• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

2020-21 USS&S Race Event Guidelines

sparty

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Feb 15, 2018
Posts
1,005
My personal favorite is the electronic distribution of documents and submission of protests...except where cell and wifi service is lacking. In my experience, most race venues fall into the "lacking" category, but sometimes only depending on carrier, so I hope that's taken into account ("only Verizon customers can file protests" isn't really a fair solution).
 

Burton

Getting on the lift
Skier
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Posts
103
I think these guidelines/requirements show a lot of thought was put into this and they seem prudent. Maybe some long term benefits will be wrung out of this, as people innovate to make things work within these requirements. It would be nice to see registration streamlined, and standing around time between runs cut down. Maybe venues will work to stand up wifi near race and parking areas (if cell coverage is garbage) and communications on inspection group times, 2nd run starts, protests, etc. all get pushed out via text.

I think the 100 field limit is the biggie, and I hope we see some creative solutions allowing for multiple races at the same venue per day, like single run races, no re-sets between runs (which is feasible with 100 racer fields), having both courses set at the start of the day so there's no break between runs (though having inspections while a race is running is super dicey--says the guy who still cringes when remembering how he interfered with another racer's run at USCSA Regionals many years ago in this exact scenario). None of this is ideal, but it sure beats not racing at all.
 

S.H.

USSA Coach
Skier
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
1,821
Location
New England --> CO
I think these guidelines/requirements show a lot of thought was put into this and they seem prudent. Maybe some long term benefits will be wrung out of this, as people innovate to make things work within these requirements. It would be nice to see registration streamlined, and standing around time between runs cut down. Maybe venues will work to stand up wifi near race and parking areas (if cell coverage is garbage) and communications on inspection group times, 2nd run starts, protests, etc. all get pushed out via text.

I think the 100 field limit is the biggie, and I hope we see some creative solutions allowing for multiple races at the same venue per day, like single run races, no re-sets between runs (which is feasible with 100 racer fields), having both courses set at the start of the day so there's no break between runs (though having inspections while a race is running is super dicey--says the guy who still cringes when remembering how he interfered with another racer's run at USCSA Regionals many years ago in this exact scenario). None of this is ideal, but it sure beats not racing at all.
While I think the guidelines are reasonable in light of COVID, I think most of them will be hard for many venues to carry out given smaller fields, lower budgets due to smaller club sizes, etc. - or, registration costs will go up a lot. Not sure this is the season to drive more athletes out on the basis of cost.

No resets between runs (with 100-racer fields) is potentially possible in GS, but may be harder in SL. Depending on region, snow conditions, and age group, there still may be preference for single-gender courses, especially among older age groups. On the other hand, possibly we'll see one gender in the AM, clearing of the lodge, and the other gender in the PM. Should be doable if you have an organized race crew (and no injuries or timing issues). That will allow for a 200-racer field (total), which is in line with many eastern events now.

That said, depending on venue, inspection during race runs can be fine - in fact, is standard practice at several venues now. But it depends on choke points and course access - many venues have extreme narrowing and access choke points at both the start and finish. Also, organizing by team for inspection seems ... nearly impossible. I also feel bad about the grouping of inspection, especially at the older age groups, as it (potentially) may pull away from the individual nature of inspection - some people blast through it, some people like to use the full inspection period to analyze every gate.

We'll see. It's good to see a protocol. If people don't adhere to it and there is an outbreak associated with a race, everyone will hear about it and it will be a problem for everyone. Nobody wants to be that event.

We'll see about virtual TCMs. At larger events, especially in R/C and Western where these typically happen the day before anyway, this seems great. In the east, where TCMs are usually held shortly before inspection ... maybe there's a change in timing (not great for part-time coaches or weekend-only programs) or maybe we see some loosening of rules where TCMs all happen outside while socially distanced.

I'm excited that there's a protocol to hold races; competition is important for development. If field sizes are restricted to the extent that starts are also limited, maybe we'll also see an increased importance placed on training and skill development, which is also a good thing for most athletes IMO.

