## RE: Changes to the Hardrock qualifications and lottery for 2013

Expand Messages
• No Matt, we mean 2^N. So first time applicants get 2^0 = 1 ticket. Those with one DNS get 2^1 = 2 tickets. And so on to those three unfortunate souls who
Message 1 of 15 , Jun 24, 2012
No Matt, we mean 2^N. So first time applicants get 2^0 = 1 ticket. Those with one DNS get 2^1 = 2 tickets. And so on to those three unfortunate souls who will have 6 DNSs without a DNF or finish, and will get 2^6 = 64 tickets, should they apply again.

- Blake

________________________________________
From: Matt Mahoney [mattmahoneyfl@...]

> Modeling suggests that giving applicants 2^N tickets, where N is the number of previous DNSs,

I think you mean (N)x(N+1)/2 (N tries with N tickets on the N'th try).
• Thanks for the clarification Blake - much appreciated. I hope everyone gets the chance to experience this amazing event once in their life. Matt Coops ...
Message 2 of 15 , Jun 24, 2012
Thanks for the clarification Blake - much appreciated. I hope everyone gets the chance to experience this amazing event once in their life.

Matt Coops

On 25/06/2012, at 3:44, "Wood, Blake P" <bwood@...> wrote:

> No Matt, we mean 2^N. So first time applicants get 2^0 = 1 ticket. Those with one DNS get 2^1 = 2 tickets. And so on to those three unfortunate souls who will have 6 DNSs without a DNF or finish, and will get 2^6 = 64 tickets, should they apply again.
>
> - Blake
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Matt Mahoney [mattmahoneyfl@...]
>
> > Modeling suggests that giving applicants 2^N tickets, where N is the number of previous DNSs,
>
> I think you mean (N)x(N+1)/2 (N tries with N tickets on the N'th try).
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Hi Blake, Good initiatives and a step forward for the future of the race by the Board. The weighting on the DNS tickets is interesting and fair imo. With such
Message 3 of 15 , Jun 24, 2012
Hi Blake,

Good initiatives and a step forward for the future of the race by the Board.
The weighting on the DNS tickets is interesting and fair imo. With such a
high value on a dns ticket now, begs the question - are qualifiers cross
checked with dns 'entrants' who were on the wait list or withdrew from the
wait list? Just curious?

Cheers,

Phil

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Wood, Blake P <bwood@...> wrote:

> Current and future Hardrockers:
>
>
> At our last Board of Directors meeting, we agreed upon a number of changes
> to our Hardrock qualification standards and lottery which will be effective
> for the 2013 running. These may affect decisions you make long before our
> December lottery and potentially affect decisions you make concerning the
> 2012 run.
>
> Qualification Standards � Service Requirement:
>
> We will establish a service requirement for admission to the run,
> consisting of 8 hours service in either a) an aid station at an ultra, b)
> the management of an ultra, or c) work on a trail used by an ultra.
> Certification of the service is due by June 1, and the form describing the
> service must be signed by the RD of the ultra for which the service was
> performed. Runners on the wait list on June 1 must have their service form
> in if they are to be considered to take the place of subsequent withdrawls
> from the start list. The window for performing the service begins with the
> start of the previous year's Hardrock.
>
> Lottery Changes:
>
> Each year, we are faced with the difficult problem of how to choose 140
> starters from nearly six times that many applicants, while still respecting
> the values that make Hardrock Hardrock. The Board feels that our ideal mix
> of runners would be 25% first-time Hardrockers, 25% veterans (i.e. >=
> 5-time finishers), and 50% everyone else. To preserve this mix, we are
> replacing our single weighted lottery with three weighted lottery pools,
> each with its own wait list:
> 1. "First-timers". 35 slots will be allocated to this lottery, which is
> for anyone who has never started a Hardrock. The intention is to increase
> the likelihood for applicants with many DNS's to get into the run.
> Modeling suggests that giving applicants 2^N tickets, where N is the
> number of previous DNSs, will ensure that those with the most DNSs will get
> in, while still giving first-time applicants a chance. �DNS� includes both
> those who were on the wait list and those who withdrew from either the wait
> list or start list.
>
> 2. "Veterans". 35 slots will be allocated to this lottery, which is for
> anyone who has five or more Hardrock finishes, with the following
> qualification: an applicant who DNFs in two consecutive attempts beginning
> in 2012 will be placed into the "Everyone else" pool until they complete
> the run in a subsequent year. Applicants will get one ticket for each
> previous Hardrock finish. The number in this pool is about the same as the
> number of 5-time finishers bypassing the lottery in each of the past few
> years, and so comes close to preserving this feature.
>
>
>
> 3. "Everyone else". 70 slots will be allocated to this lottery, which is
> for anyone not in one of the previous two lotteries. The algorithm for
> ticket allocation will be unchanged from the current one. Modeling
> suggests that the chances of being selected from this lottery will be
> better than under the current system.
>
> Runners not selected in the first two lotteries WILL NOT be rolled over
> into the third lottery. If fewer than 35 "veterans" apply, the unused
> slots will be added to the "everyone else" pool.
>
> A separate wait list will be maintained for each lottery. When a runner
> withdraws from the start list, a runner will be taken from the wait list
> for the lottery from which the withdrawn runner was chosen.
>
> The previous year's winners will continue to bypass the lottery, but they
> will count against the lottery pool they would have been in.
>
>
> - Blake
>
> Blake Wood
> President, Hardrock Board of Directors
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Bob, looks to me like the five year qualification for a finish didn t change. You should be qualified through 2014 I think. Ken azsmokin
Message 4 of 15 , Jun 24, 2012
Bob, looks to me like the five year qualification for a finish didn't change. You should be qualified through 2014 I think.

Ken

azsmokin <azsmokin@...> wrote:

Well that puts me out of the running. I was just thinking of my year of
training to come with the idea of entering HR 2013.
Having last finished in 09' I would have to finish some other qualifier that
I have no interest in doing.
I feel sorry for the folks who struggled to finish 5 HR's thinking they
would not have to worry about the lottery any more.

