Subject: WOC team automatic selection clarifications and RP size/makeup Peter and OUSA Board, The WOC team trials are just two weeks away, and there are a couple of issues I'd like to ask the Board to address before they take place. I'll provide some background on the issues and summarize with suggested actions at the end. I actually raised these issues with the ESC and team back in December, but my comments were apparently ignored. For reference, I've attached the message I sent to the ESC and Team mailing lists on Dec 22, 2015 (recommended_changes.pdf) The supporting material is still posted online at the indicated links. The only ESC response I received regarding this submission was two hours later in a reply from Linda stating simply that the "ESC office is closed until after the holidays." The next message from the ESC about the selection criteria was on Jan 27, when the selection criteria in its current form was mailed to the team mailing list, and as far as I can tell wasn't made publicly available to everyone (via the OUSA team web pages) until April 11, 2016, both well after the Dec 31 announcement deadline set forth in rule G.1.7.3 On pages four and five of the attached document I've listed 6 recommended changes to the (then proposed) 2016 WOC selection criteria. Point number 2 has to do with the "automatic" selections based on the objective results of the trials races themselves, and it is this point that I believe needs to be addressed by the Board now. This is particularly important given the problems with the recent WUOC team selections. There was a long discussion of the WUOC selections and violations of rule G.1.8.2 by the ESC on Attackpoint in this thread: http://www.attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/message_1151368 Heading into the WOC team trials, I believe we might be faced with a similar situation. The wording of the WOC selection criteria does not specify what should be done with the automatic selections in certain situations, and the probability of those situations occurring is quite high. Please refer to the 2016 WOC selection criteria posted on the OUSA web pages here: http://www.us.orienteering.org/us-teams/senior/trials/2016 According to the selection criteria, the winner of the sprint and the top two on the overall scoring list will be automatically selected to the team. However, it doesn't say what will be done if the sprint winner also happens to be one of the top two in the scoring list, or what will be done if anyone in these positions chooses to decline an appointment to the team. In order to get an idea of how often this has happened in the past, I re-analyzed the results of all the WOC team trials from 2005-2015, using only the scores of the races themselves (i.e. ignoring any dropped scores or ranking scores that were used in the past). This year there will be no ranking score and all races count, so I treated all the older results the same way to look at how often the sprint winner was *also* one of the top two on the scoring list. Here are the results: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Was the sprint winner also one of the top two overall scorers (y/n)? M W ------------ 2015 y n 2014 n y 2013 n y 2012 y y 2011 y y 2010 n n 2009 n n 2008 y n 2007 n y 2006 y n 2005 y y ------------ 6 of 11 6 of 11 55% yes 55% yes 9 of 11 times (82%) yes for m *and/or* w in any given year (it happened every year except 2009 and 2010) 3 of 11 times (27%) yes for both m *and* w in same year -------------------------------------------------------------------- Effectively there's a 50/50 chance of the sprint winner also being one of the top two scorers in the overall scoring list for either the men OR the women considered separately. There's an 80% chance that this will happen in a given year for *either* the men or the women, and a 27% chance that it will happen for both together (or neither). I also looked to see if athletes declining spots on the team had any effect on selection of the sprint winner or top two scorers: - In 2005 the top two men on the scoring list, including the sprint winner (May and Walker) declined. That is, all three of the 2016-defined automatic selections declined. - In 2006 one of the top two men on the scoring list declined (Platt). The other was also the sprint winner, which would have resulted in only a single automatic selection that year. - In 2010 one of the top two men on the scoring list declined (Granovskiy). The other was NOT the sprint winner, so there would have been only two automatic selections that year. However, the sprint winner was third on the scoring list (Smith) and would move into second following the decline. As far as I can tell there were no declinations among the women in the 2005- 2015 time frame. Wording of the current 2016 WOC selection criteria does not specify precisely what is to be done in the event of the above scenarios, which have a fairly high probability of occurring. My specific request is that a *minimum* of 3 automatic team selections be made (and maintained under all circumstances) based exclusively on the scoring list from the trials races. This stems from the requirement outlined in rule G.1.7.1 which states in its first sentence: "G.1.7.1 The makeup of the U.S. Team to the World Orienteering Championships (the WOC Team) is based primarily on the results of a team selection competition (the Team Trials)." Should a team roster of more than five persons per gender be named, additional selections should be added (above 3) directly from the trials races scoring list to guarantee that a majority of the team is selected at the trials. Not doing so would be a violation of the OUSA rules of competition (G.1.7.1) and would seriously undermine the credibility of the trials races themselves. I would like the Board (and ESC) to specify exactly what should be done in the event the above situations do occur so that there is no ambiguity on Sunday afternoon after the trials races when the automatic selections are announced. The second issue I'd like the Board to address is the size and makeup of the Review Panel (RP). The makeup of the RP is defined by rule G.1.7.5 of the OUSA rules of competition. It says in part that the RP should be between 3 and 5 members and that "The majority of the members of the Review Panel shall have no direct affiliation with the US National Team (ESC members, Team members or coaching staff)." The currently named review panel in the 2016 selection criteria is composed of four members, one of whom is currently an ESC member. I'd like to point out that that person, Peggy Dickison, has been on the previous four WOC review panels in 2015, 2014, 2013, and 2012 (in 2014 she apparently was only there part-time before selections were made, but she is listed as a member in the online 2014 selection criteria). She was also a member of this year's WUOC review panel, which was composed entirely of ESC members (please refer to the AP discussion thread at the top of this message). 2016 would constitute Peggy's 5th or 6th consecutive term on a US elite team review panel, and that is simply too long for any one person to be in such a position, regardless of any other justification for her presence (e.g. "continuity," difficulty finding other suitable candidates, etc). Given the weight that subjective insertions by non-competing athletes has this year, given the Board-approved waiver of rule G.1.7.10 allowing unrestricted petitions, given that it is the ESC itself that establishes the WOC team selection criteria and given the potential conflict of interest that exists for ESC members making subjective insertions of fellow ESC members (and possibly involving ESC members actually competing at the trials), I'm asking that no ESC members serve on the WOC team review panel. Further, I'd like to request that the size of the RP be increased from four to five members (a larger panel with an odd number of members in case a decision by vote must be made is desirable), and that a public call be made for volunteers to serve rather than the ad hoc, non-transparent method of selecting members that is in use right now. My request in summary: 1). Given the high probability of duplications and/or declinations among the sprint winner and top two on the scoring list, I'd like the Board (and ESC) to make explicit the procedure that will be followed when and if these situations occur, so that a minimum of 3 automatic selections from the scoring list will always occur for a team of 5 (more for a larger team in keeping with rule G.1.7.1). My suggestions: - If the sprint winner is also one of the top two on the overall scoring list, the next available person down the scoring list shall also be selected to the team automatically. - If the winner of the sprint declines a spot on the team, the next available person down the trials sprint results list shall be selected to the team automatically. If that person is also in the top two on the overall scoring list, the next available person down the scoring list shall also be selected to the team automatically as above. - If any of the top two on the overall scoring list declines a spot on the team, the next available person(s) down the scoring list shall also be selected to the team automatically, continuing down the list until two (plus the sprint selection) are selected. 2) Increase the size of the Review Panel from the current four members to five members, and eliminate sitting ESC members from the Review Panel entirely to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. OUSA's conflict of interest policy is posted online in the policy section here: http://www.us.orienteering.org/documents/policies Thank you for your consideration, Eddie Bergeron 5/22/2016