Race Verification

[old] rspenger · Post by **[old] rspenger** » January 23rd, 2006, 5:03 pm

The following is a quote from Weicher:<br />Another thing: Why can only Americans have RACE behind there names? I know of a lot of other races in Holland and Germany where no one gets that RACE, so that does not make sense. Either no one RACE or all who race some where get's RACE behind there names.<br />end of quote.<br /><br />I tried to send this as a reply, but got a message that the subject was locked. I would still like to make a comment on this. My own 2k ranking is listed as ind, even though it was done in a race, i.e. at the recent EIRC. I can't get a V for it, since I didn't put my card into the monitor at the Copenhagen event, just in the warmup ergs. I am American, so that doesn't seem to be the answer. My own guess is that the difference must be that the race was not done in the U.S., not that the racer was American or not. When I ranked times done at the Beach Sprints and at the CRASH-Bs, they were marked with RACE.<br /><br />Just wondering,<br /><br />Bob S.

[old] rspenger · Post by **[old] rspenger** » January 23rd, 2006, 5:09 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rspenger @ Jan 23 2006, 02:03 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The following is a quote from Weicher: <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Wiecher, please accept my apology for the spelling mistake. Since I couldn't make a direct reply, I was jumping back and forth between your post and my response and had trouble avoiding errors.<br /><br />regards,<br /><br />Bob S.<br />

[old] whp4 · Post by **[old] whp4** » January 23rd, 2006, 5:19 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rspenger @ Jan 23 2006, 01:03 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The following is a quote from Weicher:<br />Another thing: Why can only Americans have RACE behind there names? I know of a lot of other races in Holland and Germany where no one gets that RACE, so that does not make sense. Either no one RACE or all who race some where get's RACE behind there names.<br />end of quote.<br /><br />I tried to send this as a reply, but got a message that the subject was locked. I would still like to make a comment on this. My own 2k ranking is listed as ind, even though it was done in a race, i.e. at the recent EIRC. I can't get a V for it, since I didn't put my card into the monitor at the Copenhagen event, just in the warmup ergs. I am American, so that doesn't seem to be the answer. My own guess is that the difference must be that the race was not done in the U.S., not that the racer was American or not. When I ranked times done at the Beach Sprints and at the CRASH-Bs, they were marked with RACE.<br /><br />Just wondering,<br /><br />Bob S. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />More than the nationality of the rowers, or even the location of the event, I suspect it is a matter of whether or not the race organizers submit the results to C2 Galactic HQ for inclusion. I rowed at a C2-sanctioned qualifier (Peninsula IRC) last spring, and I haven't seen any results listed except those entered by the competitors themselves (no RACE tag). <br /> <br />

[old] Graham Benton · Post by **[old] Graham Benton** » January 23rd, 2006, 5:27 pm

My time from the British Indoor Champs (November) has not been entered yet - they normally find their way onto the rankings before the end of the season but it would be nice to have spent some time at the top before Dwayne rained on my parade. ;o)

[old] c2bill · Post by **[old] c2bill** » January 23rd, 2006, 5:48 pm

not all the races provide us with the competitor information - and those that do frequently (despite our best efforts) leave out important information - like date of birth or age at race day. the result is that we can't input race times from all the indoor races. we try hard to get BIRC, CRASHB and EIRC results entered - but beyond these three it is unpredictable. I have sometimes changed self entered times to RACE manually when the individual could point me to a website showing their race time.<br /><br />-bill

[old] rspenger · Post by **[old] rspenger** » January 23rd, 2006, 6:13 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(c2bill @ Jan 23 2006, 02:48 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />not all the races provide us with the competitor information - and those that do frequently (despite our best efforts) leave out important information - like date of birth or age at race day. the result is that we can't input race times from all the indoor races. we try hard to get BIRC, CRASHB and EIRC results entered - but beyond these three it is unpredictable. I have sometimes changed self entered times to RACE manually when the individual could point me to a website showing their race time.<br /><br />-bill <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Bill,<br /><br />I checked mine out just after reading your message, but I see that it is still IND.<br /><br />Bob S.<br />