Bob Bachani
Tucson, AZ

-----Original Message-----
From: hr100@yahoogroups.com<mailto:hr100%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:hr100@yahoogroups.com<mailto:hr100%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of
Wood, Blake P
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 6:53 PM
To: Ultra List; hr100@yahoogroups.com<mailto:hr100%40yahoogroups.com>
Cc: hardrock100@...<mailto:hardrock100%40bresnan.net>; andrea@...<mailto:andrea%40tenacity.net>;
bgosney@...<mailto:bgosney%40animassurgical.com>; bk.runner@...<mailto:bk.runner%40hotmail.com>; bpwrlc@...<mailto:bpwrlc%40comcast.net>; Wood,
Blake P; cerdman@...<mailto:cerdman%40ekiva.net>; kernkt@...<mailto:kernkt%40cybermesa.com>; kgordon18@...<mailto:kgordon18%40yahoo.com>;
rstrux@...<mailto:rstrux%40rmi.net>; thorn@...<mailto:thorn%40lanl.gov>; thorncha@...<mailto:thorncha%40gmail.com>
Subject: [hr100] Changes to the Hardrock qualifications and lottery for 2013

Current and future Hardrockers:

At our last Board of Directors meeting, we agreed upon a number of changes
to our Hardrock qualification standards and lottery which will be effective
for the 2013 running. These may affect decisions you make long before our
December lottery and potentially affect decisions you make concerning the
2012 run.

Qualification Standards - Service Requirement:

We will establish a service requirement for admission to the run, consisting
of 8 hours service in either a) an aid station at an ultra, b) the
management of an ultra, or c) work on a trail used by an ultra.
Certification of the service is due by June 1, and the form describing the
service must be signed by the RD of the ultra for which the service was
performed. Runners on the wait list on June 1 must have their service form
in if they are to be considered to take the place of subsequent withdrawls
from the start list. The window for performing the service begins with the
start of the previous year's Hardrock.

Lottery Changes:

Each year, we are faced with the difficult problem of how to choose 140
starters from nearly six times that many applicants, while still respecting
the values that make Hardrock Hardrock. The Board feels that our ideal mix
of runners would be 25% first-time Hardrockers, 25% veterans (i.e. >= 5-time
finishers), and 50% everyone else. To preserve this mix, we are replacing
our single weighted lottery with three weighted lottery pools, each with its
own wait list:
1. "First-timers". 35 slots will be allocated to this lottery, which is
for anyone who has never started a Hardrock. The intention is to increase
the likelihood for applicants with many DNS's to get into the run. Modeling
suggests that giving applicants 2^N tickets, where N is the number of
previous DNSs, will ensure that those with the most DNSs will get in, while
still giving first-time applicants a chance. "DNS" includes both those who
were on the wait list and those who withdrew from either the wait list or
start list.

2. "Veterans". 35 slots will be allocated to this lottery, which is for
anyone who has five or more Hardrock finishes, with the following
qualification: an applicant who DNFs in two consecutive attempts beginning
in 2012 will be placed into the "Everyone else" pool until they complete the
run in a subsequent year. Applicants will get one ticket for each previous
Hardrock finish. The number in this pool is about the same as the number of
5-time finishers bypassing the lottery in each of the past few years, and so
comes close to preserving this feature.

3. "Everyone else". 70 slots will be allocated to this lottery, which is
for anyone not in one of the previous two lotteries. The algorithm for
ticket allocation will be unchanged from the current one. Modeling suggests
that the chances of being selected from this lottery will be better than
under the current system.

Runners not selected in the first two lotteries WILL NOT be rolled over into
the third lottery. If fewer than 35 "veterans" apply, the unused slots will
be added to the "everyone else" pool.

A separate wait list will be maintained for each lottery. When a runner
withdraws from the start list, a runner will be taken from the wait list for
the lottery from which the withdrawn runner was chosen.

The previous year's winners will continue to bypass the lottery, but they
will count against the lottery pool they would have been in.

- Blake

Blake Wood
President, Hardrock Board of Directors

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

To Post a message, send it to: hr100@...<mailto:hr100%40eGroups.com>

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: hr100-unsubscribe@...<mailto:hr100-unsubscribe%40eGroups.comYahoo>!
• Phil - We keep a comprehensive spreadsheet of everyone who has ever applied for Hardrock (and completed a qualifier), along with their result for each year
Message 5 of 15 , Jun 25, 2012
Phil -

We keep a comprehensive spreadsheet of everyone who has ever applied for Hardrock (and completed a qualifier), along with their result for each year  - DNS, DNF, or finish.  Two spreadsheets, actually - Charlie and I each keep one independently, so we can compare them to check for errors.  Runners are entered into the spreadsheet each year only if they are put into the lottery (and thus have been found qualified), so we do indeed have that cross check.

- Blake

----- Original Message -----

From: "Philip Murphy" <spudruns@...>
To: "Blake P Wood" <bwood@...>
Cc: "Ultra List" <ultra@...>, hr100@yahoogroups.com, hardrock100@..., andrea@..., bgosney@..., "bk runner" <bk.runner@...>, bpwrlc@..., cerdman@..., kernkt@..., kgordon18@..., rstrux@..., thorn@..., thorncha@...
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:44:16 PM
Subject: Re: Changes to the Hardrock qualifications and lottery for 2013

Hi Blake,

Good initiatives and a step forward for the future of the race by the Board.
The weighting on the DNS tickets is interesting and fair imo. With such a high value on a dns ticket now, begs the question - are qualifiers cross checked with dns 'entrants' who were on the wait list or withdrew from the wait list? Just curious?

Cheers,

Phil

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Wood, Blake P < bwood@... > wrote:

Current and future Hardrockers:

At our last Board of Directors meeting, we agreed upon a number of changes to our Hardrock qualification standards and lottery which will be effective for the 2013 running.  These may affect decisions you make long before our December lottery and potentially affect decisions you make concerning the 2012 run.

Qualification Standards – Service Requirement:

We will establish a service requirement for admission to the run, consisting of 8 hours service in either a) an aid station at an ultra, b) the management of an ultra, or c) work on a trail used by an ultra. Certification of the service is due by June 1, and the form describing the service must be signed by the RD of the ultra for which the service was performed. Runners on the wait list on June 1 must have their service form in if they are to be considered to take the place of subsequent withdrawls from the start list. The window for performing the service begins with the start of the previous year's Hardrock.

