead or behind it. This should be avoided by minimizing the possiblity for grouping in future races.

No: Disqualifying someone without fool-proof evidence is not going to work. No matter how elaborate the statistical analysis is, one cannot rule out false positives. Now, what is worse: Not punishing the guilty, or mistakenly punishing the innocent? In ‘real’ crimes, the answer is quite obvious.

Don’t forget that when looking at the splits, you only get maybe 30 snapshots of the entire race. What happens between those snapshots can only be guessed. The runners might take different route choices, but still be only a couple of seconds apart at the next control.

So, please stop complaining about ‘who-run-with-who-for-how-long-and-possibly-gained-how-much’ and rather focus on how one can minimize grouping in future.

70139

Comment by vamp

June 2, 2008 @ 13:20

@ pascal:
“Since orienteering is a sport, running together is a part of this sport!”
Sorry but that is absolutly nonsense. The definition of sport is not running together in packs, even less in orienteering!

I think that when it comes to the situation where a runner is catched by another one and when the split times are starting to be almost the same, then we have an obvious cooperation between them, especially when the punching interval is less than 10-15s for over a half of the race.
I think that you simply can’t ignore your rivals when navigating into the same direction and then being influenced is a logical consequence. And it is simply a fact that navigating and running in groups or simply the eye contact with other athletes leads to a significant gain of speed and precision.

I think that the analysis of Henning Spjelkavik is very significant and, absolutely agreeing with jan kocbach, a developement of separation methods is needed to provide a “fair” competition.

70140

Comment by Samo

June 2, 2008 @ 13:23

It is very interesting debate. Observation from outside.

Someone mention that co-running/following also affect runner’s ranks already in the Q races which have same effect for some runners. If one athlete is out of Final for some seconds, it is unfair if he/she see in results that not just one, but several runners improve their ranks after they were caught by other runners.

Maybe orienteering could apply in Q races some sort of Q method from Ski-jumping or athletics to minimize affect “following” and give more pressure on tactic. In each Q heat we divide runners in pairs or groups (2-4 runners) on the basis of their WRE ranking position. First vs last, etc. Each group: First start better runner after him weaker runner, etc. It is battle just between them who will go in Final. Only winner go to Final and at the end also some lucky losers based on time of all (2nd placed runners in the group). Start interval between runners 2’ and groups 3-5’ (To prevent cooperating between runners from different groups with minimal effect of time length of Q race).

@Pascal
What could happen in the forest? If the better runner will be caught (error) by a weaker runner, he/she will be forced to run away and not to cooperate if he wants to win the battle against him or he/she must take a risk to go in Final as lucky looser. In case of more runners in Q races organizers could make groups of three or more runners and put event larger pressure on better runners. If weaker runner will start to following and batter runner can’t run away he/she will probably decrease the speed and start waiting for weaker runner to go in front (like cycling). In this way both runners risk to not qualify and third runner take a win in this group.

I agree that some solutions must be found for this problem but not to spoil real orienteering.

70141

Comment by Pascal

June 2, 2008 @ 23:28

@ VAMP
I agree, the definition of the sport is not running together. But running together is given by the setup of orienteering, and we know that for a long time. And now we have nice analyses, that shows something we already know… And now???

We should discuss what to do against pack building and not discussing individual runners.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.