[old] c2bill · Post by **[old] c2bill** » January 23rd, 2006, 6:15 pm

bob - i'll change yours to race - in general the best bet is to email me directly with a reminder to do so...<br /><br />-bill<br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rspenger @ Jan 23 2006, 05:13 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(c2bill @ Jan 23 2006, 02:48 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />not all the races provide us with the competitor information - and those that do frequently (despite our best efforts) leave out important information - like date of birth or age at race day. the result is that we can't input race times from all the indoor races. we try hard to get BIRC, CRASHB and EIRC results entered - but beyond these three it is unpredictable. I have sometimes changed self entered times to RACE manually when the individual could point me to a website showing their race time.<br /><br />-bill <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Bill,<br /><br />I checked mine out just after reading your message, but I see that it is still IND.<br /><br />Bob S. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />

[old] cbrock · Post by **[old] cbrock** » January 23rd, 2006, 8:41 pm

"The verification code captures serveral factors about a row - including the interval vs. fixed distance. <br /><br />The verification code is a strongly encrypted bit of information - very difficult to reproduce. The system also prevents using any duplicate verification codes - so they can't be 'recyled' in any way."<br /><br />-bill patton <br /><br />Bill I cut pasted and edited this so I hope it still represents the intent of your previous post.<br /><br />Are you in fact saying that:<br />(1) An Ind_V can still be obtained in the current system with an interval piece<br />(2) That C2 needs to manually "examine" the verification code of an Ind_V after submission if it has any doubts as to whether it is in fact a fixed distance<br />(3) It only bothers to check an Ind_V if a question is raised or it is a top three time.<br /><br />OR<br /><br />Are you saying that the computer automatically rejects a piece that in fact is not a fixed distance row before it can be listed in the rankings as Ind_V, because I still have my doubts if it is the latter.<br /><br />Best Wishes,<br />Chris<br />

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » January 23rd, 2006, 9:58 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(cbrock @ Jan 23 2006, 08:41 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>"The verification code captures serveral factors about a row - including the interval vs. fixed distance. <br /><br />The verification code is a strongly encrypted bit of information - very difficult to reproduce. The system also prevents using any duplicate verification codes - so they can't be 'recyled' in any way."<br /><br />-bill patton <br /><br />Bill I cut pasted and edited this so I hope it still represents the intent of your previous post.<br /><br />Are you in fact saying that:<br />(1) An Ind_V can still be obtained in the current system with an interval piece<br />(2) That C2 needs to manually "examine" the verification code of an Ind_V after submission if it has any doubts as to whether it is in fact a fixed distance<br />(3) It only bothers to check an Ind_V if a question is raised or it is a top three time.<br /><br />OR<br /><br />Are you saying that the computer automatically rejects a piece that in fact is not a fixed distance row before it can be listed in the rankings as Ind_V, because I still have my doubts if it is the latter.<br /><br />Best Wishes,<br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think he was pretty clear ... the encrypted data contained or "unlocked" by the verification code indicates whether the time included was for a fixed piece or an interval. <br /><br />Why would you "edit" his post so it "still represents the intent" of his post? Don't get that ... really don't get that ...<br />

[old] cbrock · Post by **[old] cbrock** » January 23rd, 2006, 10:22 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 24 2006, 09:58 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(cbrock @ Jan 23 2006, 08:41 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>"The verification code captures serveral factors about a row - including the interval vs. fixed distance. <br /><br />The verification code is a strongly encrypted bit of information - very difficult to reproduce. The system also prevents using any duplicate verification codes - so they can't be 'recyled' in any way."<br /><br />-bill patton <br /><br />Bill I cut pasted and edited this so I hope it still represents the intent of your previous post.<br /><br />Are you in fact saying that:<br />(1) An Ind_V can still be obtained in the current system with an interval piece<br />(2) That C2 needs to manually "examine" the verification code of an Ind_V after submission if it has any doubts as to whether it is in fact a fixed distance<br />(3) It only bothers to check an Ind_V if a question is raised or it is a top three time.<br /><br />OR<br /><br />Are you saying that the computer automatically rejects a piece that in fact is not a fixed distance row before it can be listed in the rankings as Ind_V, because I still have my doubts if it is the latter.<br /><br />Best Wishes,<br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think he was pretty clear ... the encrypted data contained or "unlocked" by the verification code indicates whether the time included was for a fixed piece or an interval. <br /><br />Why would you "edit" his post so it "still represents the intent" of his post? Don't get that ... really don't get that ... <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Mike,<br />(1) My post was to Bill not you.<br />I think that Bill is perfectly capable of answering for himself, unless you are privvy to that information and he has asked you to reply on his behalf.<br /><br />(2) I edited the post because it contained information on a subject that has been resolved certainly to my satisfaction. However it included information that I was still unclear about. That is why it is included in this thread and not another one.<br /><br />(3) And yes you will actually have to spell it out for me now that you have decided to become involved. Does the computer automatically reject a code that is an interval piece (I'm no computer expert) or does it require human analysis of that code to determine that it is an interval piece.<br />That is, can an interval time can be submitted and shown as Ind_V and only really be rejected by further examination.<br /><br />And please I do not want another war on this, I really do believe it's time for you to take a chill pill.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Chris<br /> <br />