Lottery Changes:

Each year, we are faced with the difficult problem of how to choose 140 starters from nearly six times that many applicants, while still respecting the values that make Hardrock Hardrock.  The Board feels that our ideal mix of runners would be 25% first-time Hardrockers, 25% veterans (i.e. >= 5-time finishers), and 50% everyone else.  To preserve this mix, we are replacing our single weighted lottery with three weighted lottery pools, each with its own wait list:
1.  "First-timers".  35 slots will be allocated to this lottery, which is for anyone who has never started a Hardrock. The intention is to increase the likelihood for applicants with many DNS's to get into the run.  Modeling suggests that giving applicants 2^N tickets, where N is the number of previous DNSs, will ensure that those with the most DNSs will get in, while still giving first-time applicants a chance.  “DNS” includes both those who were on the wait list and those who withdrew from either the wait list or start list.

2.  "Veterans".  35 slots will be allocated to this lottery, which is for anyone who has five or more Hardrock finishes, with the following qualification:  an applicant who DNFs in two consecutive attempts beginning in 2012 will be placed into the "Everyone else" pool until they complete the run in a subsequent year.  Applicants will get one ticket for each previous Hardrock finish.  The number in this pool is about the same as the number of 5-time finishers bypassing the lottery in each of the past few years, and so comes close to preserving this feature.

3.  "Everyone else". 70 slots will be allocated to this lottery, which is for anyone not in one of the previous two lotteries. The algorithm for ticket allocation will be unchanged from the current one.  Modeling suggests that the chances of being selected from this lottery will be better than under the current system.

Runners not selected in the first two lotteries WILL NOT be rolled over into the third lottery.  If fewer than 35 "veterans" apply, the unused slots will be added to the "everyone else" pool.

A separate wait list will be maintained for each lottery. When a runner withdraws from the start list, a runner will be taken from the wait list for the lottery from which the withdrawn runner was chosen.

The previous year's winners will continue to bypass the lottery, but they will count against the lottery pool they would have been in.

- Blake

Blake Wood
President, Hardrock Board of Directors

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• then make it [entry fee] \$2000 and give half of the money to charity. Now Matt THAT S FUNNY! Matt, keep in mind however, that maybe some of the readers of
Message 6 of 15 , Jul 1 11:32 AM
"then make it [entry fee] \$2000 and give half of the money to
charity."

Now Matt THAT'S FUNNY!

Matt, keep in mind however, that maybe some of the readers of this forum don't know that you're being sarcastic and that Hardrock IS A CHARITY in the first place. From time to time I myself wonder if some members of this board even understand the responsibilities they accepted upon becoming board members. This includes a duty to serve the volunteers, donors, and the general public good and maintaining a degree of transparency when dealing with all three.

A year and a half ago, I requested Hardrock's financial statements from Blake Wood, President. Most other non-profits for whom I donate time and/or money, furnish these automatically as a matter of their regular course of business.

Blake's initial response was:

"I'm not familiar with the requirements for publicizing financial statements, etc., for a non-profit." (2/8/2011)

One of the most basic tenets of nonprofit management and the President isn't even aware???

Then, the following day I received this email:

"We will get you the financial forms.  It will take a few days to put them in a format suitable for transmission.  Just as a matter of interest, why do you want to see them?"

Why? Why? Isn't that a bit impertinent? Why? Sort of like a waiter saying, "Sir, why do you want a glass of water?"

Anyway, here we are a year and a half later....just a few days later, if you call 528 a few...and Blake still hasn't done what he said he was going to do. Sure, I can go to the IRS and request the information, but if the Board doesn't feel as if disclosing its financial statement voluntarily would be beneficial to its mission, that pretty much tells me what I wanted to know.

Moving along, given some events that have transpired during the past year, I wonder if the Board members would mind giving me their interpretations of how the duty of obedience and duty on loyalty affect their actions. A simple multiple choice....which of the following statements best describes your understanding of the ethical and moral codes which govern your conduct as it pertains to Hardrock:

A) As long as I contribute positively every now and then, I can also take actions which might be perceived as threatening the goals and well-being of the organization.

B) It's sort of like a scale...as long as my positive contributions outweigh my negative actions, I'm good.

C) As long as I don't act against the best interests of Hardrock more than once or twice a year and contribute significantly to Hardrock's well being otherwise, I meet the requirements for being a nonprofit board member.

D) One strike and I'm out. If I ever act against the best interests of Hardrock, I should resign my position. If not, the Board should kick me out.

Important questions for the Board, particularly the officers to understand, but really this is NonProfit 101...the beginner course.

Hopefully all Board members will take this little quiz (Blake can forward it to them if they aren't on this email list). And then maybe all Board members can tell the Hardrock community if they feel they have met the standard of conduct they have chosen. Then perhaps, they can opine if they feel every other Board member has conducted himself/herself accordingly. Just a bit of transparency...

And I think it would be great if the Board members could share with us what other nonprofit board experience they might have.

Finally, there's been a lot of talk about fire risk this year. I presume this Board follows a fundamental nonprofit theory by selecting candidates based on a diverse set of qualifications and abilities that members can bring to the organization. So who on the Board has training or background in Risk Management? At the risk of sounding a bit critical, I'm not sure last year's 'high water' risk was handled appropriately. For weeks ahead of time, the risk of high water levels, particularly at Mineral Creek, was known. At the mandatory meeting, when asked about provisions made to handle the situation, the Board's response was "be prepared to wait six hours for the water to go down." Fine perhaps, but the Board didn't put any emergency supplies at the other side of the creek, space blanket, hot beverages...I guess the runner had to be prepared for that. And what was the result. An emergency call to 911 for a rescue, but before the emergency personnel arrived, the runner and pacer left the scene. I could be wrong, but that strikes me as bad wilderness protocol; a poor reflection on Hardrock in the local community. Furthermore, this policy resulted in two runners not finishing the last 2 1/2 miles of the course yet, being declared "finishers." That doesn't send a consistent message to other participants who are told in the rules that it's a 'closed course.'

What was learned from that sequence of events that we can transfer to this year and the fire situation? Has the Board modified its Fire Contingency Plan for the increased risk this year or has the standard plan been deemed sufficient for this year's added risk?

Regrettably I am committed to other travels this year and won't be able to attend this year's public Board meeting in Silverton during Hardrock week. But I do hope other volunteers and donors will take time out of their schedules to do so. I guarantee you, you'll learn a lot!

