Organiser's Comments

Though we had a bitterly cold day in which to operate I can report that on counting the provisional results it seems we had 598 finishers. So thank you all for supporting the Chiltern Challenge 2006. Remember class winners receive a memento of the day. Please look me out at future events – 5 Mar. at Burley, New Forest (SOC), 12 Mar. at Shotover (TVOC).

Regrettably on the day some early competitors on courses 1,2,3 and 5 were disadvantaged in their run as a result of overnight vandalism that had not been spotted in time. It was my decision to let the results stand and not to void the 4 top courses as most competitors had complete runs. My decision was also made after lengthy discussion with senior members of BOF rules group and jury members. My sincere apologies go out to anyone reading this who was affected and thank you in your understanding of the situation. Those affected are marked in the results with an asterisk. At this point I would like to thank the competitor who gave up his run to report the missing control. Please give me a call so I can thank you personally.

Plans for this years CC06 began way back in July when Andy Kilner passed over details of contacts he’d had with the National Trust through small RAFO events in Park Wood. After quite a few telephone calls and subsequent face to face meetings with landowners/keepers we were given the clear signal to proceed.

Mapping began in autumn and the final rubber stamp of approval reached me from English Nature in January. There were sensitive areas that had to be considered in the planning of courses. The taped corridor on courses 1 – 5 and 9 was not designed to show the way to the ‘lesser spotted orienteer’ but to steer you all around lichen that has been clinging to ice-age rocks for 2 million years.

Additionally that corridor ran out onto a major, and potentially busy, road at a point just beyond a blind bend. So acting on police advice we continued to steer the course along the wide verge by the use of mesh netting to a point visible to oncoming traffic and the road marshal Andy Kilner. It was he who took the responsibility of road safety and made up some superb warning signs – probably to keep himself safe as well as the runners.

Roger Thetford handled the entries for us, though perhaps not a lot of you knew that for he did not wish his name to be published up front. Thank you Roger for keeping your finger on the pulse of the entry system.

The services of EMIT UK were outstanding in their recording of race times. Their smooth operating of the entries and subsequent download gave me reassurance that it was all in good hands. Thank you Allan and Jerry for your input.

Reports from the controller and planner can be read elsewhere. However I would like to thank Steve Long (TVOC) for producing courses which, from reports circulating in the assembly field later, seem to satisfy most. Also David May, the controller, who gave a great deal of support and experience to the organising of the event.

Most of the area used was courtesy of the National Trust and agreed with English Nature. The use of Naphill Common and surrounds was with the kind permission of Sir Edward Dashwood of the West Wycombe estate.

Fred Ashford, TVOC

Planner's Comments

I hope you all enjoyed your runs at Bradenham and Parkwood. It was unfortunate that 153 went missing - I replaced it as soon as I heard but a number of runners had already lost time there. David has commented on the issue and I feel no need to add anything, other than regret that it happened at all. That boulder was one of the more interesting control sites, one of the few natural boulders in the Chilterns. Some of those boulders may look like a bad case of fly tipping but in fact they are glacial erratics, and quite uncommon in these hills.

The planning challenges centred on planning legs where the path was not always the best option, while trying to retain the classic orienteering challenge of route choice. Perhaps this is the case for all planners, but I felt it quite acutely on this map. Most courses did have a high number of controls, but I hope they also retained an element of route choice.

The start position was a compromise between getting as many courses south of the road as possible while making best use of the woods for the courses that didn’t cross. Ideally, the start would have been south of the road, meaning only one road crossing in competition and less dead running, but it seemed too risky taking juniors across that particular road. It was also good keeping the start close to the car park, making a more competitor-friendly event. With hindsight I wouldn’t have taken course 5 across the road because it had the highest proportion of dead running of all courses, and it may have been better to keep it entirely in Parkwood. But The Coppice is an interesting wood, and I hope the course 5 competitors appreciated a visit there (those that weren’t affected by the 153 problem anyway!).

I hope the holly didn't cause too much consternation: it's difficult to map consistently, and Andrew's experience of mapping Chiltern vegetation paid off here.

I would like to thank Les Morris, gamekeeper at Great Cookshall Wood, for letting me in several times during the shooting season.

Steve Long, TVOC

Controller's Comments

It was all going so well. [Well, there was the lack of loose control descriptions which threw some, but we found an acceptable solution.] The sun was shining, the first finishers were being complimentary, it was time for a Wilf’s tea and all was well with the world …

… but then came the report form the road crossing team that 153 was missing. Steve was despatched to check and replace if necessary – and it was necessary. The stake had gone, the flag had gone and even the tape had gone and, what’s more, nearly 30 competitors were affected by this before things could be put right. This was a scenario that we’d discussed several times in BOF Rules Group and it was now happening on my watch!

It’s tempting under these conditions to simply remove the split times for the leg before and the leg after the missing control and then publish the shortened race times as the final results, and some events have done this already. This looks at first sight to be the ideal solution but, when considered further, all sorts of problems start to appear. For example:-

• Some of those affected would be consciously or subconsciously “thrown” by the missing control and this would affect the rest of their race, almost certainly in an adverse way.
• Any later runners who had made errors at 153 and/or the next control would be only too delighted to have two leg times subtracted from their final times. Is this fair on those who completed the legs without error?
• It didn’t happen today but, at some events, the two legs removed could well be two long legs, potentially comprising a large fraction of the course. The remainder would not be representative of the planned race.
• Later runners, knowing that there was a problem with 153 and anticipating that the leg times would therefore be removed, might be tempted to take their time over the two legs concerned thereby (a) resting and (b) planning the rest of their route.

This leaves two alternative solutions. The Organiser either voids the courses altogether or he/she reinstates those competitors who had no punch at the missing control and allows their race times to stand, even though they may have been affected by the problem. In my view, Fred quite rightly chose the latter option as the least damaging solution bearing in mind that it was a minority of runners who were affected.

Apart from this issue, I believe that the event went very well and that many competitors were pleasantly surprised at how enjoyable (and challenging) the terrain was. Steve planned some excellent courses and went to great lengths to fine tune them for maximum interest. Those of you who ran the last Chiltern Challenge at Bradenham in 1987 will notice a huge difference in the map and also an increased runnability since then … and also that courses have got shorter in the meantime. Many thanks to Steve for such a good job and for being very amenable to agree to my few suggestions about changes.

David May, SLOW