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » January 23rd, 2006, 10:44 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(cbrock @ Jan 23 2006, 10:22 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 24 2006, 09:58 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(cbrock @ Jan 23 2006, 08:41 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>"The verification code captures serveral factors about a row - including the interval vs. fixed distance. <br /><br />The verification code is a strongly encrypted bit of information - very difficult to reproduce. The system also prevents using any duplicate verification codes - so they can't be 'recyled' in any way."<br /><br />-bill patton <br /><br />Bill I cut pasted and edited this so I hope it still represents the intent of your previous post.<br /><br />Are you in fact saying that:<br />(1) An Ind_V can still be obtained in the current system with an interval piece<br />(2) That C2 needs to manually "examine" the verification code of an Ind_V after submission if it has any doubts as to whether it is in fact a fixed distance<br />(3) It only bothers to check an Ind_V if a question is raised or it is a top three time.<br /><br />OR<br /><br />Are you saying that the computer automatically rejects a piece that in fact is not a fixed distance row before it can be listed in the rankings as Ind_V, because I still have my doubts if it is the latter.<br /><br />Best Wishes,<br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think he was pretty clear ... the encrypted data contained or "unlocked" by the verification code indicates whether the time included was for a fixed piece or an interval. <br /><br />Why would you "edit" his post so it "still represents the intent" of his post? Don't get that ... really don't get that ... <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Mike,<br />(1) My post was to Bill not you.<br />I think that Bill is perfectly capable of answering for himself, unless you are privvy to that information and he has asked you to reply on his behalf.<br /><br />(2) I edited the post because it contained information on a subject that has been resolved certainly to my satisfaction. However it included information that I was still unclear about. That is why it is included in this thread and not another one.<br /><br />(3) And yes you will actually have to spell it out for me now that you have decided to become involved. Does the computer automatically reject a code that is an interval piece (I'm no computer expert) or does it require human analysis of that code to determine that it is an interval piece.<br />That is, can an interval time can be submitted and shown as Ind_V and only really be rejected by further examination.<br /><br />And please I do not want another war on this, I really do believe it's time for you to take a chill pill.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br />No problem Chris ... no problem ...<br />