This will also have impacts on higher level events for sure, but tbh I'm not as concerned with those, since I'm no longer attending them as an athlete and I'm not coaching at that level this year (nor coaching anyone with real potential to reach that level).
 

sparty

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Feb 15, 2018
Posts
1,005
I think these guidelines/requirements show a lot of thought was put into this and they seem prudent. Maybe some long term benefits will be wrung out of this, as people innovate to make things work within these requirements. It would be nice to see registration streamlined, and standing around time between runs cut down. Maybe venues will work to stand up wifi near race and parking areas (if cell coverage is garbage) and communications on inspection group times, 2nd run starts, protests, etc. all get pushed out via text.

I do agree that it's clear a lot of thought went into the guidelines, and I agree that many, if not all, are common-sense ways to mitigate risks. Streamlining registration and limiting standing time makes tons of sense to me; one of my pet peeves is when you get run 1 done early and, because the second run inspection time was posted as 12:00 instead of "to follow", you get to hang out for an extra hour.

I doubt you're going to see a lot of improvement in wifi, though; the challenges at many venues are substantial due to distance to actual networks, and I don't see it being a significant priority for most hosts when they're busy trying to figure out how to manage Covid with the general skiing public.

I think the 100 field limit is the biggie, and I hope we see some creative solutions allowing for multiple races at the same venue per day, like single run races, no re-sets between runs (which is feasible with 100 racer fields), having both courses set at the start of the day so there's no break between runs (though having inspections while a race is running is super dicey--says the guy who still cringes when remembering how he interfered with another racer's run at USCSA Regionals many years ago in this exact scenario). None of this is ideal, but it sure beats not racing at all.

With that field size limit, there's at least a reasonable chance of managing two races even with a reset. While surfaces should hold up for 100 racers (at least for firmer conditions and with a capable course crew), cutting the number of sets in half is not good for athlete or coach development. Ideally, athletes should be seeing different sets on each run.

I do agree that setting both runs before the race starts is a good idea, at least for slalom; even if you don't want people inspecting while the race is ongoing, you should be able to cut the turnover time down substantially because you no longer need to reset then inspect. Staggering inspection times per-team may have an adverse impact on inspection length, though, especially for seeded races where the team with the last inspection slot may include the first second-run competitor.

Setting a men's course and a women's course and then swapping for the second run (with a redress) is one way to cut down on the time, but the guidelines recommend single-day and single-gender races. That's great in theory to reduce exposure windows, and not having men and women's teams traveling together sounds great in principle if your club is already structured that way (which most are at the FIS level); however, for regional-focused club racing, particularly weekend programs, I think that's the exception more than the norm. If Maine went to single-gender races, it will require at least a few clubs to rework their group structures and coaching schedules.

That recommendation also just doesn't work in at least one region—Montana—where the combination of travel distances and field sizes mean that doing single-day races is definitely out, and doing single-gender events is unlikely to be workable from a host-organization financial standpoint. You might pull it off with two races per day, but even then I'm not sure, and you'd also be back to a coaching-staff-availability issue.

Re: TCMs, if meetings go virtual, I don't see why we can't do them night-before in the East. I strongly prefer that to begin with—it means you actually have a fighting chance of getting info from the TCM out to the whole team before they're headed up the hill for inspection—and virtual meetings, by definition, don't require everyone to be on site.

I do agree that it's good to see a protocol; as noted in the document, it's almost guaranteed to evolve over time, and it's tough to figure out where the strengths and weaknesses are until you have something to talk about. I expect the implementation will be very different by age level and division; the issues with a seeded race in Montana, where hitting a combined field of 100 is rare, are very different from a U10 race in Vermont, where the field-size limit is probably going to play a much bigger factor.