Steve Kral

--- In hr100@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew V" <mattmahoneyfl@...> wrote:
>
> Blake Wood wrote:
> > Modeling suggests that giving applicants 2^N tickets, where N is the number of previous DNSs,
>
> I think you mean (N)x(N+1)/2 (N tries with N tickets on the N'th try).
>
> > The previous year's winners will continue to bypass the lottery, but they will count against the lottery pool they would have been in.
>
> I think that is an improvement, but I would still like to see more
> provision for elite runners, like maybe top 3 or top 10 at one of the
> qualifying races. It is too bad that Krupicka had to withdraw due to a
> shin injury. He probably won't get another chance to run if he is in
> the first timer's lottery with everyone else.
>
> I say this, even though it decreases my odds of getting in. (I have 4
> finishes, missed a 5'th by 28 seconds and a 6'th by 6 minutes). I
> would not be happy if the USOC selected the 3 athletes they were
> allowed to send to the Olympic marathon by lottery, even though it
> would increase my chances of getting to run it at the expense of Ryan
> Hall and Meb Keflezighi.
>
> I know people will disagree. Maybe you don't care who is crossing the
> finish line while you are still trudging over Engineer. Maybe to you,
> it is not about racing and winning. But that is a disservice to the
> people up front. It makes the results meaningless, as if Olympic
> medals were awarded by coin flip. If Hardrock is not a race, then why
> whenever you want?
>
> > We will establish a service requirement
>
> I know this is the latest fad, but as a race director (Wickham Park),
> my experience with conscripted volunteers has not been positive. I
> normally put on the race with no volunteers, but one year I had a guy
> who wanted to run Vermont ask me and I said he could time the runners
> (who normally would write down their lap splits themselves). When his
> 8 hour service requirement was up, he left the clipboard on the
> ground, even though the race was not over, and I did not hear from him
> again except the next day to remind me to please remember to sign his
> form and mail it. Personally, I would rather have volunteers that
> wanted to be there to help than those that saw it as a necessary evil.
> I know this is a small sample, so maybe other race directors can post
> their experiences.
>
> Also, I realize that no matter how you do it, 700 people are going to
> be unhappy each year. But I think the lottery is way too complicated
>
> 1. Maintain a multi-year waiting list. Put your name on the back at
> any time. Each year, take 140 names from the front.
>
> 2. Raise the entry fee to \$1000. Maybe 85% will refuse to pay that
> much, but you will still get 140 runners. If you are concerned about
> appearing greedy, then make it \$2000 and give half of the money to
> charity, like they do for most of the 40,000 runners at the London
> marathon.
>
> -- Matt Mahoney, mattmahoneyfl@...
>
• Steve Kral apparently has not read Rule #1. ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Message 7 of 15 , Jul 1 12:44 PM
Steve Kral apparently has not read Rule #1.