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » January 23rd, 2006, 11:01 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(cbrock @ Jan 23 2006, 10:22 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 24 2006, 09:58 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(cbrock @ Jan 23 2006, 08:41 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>"The verification code captures serveral factors about a row - including the interval vs. fixed distance. <br /><br />The verification code is a strongly encrypted bit of information - very difficult to reproduce. The system also prevents using any duplicate verification codes - so they can't be 'recyled' in any way."<br /><br />-bill patton <br /><br />Bill I cut pasted and edited this so I hope it still represents the intent of your previous post.<br /><br />Are you in fact saying that:<br />(1) An Ind_V can still be obtained in the current system with an interval piece<br />(2) That C2 needs to manually "examine" the verification code of an Ind_V after submission if it has any doubts as to whether it is in fact a fixed distance<br />(3) It only bothers to check an Ind_V if a question is raised or it is a top three time.<br /><br />OR<br /><br />Are you saying that the computer automatically rejects a piece that in fact is not a fixed distance row before it can be listed in the rankings as Ind_V, because I still have my doubts if it is the latter.<br /><br />Best Wishes,<br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think he was pretty clear ... the encrypted data contained or "unlocked" by the verification code indicates whether the time included was for a fixed piece or an interval. <br /><br />Why would you "edit" his post so it "still represents the intent" of his post? Don't get that ... really don't get that ... <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Mike,<br />(1) My post was to Bill not you.<br />I think that Bill is perfectly capable of answering for himself, unless you are privvy to that information and he has asked you to reply on his behalf.<br /><br />(2) I edited the post because it contained information on a subject that has been resolved certainly to my satisfaction. However it included information that I was still unclear about. That is why it is included in this thread and not another one.<br /><br />(3) And yes you will actually have to spell it out for me now that you have decided to become involved. Does the computer automatically reject a code that is an interval piece (I'm no computer expert) or does it require human analysis of that code to determine that it is an interval piece.<br />That is, can an interval time can be submitted and shown as Ind_V and only really be rejected by further examination.<br /><br />And please I do not want another war on this, I really do believe it's time for you to take a chill pill.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br />You know Chris, after thinking about this, I won't take a chill pill ...<br /><br />I feel it's insensitive that people can't congratulate Dwayne and take a hiatus from trying to find all the "cracks" in the system that could have allowed someone to post a ficticious time ... now even questioning how it might be a ficticious time even though C2 has granted an IND_V. <br /><br />How about let's just give him a little wee bit of time to savour the sweetness of having pulled a <b>smoking </b>fast time, after being challenged here like a criminal, and then once again start making posts that reflect a cynical view of the world ... how about that? <br /><br />Or, is it so important to get the cynical view and questioning in quickly, so as to take the sweetness away from him ... because he's "beat the rap" and proved he's a person of his word?<br /><br />I can tell you probably feel I'm an a## ... that's OK ... that's OK ...

[old] cbrock · Post by **[old] cbrock** » January 23rd, 2006, 11:22 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 24 2006, 11:01 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(cbrock @ Jan 23 2006, 10:22 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 24 2006, 09:58 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(cbrock @ Jan 23 2006, 08:41 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>"The verification code captures serveral factors about a row - including the interval vs. fixed distance. <br /><br />The verification code is a strongly encrypted bit of information - very difficult to reproduce. The system also prevents using any duplicate verification codes - so they can't be 'recyled' in any way."<br /><br />-bill patton <br /><br />Bill I cut pasted and edited this so I hope it still represents the intent of your previous post.<br /><br />Are you in fact saying that:<br />(1) An Ind_V can still be obtained in the current system with an interval piece<br />(2) That C2 needs to manually "examine" the verification code of an Ind_V after submission if it has any doubts as to whether it is in fact a fixed distance<br />(3) It only bothers to check an Ind_V if a question is raised or it is a top three time.<br /><br />OR<br /><br />Are you saying that the computer automatically rejects a piece that in fact is not a fixed distance row before it can be listed in the rankings as Ind_V, because I still have my doubts if it is the latter.<br /><br />Best Wishes,<br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think he was pretty clear ... the encrypted data contained or "unlocked" by the verification code indicates whether the time included was for a fixed piece or an interval. <br /><br />Why would you "edit" his post so it "still represents the intent" of his post? Don't get that ... really don't get that ... <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Mike,<br />(1) My post was to Bill not you.<br />I think that Bill is perfectly capable of answering for himself, unless you are privvy to that information and he has asked you to reply on his behalf.<br /><br />(2) I edited the post because it contained information on a subject that has been resolved certainly to my satisfaction. However it included information that I was still unclear about. That is why it is included in this thread and not another one.<br /><br />(3) And yes you will actually have to spell it out for me now that you have decided to become involved. Does the computer automatically reject a code that is an interval piece (I'm no computer expert) or does it require human analysis of that code to determine that it is an interval piece.<br />That is, can an interval time can be submitted and shown as Ind_V and only really be rejected by further examination.<br /><br />And please I do not want another war on this, I really do believe it's time for you to take a chill pill.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br />You know Chris, after thinking about this, I won't take a chill pill ...<br /><br />I feel it's insensitive that people can't congratulate Dwayne and take a hiatus from trying to find all the "cracks" in the system that could have allowed someone to post a ficticious time ... now even questioning how it might be a ficticious time even though C2 has granted an IND_V. <br /><br />How about let's just give him a little wee bit of time to savour the sweetness of having pulled a <b>smoking </b>fast time, after being challenged here like a criminal, and then once again start making posts that reflect a cynical view of the world ... how about that? <br /><br />Or, is it so important to get the cynical view and questioning in quickly, so as to take the sweetness away from him ... because he's "beat the rap" and proved he's a person of his word?<br /><br />I can tell you probably feel I'm an a## ... that's OK ... that's OK ... <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mark,(sorry I said Mike before)<br />Every post that I have made has been about trying to understand the verification system.<br /><br />It is not about Dwayne.<br /><br />I have personally congratulated him and certainly have no concerns about whether he did the time. It has been validated certainly to my satisfaction.<br /><br />That is the reason I edited Bill's post.<br /><br />My further question was to fully understand how the verification system actually works in practice.<br /><br />Maybe it's irrelavent to you but all I want to confirm is whether the C2 confirmation is made after the individual has listed his Ind_V or before, automatically by computer. <br /><br />If it's before then I presume it is automatically rejected (if it's invalid) and would never appear in the listings.<br /><br />It's that simple, nothing to do with Dwayne at all.<br /><br />I really do think you owe me an apology.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Chris<br />