I wouldn't mind at all if regional USSA races stuck to a Jan. 1 start date going forward. Having races in December is silliness for the vast majority of club-level athletes and disruptive to training plans; for upper-level athletes with more on-snow time, it may make sense, but I don't see a significant loss in those USSA events going away.
 

sparty

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Feb 15, 2018
Posts
1,005
Also, I don't think bib distribution was mentioned specifically, but I'd love to see the requirement be that coaches pick up bundles of bibs and distribute them, rather than athletes picking them up individually at registration. That would reduce the contact points for athletes and volunteers, and it would also mean that as a coach, I'd actually have a much better chance of knowing for sure which of my self-transporting athletes had actually shown up on a given day, prior to their run time.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Average Joe

Average Joe

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Jul 5, 2017
Posts
554
No doubt these guidelines will be hard for many programs and venues. Very few will have the capacity, space, and terrain to seamlessly conform - but since the alternative is not racing....
And, I think the document says "V1.0" so there's room to tweak at the national, regional, and local level.

Theoretically, these guidelines prevent co-mingling of coaches and athletes from different teams before, during, and after the event, the goal obviously is to prevent cross spread from one program throughout a region.
Re: resets, there is no rule change (yet), current rules require a scored race to combine two runs on two different courses. We all know of instances where the rule was stretched, by moving one gate and calling it a "new" course, but this was for good reason, i.e. after a big snowfall to avoid dreaded cross ruts. I think re-sets are an important part of making it a fair race, and I don't like the "lazy" approach of gate tweaking unless it's needed.
Re: registration, hopefully this will have some positive outcomes. The "bib distribution" language is a little muddy, but I read it that the Coach picks up all lift tix and bibs for the team. The tradition of - in person registration is a ritual, but it's not really necessary in it's pre-Covid form. If all you need is bibs and lift tickets, I'm sure a newer, more efficient way is possible. Sequentially ordered bibs with the home club logo are ideal from a start ref or gatekeepers perspective, but not necessary. After all, the second run start order is not sequential, and we don't lose track of the racers (usually?). So there's some opportunity to rethink the whole bib distribution and re-collection thing.
 

Sibhusky

Whitefish, MT
Skier
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Posts
4,804
Location
Whitefish, MT
I'm more worried about lodging for the kids here. Aside from the kids in the Bozeman area that can easily do Bridger or Big Sky as local, daytrip races, racing here in Montana involves overnight lodging. Shared rooms has always been the norm for cost reasons. And really for control reasons as well. How are they going to do this safely? Do we really want one kid per room in a hotel on a trip? Both for young kids and older kids, this sounds like a recipe for disaster. So then condos, but now it will be multiple houses, each needing a chaperone. Sounds like a nightmare. Glad my kid is done with all of that.
 

sparty

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Feb 15, 2018
Posts
1,005
I'm more worried about lodging for the kids here. Aside from the kids in the Bozeman area that can easily do Bridger or Big Sky as local, daytrip races, racing here in Montana involves overnight lodging. Shared rooms has always been the norm for cost reasons. And really for control reasons as well. How are they going to do this safely? Do we really want one kid per room in a hotel on a trip? Both for young kids and older kids, this sounds like a recipe for disaster. So then condos, but now it will be multiple houses, each needing a chaperone. Sounds like a nightmare. Glad my kid is done with all of that.

On top of driving cost through the roof if you have to go to single-occupancy rooms, you may create availability issues. If 15 kids and two coaches were staying in five rooms and now need 17, multiplied across a handful of programs, you're going to stretch the available bed base on race weekends (and that's for seeded races; the younger-kids stuff may be more of an issue given larger field sizes).

I don't know if the answer for Montana is just to rely on low case rates and cross your fingers; the field sizes are already low enough that it would be tough to split the seeded races up any further, especially because you'd probably end up without a whole lot of competition for the faster kids in a given program. Non-scored races could maybe be intramural from a field size perspective, but you loose the competitive aspect (and if there are post-season events—which may be in doubt at this point—you loose the ability to have a reasonable qualification procedure).