On Sunday, July 1, 2012, bvstablemail wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> "then make it [entry fee] \$2000 and give half of the money to
> charity."
>
> Now Matt THAT'S FUNNY!
>
> Matt, keep in mind however, that maybe some of the readers of this forum
> don't know that you're being sarcastic and that Hardrock IS A CHARITY in
> the first place. From time to time I myself wonder if some members of this
> board even understand the responsibilities they accepted upon becoming
> board members. This includes a duty to serve the volunteers, donors, and
> the general public good and maintaining a degree of transparency when
> dealing with all three.
>
> A year and a half ago, I requested Hardrock's financial statements from
> Blake Wood, President. Most other non-profits for whom I donate time and/or
> money, furnish these automatically as a matter of their regular course of
>
> Blake's initial response was:
>
> "I'm not familiar with the requirements for publicizing financial
> statements, etc., for a non-profit." (2/8/2011)
>
> One of the most basic tenets of nonprofit management and the President
> isn't even aware???
>
> Then, the following day I received this email:
>
> "We will get you the financial forms. It will take a few days to put them
> in a format suitable for transmission. Just as a matter of interest, why
> do you want to see them?"
>
> Why? Why? Isn't that a bit impertinent? Why? Sort of like a waiter saying,
> "Sir, why do you want a glass of water?"
>
> Anyway, here we are a year and a half later....just a few days later, if
> you call 528 a few...and Blake still hasn't done what he said he was going
> to do. Sure, I can go to the IRS and request the information, but if the
> Board doesn't feel as if disclosing its financial statement voluntarily
> would be beneficial to its mission, that pretty much tells me what I wanted
> to know.
>
> Moving along, given some events that have transpired during the past year,
> I wonder if the Board members would mind giving me their interpretations of
> how the duty of obedience and duty on loyalty affect their actions. A
> simple multiple choice....which of the following statements best describes
> your understanding of the ethical and moral codes which govern your conduct
> as it pertains to Hardrock:
>
> A) As long as I contribute positively every now and then, I can also take
> actions which might be perceived as threatening the goals and well-being of
> the organization.
>
> B) It's sort of like a scale...as long as my positive contributions
> outweigh my negative actions, I'm good.
>
> C) As long as I don't act against the best interests of Hardrock more than
> once or twice a year and contribute significantly to Hardrock's well being
> otherwise, I meet the requirements for being a nonprofit board member.
>
> D) One strike and I'm out. If I ever act against the best interests of
> Hardrock, I should resign my position. If not, the Board should kick me
> out.
>
> Important questions for the Board, particularly the officers to
> understand, but really this is NonProfit 101...the beginner course.
>
> Hopefully all Board members will take this little quiz (Blake can forward
> it to them if they aren't on this email list). And then maybe all Board
> members can tell the Hardrock community if they feel they have met the
> standard of conduct they have chosen. Then perhaps, they can opine if they
> feel every other Board member has conducted himself/herself accordingly.
> Just a bit of transparency...
>
> And I think it would be great if the Board members could share with us
> what other nonprofit board experience they might have.
>
> Finally, there's been a lot of talk about fire risk this year. I presume
> this Board follows a fundamental nonprofit theory by selecting candidates
> based on a diverse set of qualifications and abilities that members can
> bring to the organization. So who on the Board has training or background
> in Risk Management? At the risk of sounding a bit critical, I'm not sure
> last year's 'high water' risk was handled appropriately. For weeks ahead of
> time, the risk of high water levels, particularly at Mineral Creek, was
> the situation, the Board's response was "be prepared to wait six hours for
> the water to go down." Fine perhaps, but the Board didn't put any emergency
> supplies at the other side of the creek, space blanket, hot beverages...I
> guess the runner had to be prepared for that. And what was the result. An
> emergency call to 911 for a rescue, but before the emergency personnel
> arrived, the runner and pacer left the scene. I could be wrong, but that
> strikes me as bad wilderness protocol; a poor reflection on Hardrock in the
> local community. Furthermore, this policy resulted in two runners not
> finishing the last 2 1/2 miles of the course yet, being declared
> "finishers." That doesn't send a consistent message to other participants
> who are told in the rules that it's a 'closed course.'
>
> What was learned from that sequence of events that we can transfer to this
> year and the fire situation? Has the Board modified its Fire Contingency
> Plan for the increased risk this year or has the standard plan been deemed
> sufficient for this year's added risk?
>
> Regrettably I am committed to other travels this year and won't be able to
> attend this year's public Board meeting in Silverton during Hardrock week.
> But I do hope other volunteers and donors will take time out of their
> schedules to do so. I guarantee you, you'll learn a lot!
>
> Steve Kral
>
> --- In hr100@yahoogroups.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'hr100%40yahoogroups.com');>, "Matthew V" <mattmahoneyfl@...> wrote:
> >
> > Blake Wood wrote:
> > > Modeling suggests that giving applicants 2^N tickets, where N is the
> number of previous DNSs,
> >