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » January 23rd, 2006, 11:39 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(cbrock @ Jan 23 2006, 11:22 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 24 2006, 11:01 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(cbrock @ Jan 23 2006, 10:22 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 24 2006, 09:58 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(cbrock @ Jan 23 2006, 08:41 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>"The verification code captures serveral factors about a row - including the interval vs. fixed distance. <br /><br />The verification code is a strongly encrypted bit of information - very difficult to reproduce. The system also prevents using any duplicate verification codes - so they can't be 'recyled' in any way."<br /><br />-bill patton <br /><br />Bill I cut pasted and edited this so I hope it still represents the intent of your previous post.<br /><br />Are you in fact saying that:<br />(1) An Ind_V can still be obtained in the current system with an interval piece<br />(2) That C2 needs to manually "examine" the verification code of an Ind_V after submission if it has any doubts as to whether it is in fact a fixed distance<br />(3) It only bothers to check an Ind_V if a question is raised or it is a top three time.<br /><br />OR<br /><br />Are you saying that the computer automatically rejects a piece that in fact is not a fixed distance row before it can be listed in the rankings as Ind_V, because I still have my doubts if it is the latter.<br /><br />Best Wishes,<br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think he was pretty clear ... the encrypted data contained or "unlocked" by the verification code indicates whether the time included was for a fixed piece or an interval. <br /><br />Why would you "edit" his post so it "still represents the intent" of his post? Don't get that ... really don't get that ... <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Mike,<br />(1) My post was to Bill not you.<br />I think that Bill is perfectly capable of answering for himself, unless you are privvy to that information and he has asked you to reply on his behalf.<br /><br />(2) I edited the post because it contained information on a subject that has been resolved certainly to my satisfaction. However it included information that I was still unclear about. That is why it is included in this thread and not another one.<br /><br />(3) And yes you will actually have to spell it out for me now that you have decided to become involved. Does the computer automatically reject a code that is an interval piece (I'm no computer expert) or does it require human analysis of that code to determine that it is an interval piece.<br />That is, can an interval time can be submitted and shown as Ind_V and only really be rejected by further examination.<br /><br />And please I do not want another war on this, I really do believe it's time for you to take a chill pill.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br />You know Chris, after thinking about this, I won't take a chill pill ...<br /><br />I feel it's insensitive that people can't congratulate Dwayne and take a hiatus from trying to find all the "cracks" in the system that could have allowed someone to post a ficticious time ... now even questioning how it might be a ficticious time even though C2 has granted an IND_V. <br /><br />How about let's just give him a little wee bit of time to savour the sweetness of having pulled a <b>smoking </b>fast time, after being challenged here like a criminal, and then once again start making posts that reflect a cynical view of the world ... how about that? <br /><br />Or, is it so important to get the cynical view and questioning in quickly, so as to take the sweetness away from him ... because he's "beat the rap" and proved he's a person of his word?<br /><br />I can tell you probably feel I'm an a## ... that's OK ... that's OK ... <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mark,(sorry I said Mike before)<br />Every post that I have made has been about trying to understand the verification system.<br /><br />It is not about Dwayne.<br /><br />I have personally congratulated him and certainly have no concerns about whether he did the time. It has been validated certainly to my satisfaction.<br /><br />That is the reason I edited Bill's post.<br /><br />My further question was to fully understand how the verification system actually works in practice.<br /><br />Maybe it's irrelavent to you but all I want to confirm is whether the C2 confirmation is made after the individual has listed his Ind_V or before, automatically by computer. <br /><br />If it's before then I presume it is automatically rejected (if it's invalid) and would never appear in the listings.<br /><br />It's that simple, nothing to do with Dwayne at all.<br /><br />I really do think you owe me an apology.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I apologize if I've offended you Chris ... that was not my objective. I just feel poor Dwayne needs a break. Someone needs to stand in his corner, because he appears to be a person who speaks with action, not words. I believe he's proven that this past weekend. Not sure what more the guy could have done to prove he's a man of his word. Then, when he does it, people still post here and say they're not convinced, etc. etc.<br /><br />Dwayne would appear to be a pretty tough guy ... I do not know him at all, nor have a I communicated with him personally before this matter. But every man has a breaking point ... I'd hate to see him say, "F You!" and wander off to cycle, or kayak, or something else because his integrity has been questioned here ... even after pulling, almost "on demand", a sub-6 performance. It would be a loss for our sport.