I think the general trend in boarding schools (and ski academies) to do the best they can to create a bubble for the school, while still maintaining some mitigation protocols within it. I assume that means travel will be relatively normal, perhaps with fewer athletes per room and masks worn indoors (and in vans, etc), but that doesn't help non-residential programs that travel as a team.
 

Rudi Riet

AKA songfta AKA randomduck - a USSS coach, as well
SkiTalk Tester
Contributor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
2,462
Location
Washington, DC
I'm going to call out a bit of an elephant in the room: the official club liaison to USSS for this was Aldo Radamus, Head Coach at Team Summit. To call Team Summit a "typical club" is, to be frank, laughable.

Team Summit is a large, well funded program with a deep bench of coaches and athletes and a proven track record for placing athletes on the U.S. Ski Team track. They are a bit of an ur-club: almost an academy, and not in any way similar to the smaller clubs for which this season will be a struggle.

Many of the guidelines laid out assume a lot about teams, coaches, and the families of athletes. They assume freedom to be anywhere on weekdays, while not everybody who can work remotely has the freedom to move as they please, nor can every student be away from their classes during remote schooling. They also assume that most resorts will be able to accommodate competition events - there's still no clear guidance from many resorts on this. And they assume that every family participating in USSS competition will be up to speed on COVID testing and will report in good faith.

The point raised previously about this being a "version 1.0 document" is most salient: this pandemic is still very much a moving target. There are a lot of variables at play, a lot of unknowns. Teams are preparing as well as they can with the information they have, but there are still a lot of assumptions. Many teams have two or more budgets for 2020-21, taking into account anything from a mostly normal level of enrollment, training, and competition to a complete cancellation of the season and everything in between.

But it's very clear that this first stab at a contingency plan was written from a lofty view and few, if any, smaller clubs were consulted in its building. Hopefully it will evolve to be more inclusive and responsive to the needs of smaller teams that don't operate with huge budgets, where they fight for small areas to train on their hills, where families are often spread between two or more mountains for competition weekends. There's time to flesh this out - let's hope USSS does.

Just my $0.02, as usual.
 

sparty

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Feb 15, 2018
Posts
1,005
I'm going to throw out one example of a decision with far-reaching effect:

If we can't share radios, you can't run GS (or speed) without a radio-equipped human at the start, and you can't give feedback at the bottom without one there as well. While there can be a coaching benefit to that, it means you need more coaches to have the same number of eyes actually on the hill. Cost issues aside, I doubt there are a whole lot of programs who have standby-coach lists they can call on to provide that coverage all season.

The "start areas must be enlarged and allow for six feet of spacing between teams" is also one of those "sounds good, but how is that going to work at XXXXXX?" ideas—I can think of at least a few start areas where that kind of spacing will be very difficult to achieve without impeding guests skiing near the venue. Hopefully the mountains are sympathetic and willing to give up the real estate.
 

AlpsSkidad

Buying more gear
Skier
Joined
May 19, 2018
Posts
759
Just an interesting observation for comparison sake. This USSS document is a verbose 9 page document.

The FFS just released their competition and training guidelines. (attached here) For a country (France) that is famous for their love of bureaucracy and extra paperwork done in triplicate etc., I am amazed that it is one page of writing and a one page graphic. It includes all training and competition including transportation, lodging, etc. I am not saying one is better than the other, however, it seems that they are taking a much more simplified and pragmatic approach in France for now with regard to the upcoming race season. For example, there's no need for competitors to social distance on the mountain. (only indoors like locker rooms, and even then it is one meter). Masks are only required for those older than 11, and then only for indoor spaces.
Again, it's just a direct comparison, not playing sides.
I do prefer the easier graphic and simpler message style though.
 

Attachments

  • Reprise-des-activites-en-club-enbref.pdf
    5.4 MB · Views: 22
  • FFSreg-reg0compétitionssportivesCOVID.pdf
    190.9 KB · Views: 16

Sponsor

Top