> > I think you mean (N)x(N+1)/2 (N tries with N tickets on the N'th try).
> >
> > > The previous year's winners will continue to bypass the lottery, but
> they will count against the lottery pool they would have been in.
> >
> > I think that is an improvement, but I would still like to see more
> > provision for elite runners, like maybe top 3 or top 10 at one of the
> > qualifying races. It is too bad that Krupicka had to withdraw due to a
> > shin injury. He probably won't get another chance to run if he is in
> > the first timer's lottery with everyone else.
> >
> > I say this, even though it decreases my odds of getting in. (I have 4
> > finishes, missed a 5'th by 28 seconds and a 6'th by 6 minutes). I
> > would not be happy if the USOC selected the 3 athletes they were
> > allowed to send to the Olympic marathon by lottery, even though it
> > would increase my chances of getting to run it at the expense of Ryan
> > Hall and Meb Keflezighi.
> >
> > I know people will disagree. Maybe you don't care who is crossing the
> > finish line while you are still trudging over Engineer. Maybe to you,
> > it is not about racing and winning. But that is a disservice to the
> > people up front. It makes the results meaningless, as if Olympic
> > medals were awarded by coin flip. If Hardrock is not a race, then why
> > whenever you want?
> >
> > > We will establish a service requirement
> >
> > I know this is the latest fad, but as a race director (Wickham Park),
> > my experience with conscripted volunteers has not been positive. I
> > normally put on the race with no volunteers, but one year I had a guy
> > who wanted to run Vermont ask me and I said he could time the runners
> > (who normally would write down their lap splits themselves). When his
> > 8 hour service requirement was up, he left the clipboard on the
> > ground, even though the race was not over, and I did not hear from him
> > again except the next day to remind me to please remember to sign his
> > form and mail it. Personally, I would rather have volunteers that
> > wanted to be there to help than those that saw it as a necessary evil.
> > I know this is a small sample, so maybe other race directors can post
> > their experiences.
> >
> > Also, I realize that no matter how you do it, 700 people are going to
> > be unhappy each year. But I think the lottery is way too complicated
> > and arbitrary. What about:
> >
> > 1. Maintain a multi-year waiting list. Put your name on the back at
> > any time. Each year, take 140 names from the front.
> >
> > 2. Raise the entry fee to \$1000. Maybe 85% will refuse to pay that
> > much, but you will still get 140 runners. If you are concerned about
> > appearing greedy, then make it \$2000 and give half of the money to
> > charity, like they do for most of the 40,000 runners at the London
> > marathon.
> >
> > -- Matt Mahoney, mattmahoneyfl@...
> >
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• ... Isn t there a difference between a non-profit and a charity? Hardrock s money comes from entry fees, not from donations. If I were making a donation, I
Message 8 of 15 , Jul 1 1:30 PM
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:32 PM, bvstablemail <bvstablemail@...> wrote:

>> "then make it [entry fee] \$2000 and give half of the money to
>> charity."
>
> Now Matt THAT'S FUNNY!
>
> Matt, keep in mind however, that maybe some of the readers of this forum
> don't know that you're being sarcastic and that Hardrock IS A CHARITY in the
> first place. From time to time I myself wonder if some members of this board
> even understand the responsibilities they accepted upon becoming board
> members. This includes a duty to serve the volunteers, donors, and the
> general public good and maintaining a degree of transparency when dealing
> with all three.
>
> A year and a half ago, I requested Hardrock's financial statements from
> Blake Wood, President. Most other non-profits for whom I donate time and/or
> money, furnish these automatically as a matter of their regular course of
>
> Blake's initial response was:
>
> "I'm not familiar with the requirements for publicizing financial
> statements, etc., for a non-profit." (2/8/2011)
>
> One of the most basic tenets of nonprofit management and the President
> isn't even aware???

Isn't there a difference between a non-profit and a charity?
Hardrock's money comes from entry fees, not from donations. If I were
making a donation, I would want to know how that money is being spent.
If I want to run Hardrock, I pay the required entry fee or I don't
enter. That's a little different. I don't care where the money goes.

Non-profit doesn't mean that they can't make a profit. That's also
true for charities. Some charities are big business.

Hardrock donates some money to organizations, especially those whose
support they need to hold the race, like various agencies who grant
them the necessary permits. They donate to the Silverton high school
scholarship fund, which I'm sure makes it easier when they want to use
their gym for race headquarters. I'm sure that Hardrock isn't the only
race that has to do this.

I don't accuse anyone of financial irresponsibility. If Hardrock wants
to give back to the runners by holding entry fees low, then that's
their choice. They could do like Leadville and open the race to 800
runners at \$300 each (probably higher next year) in order to avoid a
lottery. Or they could do like Ironman and sell qualifying spots to
other races, which is why it is not unusual to pay \$500 to \$1000 just
to compete in a qualifier. Ironman has auctioned a few spots on eBay
for \$37,000 and donated the money to charity, not because they are
generous, but because it's good business. They can give the money to
local organizations whose support they need anyway, and people can't
accuse them of being greedy. But they are sitting on a gold mine and
they know it.

