Concept2 Forum

Hi Guys,

I've logged a 1000m today for the March sprint challenge.

Uploaded it off the card through the PC and it appears in my log and on the normal 1000m ranking but not on the March 10-12 page

Is there something else I need to do? Logged it a few hours ago and the page is updating for others but my score doesn't appear

Very confused !

The Concept2 Logbook usually runs on Eastern Standard Time/ Eastern Day Time. So your 1K was probably in too early for 10th March in Vermont.

Well, we have our first ***** of **** [invalid] entry on the 1000m comp. A 65 yr old posts a 240.0 un-verified. Can we at least require verification for an on-line competition?

Edward4492 wrote:Well, we have our first ***** of **** [invalid] entry on the 1000m comp. A 65 yr old posts a 240.0 un-verified. Can we at least require verification for an on-line competition?

Hey Ed that's mine!! (sorry just kidding) I agree - the competition is an ideal place to make verification compulsory. Just don't get it C2??

The 2 gyms closest to me have model C's with PM2+, 4 machines in all with between 22 and 30 million meters on each, I bought my model C 6 months before the D was introduced (If I had known, I would have waited). The point is, these things last forever, I'm sure there are a lot of people out there with older machines and no way to verify. I don't think C2 wants to penalize customers just because they got on board early.

Fred

Fair enough....but not for times 20s faster than the WR. Top three need to be verified for awards. And faster than (or with-in a few tenths) of the open WR. If you're setting WR's find a machine with a PM3 and get some video and let's do it right.If I was Lindsay or Chris Cooper and I finish second and 20s behind this guy, and a gold medal goes out to him I'd be a little annoyed. It's a nonsense time and the guy deserves to be called out on it. Or....prove it. 65 years old 2:40....didn't happen.

Maybe 2:40 was his 500m split and he's not very computer savvy.

I agree - it's just a fun thing, C2 isn't going to police it in normal circumstances. However,... 65 years old and a 2:40??? I don't think so. In that case, C2 should ask for some proof. Like Slacker said, maybe it's a goof.

James Castellan WR 60-69 3:00.0 (a proven performer and WR holder and multiple hammer winner).Hey, if the guy made a mistake; it happens. But ya gotta man up. Send somebody an email and return the gold medal when it comes in the mail. And if he made a mistake? Well, kinda makes the point for a verification code.

Register your challenge with C2. They're the enabler of this nonsense; let them take him by the hand and lead him gently away. World Rowing will probably do some entry vetting for the prize places and the rest of us can use the "sort by" to move ourselves up field and justify our existence.

New Wr 50 plus posted. Hammer winner...

This is my first post. As the guy currently in 4th place in the 1000m Sprint Challenge(a placing I am sure will drop as the weekend rolls on) does Concept have a history of policing and discarding results that are clearly erroneous? Such as the 2:40 in my age group(60-69) which also is first overall. Clearly an error, maybe his 500m split or 1000m pace(i.e. 2:40/500m). Thanks in advance for any information.

hjs wrote:New Wr 50 plus posted. Hammer winner...

I assume you are talking about Damien Roohr. His time is unverified........

The current second place, Dietmar Kuttelwascher, also beats the WR.

Cyclist2 wrote:

hjs wrote:New Wr 50 plus posted. Hammer winner...

I assume you are talking about Damien Roohr. His time is unverified........

The current second place, Dietmar Kuttelwascher, also beats the WR.

Damian is no hammer winner, plus don,t see a time from him. He is a good erger, but not a sub 3 man.

Ted60 wrote:This is my first post. As the guy currently in 4th place in the 1000m Sprint Challenge(a placing I am sure will drop as the weekend rolls on) does Concept have a history of policing and discarding results that are clearly erroneous? Such as the 2:40 in my age group(60-69) which also is first overall. Clearly an error, maybe his 500m split or 1000m pace(i.e. 2:40/500m). Thanks in advance for any information.

Historically. C2 has obviously applied the implausibility standard to some top 5 times in the rankings while taking for granted the credibility and rectitude of well-known competitors with plausible times consistent with their previous (plausible) times.

We can call attention to suspect, in your dreams times and the "new" logbook includes an autosort to "eliminate" many entries which may or may not be truthful but all of which are missing the certification of legitimacy. C2 is apparently not interested in rolling over for every Tom, Dick and Harry with a better way but they do offer a door to nominal legitimacy for those willing to take the trouble.

The rankings history of T. J. Osterling illustrates the progress made thru a combination of a verification mechanism and public pressure to use it. A couple years back, forum discussion of why Osterling did not verify his #1 placements apparently led him to take the trouble of providing verification of subsequent efforts. He was still #1.