-- Matt Mahoney, mattmahoneyfl@...
• There s been a lot of negative feedback in response to the new lottery and qualification rules and I just want to put in my two cents supporting the BOD of the
Message 9 of 15 , Jul 1 1:36 PM
There's been a lot of negative feedback in response to the new lottery and qualification rules and I just want to put in my two cents supporting the BOD of the HRH.

There is no other group of individuals who's integrity is less in question in my mind than the BOD of the HRH. I've been a part of this run for 8 years and have yet to see a single reason to question their integrity. The lottery and lottery rules have not always been kind to me but I've never taken that as a reason to question the BOD's decisions.

I think that they have a difficult job trying to respond fairly to all of the varied pressures brought on them by all of the varied groups of individuals who wish to be a part of this event. It is all to easy to be critical, taking cheap shots because a decision doesn't go the way one would wish. I've seen comments, especially from a certain MM, that claim that the board members have acted in self interest. I resent those accusations and I would claim that we now have evidence that this is not true.

With the new lottery rules it is now a very real possibility that Kirk Apt, Blake Wood, Randy Isler, as well as ANY other 5+ time finisher will not be selected to run a future HRH.

I really don't want to get involved in a flame war or extended listserv debate. My main purpose in writing was to give public voice to my personal support of the board and belief in the integrity of the board members.

Scott Brockmeier

On Jul 1, 2012, at 2:32 PM, "bvstablemail" <bvstablemail@...> wrote:

>
>
> "then make it [entry fee] \$2000 and give half of the money to
> charity."
>
> Now Matt THAT'S FUNNY!
>
> Matt, keep in mind however, that maybe some of the readers of this forum don't know that you're being sarcastic and that Hardrock IS A CHARITY in the first place. From time to time I myself wonder if some members of this board even understand the responsibilities they accepted upon becoming board members. This includes a duty to serve the volunteers, donors, and the general public good and maintaining a degree of transparency when dealing with all three.
>
> A year and a half ago, I requested Hardrock's financial statements from Blake Wood, President. Most other non-profits for whom I donate time and/or money, furnish these automatically as a matter of their regular course of business.
>
> Blake's initial response was:
>
> "I'm not familiar with the requirements for publicizing financial statements, etc., for a non-profit." (2/8/2011)
>
> One of the most basic tenets of nonprofit management and the President isn't even aware???
>
> Then, the following day I received this email:
>
> "We will get you the financial forms. It will take a few days to put them in a format suitable for transmission. Just as a matter of interest, why do you want to see them?"
>
> Why? Why? Isn't that a bit impertinent? Why? Sort of like a waiter saying, "Sir, why do you want a glass of water?"
>
> Anyway, here we are a year and a half later....just a few days later, if you call 528 a few...and Blake still hasn't done what he said he was going to do. Sure, I can go to the IRS and request the information, but if the Board doesn't feel as if disclosing its financial statement voluntarily would be beneficial to its mission, that pretty much tells me what I wanted to know.
>
> Moving along, given some events that have transpired during the past year, I wonder if the Board members would mind giving me their interpretations of how the duty of obedience and duty on loyalty affect their actions. A simple multiple choice....which of the following statements best describes your understanding of the ethical and moral codes which govern your conduct as it pertains to Hardrock:
>
> A) As long as I contribute positively every now and then, I can also take actions which might be perceived as threatening the goals and well-being of the organization.
>
> B) It's sort of like a scale...as long as my positive contributions outweigh my negative actions, I'm good.
>
> C) As long as I don't act against the best interests of Hardrock more than once or twice a year and contribute significantly to Hardrock's well being otherwise, I meet the requirements for being a nonprofit board member.
>
> D) One strike and I'm out. If I ever act against the best interests of Hardrock, I should resign my position. If not, the Board should kick me out.
>
> Important questions for the Board, particularly the officers to understand, but really this is NonProfit 101...the beginner course.
>
> Hopefully all Board members will take this little quiz (Blake can forward it to them if they aren't on this email list). And then maybe all Board members can tell the Hardrock community if they feel they have met the standard of conduct they have chosen. Then perhaps, they can opine if they feel every other Board member has conducted himself/herself accordingly. Just a bit of transparency...
>
> And I think it would be great if the Board members could share with us what other nonprofit board experience they might have.
>
> Finally, there's been a lot of talk about fire risk this year. I presume this Board follows a fundamental nonprofit theory by selecting candidates based on a diverse set of qualifications and abilities that members can bring to the organization. So who on the Board has training or background in Risk Management? At the risk of sounding a bit critical, I'm not sure last year's 'high water' risk was handled appropriately. For weeks ahead of time, the risk of high water levels, particularly at Mineral Creek, was known. At the mandatory meeting, when asked about provisions made to handle the situation, the Board's response was "be prepared to wait six hours for the water to go down." Fine perhaps, but the Board didn't put any emergency supplies at the other side of the creek, space blanket, hot beverages...I guess the runner had to be prepared for that. And what was the result. An emergency call to 911 for a rescue, but before the emergency personnel arrived, the runner and pacer left the scene. I could be wrong, but that strikes me as bad wilderness protocol; a poor reflection on Hardrock in the local community. Furthermore, this policy resulted in two runners not finishing the last 2 1/2 miles of the course yet, being declared "finishers." That doesn't send a consistent message to other participants who are told in the rules that it's a 'closed course.'
>
> What was learned from that sequence of events that we can transfer to this year and the fire situation? Has the Board modified its Fire Contingency Plan for the increased risk this year or has the standard plan been deemed sufficient for this year's added risk?
>
> Regrettably I am committed to other travels this year and won't be able to attend this year's public Board meeting in Silverton during Hardrock week. But I do hope other volunteers and donors will take time out of their schedules to do so. I guarantee you, you'll learn a lot!
>
> Steve Kral
>
> --- In hr100@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew V" <mattmahoneyfl@...> wrote:
> >
> > Blake Wood wrote:
> > > Modeling suggests that giving applicants 2^N tickets, where N is the number of previous DNSs,
> >
> > I think you mean (N)x(N+1)/2 (N tries with N tickets on the N'th try).
> >
> > > The previous year's winners will continue to bypass the lottery, but they will count against the lottery pool they would have been in.
> >
> > I think that is an improvement, but I would still like to see more
> > provision for elite runners, like maybe top 3 or top 10 at one of the
> > qualifying races. It is too bad that Krupicka had to withdraw due to a
> > shin injury. He probably won't get another chance to run if he is in
> > the first timer's lottery with everyone else.
> >
> > I say this, even though it decreases my odds of getting in. (I have 4
> > finishes, missed a 5'th by 28 seconds and a 6'th by 6 minutes). I
> > would not be happy if the USOC selected the 3 athletes they were
> > allowed to send to the Olympic marathon by lottery, even though it
> > would increase my chances of getting to run it at the expense of Ryan
> > Hall and Meb Keflezighi.
> >
> > I know people will disagree. Maybe you don't care who is crossing the
> > finish line while you are still trudging over Engineer. Maybe to you,
> > it is not about racing and winning. But that is a disservice to the
> > people up front. It makes the results meaningless, as if Olympic
> > medals were awarded by coin flip. If Hardrock is not a race, then why
> > whenever you want?
> >
> > > We will establish a service requirement
> >
> > I know this is the latest fad, but as a race director (Wickham Park),
> > my experience with conscripted volunteers has not been positive. I
> > normally put on the race with no volunteers, but one year I had a guy
> > who wanted to run Vermont ask me and I said he could time the runners
> > (who normally would write down their lap splits themselves). When his
> > 8 hour service requirement was up, he left the clipboard on the
> > ground, even though the race was not over, and I did not hear from him
> > again except the next day to remind me to please remember to sign his
> > form and mail it. Personally, I would rather have volunteers that
> > wanted to be there to help than those that saw it as a necessary evil.
> > I know this is a small sample, so maybe other race directors can post
> > their experiences.
> >
> > Also, I realize that no matter how you do it, 700 people are going to
> > be unhappy each year. But I think the lottery is way too complicated
> > and arbitrary. What about:
> >
> > 1. Maintain a multi-year waiting list. Put your name on the back at
> > any time. Each year, take 140 names from the front.
> >
> > 2. Raise the entry fee to \$1000. Maybe 85% will refuse to pay that
> > much, but you will still get 140 runners. If you are concerned about
> > appearing greedy, then make it \$2000 and give half of the money to
> > charity, like they do for most of the 40,000 runners at the London
> > marathon.
> >
> > -- Matt Mahoney, mattmahoneyfl@...
> >
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Nicely said Scott. I personally have the utmost confidence in both the integrity and dedication of the hardrock Board. Steve, your continual spewing of
Message 10 of 15 , Jul 1 8:57 PM
Nicely said Scott. I personally have the utmost confidence in both the integrity and dedication of the hardrock Board.
Steve, your continual spewing of bitterness and vague insinuations in this public forum, whatever the reason, is most unattractive and really only serves to create a poor impression of YOU, not the BOD. You obviously have some issues with the way things are done. You are entitled to your opinions . But i do believe that honest questions, presented with respect and openness, and a readiness for dialogue would probably go much further in your communications with the Board than these rantings. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Perhaps consider a different approach.
Respectfully,
Deb Pero

Sent from my iPod

On Jul 1, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Scott Brockmeier <scott.brockmeier@...> wrote:

> There's been a lot of negative feedback in response to the new lottery and qualification rules and I just want to put in my two cents supporting the BOD of the HRH.
>
> There is no other group of individuals who's integrity is less in question in my mind than the BOD of the HRH. I've been a part of this run for 8 years and have yet to see a single reason to question their integrity. The lottery and lottery rules have not always been kind to me but I've never taken that as a reason to question the BOD's decisions.
>
> I think that they have a difficult job trying to respond fairly to all of the varied pressures brought on them by all of the varied groups of individuals who wish to be a part of this event. It is all to easy to be critical, taking cheap shots because a decision doesn't go the way one would wish. I've seen comments, especially from a certain MM, that claim that the board members have acted in self interest. I resent those accusations and I would claim that we now have evidence that this is not true.
>
> With the new lottery rules it is now a very real possibility that Kirk Apt, Blake Wood, Randy Isler, as well as ANY other 5+ time finisher will not be selected to run a future HRH.
>
> I really don't want to get involved in a flame war or extended listserv debate. My main purpose in writing was to give public voice to my personal support of the board and belief in the integrity of the board members.
>
> Scott Brockmeier
>
>
> On Jul 1, 2012, at 2:32 PM, "bvstablemail" <bvstablemail@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "then make it [entry fee] \$2000 and give half of the money to
> > charity."
> >
> > Now Matt THAT'S FUNNY!
> >
> > Matt, keep in mind however, that maybe some of the readers of this forum don't know that you're being sarcastic and that Hardrock IS A CHARITY in the first place. From time to time I myself wonder if some members of this board even understand the responsibilities they accepted upon becoming board members. This includes a duty to serve the volunteers, donors, and the general public good and maintaining a degree of transparency when dealing with all three.
> >
> > A year and a half ago, I requested Hardrock's financial statements from Blake Wood, President. Most other non-profits for whom I donate time and/or money, furnish these automatically as a matter of their regular course of business.
> >
> > Blake's initial response was:
> >
> > "I'm not familiar with the requirements for publicizing financial statements, etc., for a non-profit." (2/8/2011)
> >
> > One of the most basic tenets of nonprofit management and the President isn't even aware???
> >
> > Then, the following day I received this email:
> >
> > "We will get you the financial forms. It will take a few days to put them in a format suitable for transmission. Just as a matter of interest, why do you want to see them?"
> >
> > Why? Why? Isn't that a bit impertinent? Why? Sort of like a waiter saying, "Sir, why do you want a glass of water?"
> >
> > Anyway, here we are a year and a half later....just a few days later, if you call 528 a few...and Blake still hasn't done what he said he was going to do. Sure, I can go to the IRS and request the information, but if the Board doesn't feel as if disclosing its financial statement voluntarily would be beneficial to its mission, that pretty much tells me what I wanted to know.
> >
> > Moving along, given some events that have transpired during the past year, I wonder if the Board members would mind giving me their interpretations of how the duty of obedience and duty on loyalty affect their actions. A simple multiple choice....which of the following statements best describes your understanding of the ethical and moral codes which govern your conduct as it pertains to Hardrock:
> >
> > A) As long as I contribute positively every now and then, I can also take actions which might be perceived as threatening the goals and well-being of the organization.
> >
> > B) It's sort of like a scale...as long as my positive contributions outweigh my negative actions, I'm good.
> >
> > C) As long as I don't act against the best interests of Hardrock more than once or twice a year and contribute significantly to Hardrock's well being otherwise, I meet the requirements for being a nonprofit board member.
> >
> > D) One strike and I'm out. If I ever act against the best interests of Hardrock, I should resign my position. If not, the Board should kick me out.
> >
> > Important questions for the Board, particularly the officers to understand, but really this is NonProfit 101...the beginner course.
> >
> > Hopefully all Board members will take this little quiz (Blake can forward it to them if they aren't on this email list). And then maybe all Board members can tell the Hardrock community if they feel they have met the standard of conduct they have chosen. Then perhaps, they can opine if they feel every other Board member has conducted himself/herself accordingly. Just a bit of transparency...
> >
> > And I think it would be great if the Board members could share with us what other nonprofit board experience they might have.
> >
> > Finally, there's been a lot of talk about fire risk this year. I presume this Board follows a fundamental nonprofit theory by selecting candidates based on a diverse set of qualifications and abilities that members can bring to the organization. So who on the Board has training or background in Risk Management? At the risk of sounding a bit critical, I'm not sure last year's 'high water' risk was handled appropriately. For weeks ahead of time, the risk of high water levels, particularly at Mineral Creek, was known. At the mandatory meeting, when asked about provisions made to handle the situation, the Board's response was "be prepared to wait six hours for the water to go down." Fine perhaps, but the Board didn't put any emergency supplies at the other side of the creek, space blanket, hot beverages...I guess the runner had to be prepared for that. And what was the result. An emergency call to 911 for a rescue, but before the emergency personnel arrived, the runner and pacer left the scene. I could be wrong, but that strikes me as bad wilderness protocol; a poor reflection on Hardrock in the local community. Furthermore, this policy resulted in two runners not finishing the last 2 1/2 miles of the course yet, being declared "finishers." That doesn't send a consistent message to other participants who are told in the rules that it's a 'closed course.'
> >
> > What was learned from that sequence of events that we can transfer to this year and the fire situation? Has the Board modified its Fire Contingency Plan for the increased risk this year or has the standard plan been deemed sufficient for this year's added risk?
> >
> > Regrettably I am committed to other travels this year and won't be able to attend this year's public Board meeting in Silverton during Hardrock week. But I do hope other volunteers and donors will take time out of their schedules to do so. I guarantee you, you'll learn a lot!
> >
> > Steve Kral
> >
> > --- In hr100@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew V" <mattmahoneyfl@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Blake Wood wrote:
> > > > Modeling suggests that giving applicants 2^N tickets, where N is the number of previous DNSs,
> > >
> > > I think you mean (N)x(N+1)/2 (N tries with N tickets on the N'th try).
> > >
> > > > The previous year's winners will continue to bypass the lottery, but they will count against the lottery pool they would have been in.
> > >
> > > I think that is an improvement, but I would still like to see more
> > > provision for elite runners, like maybe top 3 or top 10 at one of the
> > > qualifying races. It is too bad that Krupicka had to withdraw due to a
> > > shin injury. He probably won't get another chance to run if he is in
> > > the first timer's lottery with everyone else.
> > >
> > > I say this, even though it decreases my odds of getting in. (I have 4
> > > finishes, missed a 5'th by 28 seconds and a 6'th by 6 minutes). I
> > > would not be happy if the USOC selected the 3 athletes they were
> > > allowed to send to the Olympic marathon by lottery, even though it
> > > would increase my chances of getting to run it at the expense of Ryan
> > > Hall and Meb Keflezighi.
> > >
> > > I know people will disagree. Maybe you don't care who is crossing the
> > > finish line while you are still trudging over Engineer. Maybe to you,
> > > it is not about racing and winning. But that is a disservice to the
> > > people up front. It makes the results meaningless, as if Olympic
> > > medals were awarded by coin flip. If Hardrock is not a race, then why
> > > whenever you want?
> > >
> > > > We will establish a service requirement
> > >
> > > I know this is the latest fad, but as a race director (Wickham Park),
> > > my experience with conscripted volunteers has not been positive. I
> > > normally put on the race with no volunteers, but one year I had a guy
> > > who wanted to run Vermont ask me and I said he could time the runners
> > > (who normally would write down their lap splits themselves). When his
> > > 8 hour service requirement was up, he left the clipboard on the
> > > ground, even though the race was not over, and I did not hear from him
> > > again except the next day to remind me to please remember to sign his
> > > form and mail it. Personally, I would rather have volunteers that
> > > wanted to be there to help than those that saw it as a necessary evil.
> > > I know this is a small sample, so maybe other race directors can post
> > > their experiences.
> > >
> > > Also, I realize that no matter how you do it, 700 people are going to
> > > be unhappy each year. But I think the lottery is way too complicated
> > > and arbitrary. What about:
> > >
> > > 1. Maintain a multi-year waiting list. Put your name on the back at
> > > any time. Each year, take 140 names from the front.
> > >
> > > 2. Raise the entry fee to \$1000. Maybe 85% will refuse to pay that
> > > much, but you will still get 140 runners. If you are concerned about
> > > appearing greedy, then make it \$2000 and give half of the money to
> > > charity, like they do for most of the 40,000 runners at the London
> > > marathon.
> > >
> > > -- Matt Mahoney, mattmahoneyfl@...
> > >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Hi, all First of, let me say that I am thrilled for the rules change and a hope of the better lottery for all involved with that. Well done! Also, thank you so
Message 11 of 15 , Jul 2 3:24 AM
Hi, all

First of, let me say that I am thrilled for the rules change and a hope of
the better lottery for all involved with that. Well done! Also, thank you
so much goes to the board of Hardrock for all the work put into making it
happen.

Having said that, my only concern is that the change of rules came out in
the summer rather than beginning of the year. For example, making Hardrock
finish a qualifier only as a 3-year rule (full applause) is great and
legit, but as some of us had already picked (and run) a 100 for this
season, it cut off an opportunity to make that new cut of having a
qualifying 100 done (due to various time and financial obligations, making
2 100's a year may not be an option at such a late notice). Had I known my
finish in 2009 is not going to make a cut, I potentially could have chosen
a different 100 to run this year.

But overall, the rule change is great, and the race will see fantastic many
years in the future of so many folks loving it and joining the family as I
did.

Here is for another wonderful run, good luck everybody running and helping
out, I'll be following you online.

Olga, class of 2007 (getting acquainted), 2008 )marking the course/pacing),
2009 (marking the course/finish), 2011 (marking the course/sweeping).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.