[old] whp4 · Post by **[old] whp4** » January 23rd, 2006, 11:53 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(cbrock @ Jan 23 2006, 06:22 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 24 2006, 09:58 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(cbrock @ Jan 23 2006, 08:41 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>"The verification code captures serveral factors about a row - including the interval vs. fixed distance. <br /><br />The verification code is a strongly encrypted bit of information - very difficult to reproduce. The system also prevents using any duplicate verification codes - so they can't be 'recyled' in any way."<br /><br />-bill patton <br /><br />Bill I cut pasted and edited this so I hope it still represents the intent of your previous post.<br /><br />Are you in fact saying that:<br />(1) An Ind_V can still be obtained in the current system with an interval piece<br />(2) That C2 needs to manually "examine" the verification code of an Ind_V after submission if it has any doubts as to whether it is in fact a fixed distance<br />(3) It only bothers to check an Ind_V if a question is raised or it is a top three time.<br /><br />OR<br /><br />Are you saying that the computer automatically rejects a piece that in fact is not a fixed distance row before it can be listed in the rankings as Ind_V, because I still have my doubts if it is the latter.<br /><br />Best Wishes,<br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think he was pretty clear ... the encrypted data contained or "unlocked" by the verification code indicates whether the time included was for a fixed piece or an interval. <br /><br />Why would you "edit" his post so it "still represents the intent" of his post? Don't get that ... really don't get that ... <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Mike,<br />(1) My post was to Bill not you.<br />I think that Bill is perfectly capable of answering for himself, unless you are privvy to that information and he has asked you to reply on his behalf.<br /><br />(2) I edited the post because it contained information on a subject that has been resolved certainly to my satisfaction. However it included information that I was still unclear about. That is why it is included in this thread and not another one.<br /><br />(3) And yes you will actually have to spell it out for me now that you have decided to become involved. Does the computer automatically reject a code that is an interval piece (I'm no computer expert) or does it require human analysis of that code to determine that it is an interval piece.<br />That is, can an interval time can be submitted and shown as Ind_V and only really be rejected by further examination.<br /><br />And please I do not want another war on this, I really do believe it's time for you to take a chill pill.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Chris, if you want Bill Patton to answer, and only Bill Patton to answer, send him a PM or an email, don't hijack a thread (on a different topic, at that!) on a public bulletin board. If you post it here, you'll likely find any number of people eager to chime in whether you like it or not.<br /><br />Bill put it pretty clearly, although you edited out the words: <br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>1. the verification code that the PM3 generated for Dwayne's row shows that his 2k piece was done in 5:46.2 as a FIXED DISTANCE. The verification code captures serveral factors about a row - <b>including the interval vs. fixed distance.</b> (emphasis mine) In this case the 2k was indeed a fixed distance.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />He did not make any assertion as to whether or not the ranking system automatically filters out results that were not done as a fixed distance. A little experimentation suggests that it does not.<br /><br />1) You can verify anything. The website appears only to verify that the distance rowed, elapsed time, and date match what you are logging. I rummaged around on my logcard, found a random "Just Row" workout of 1217m in 5:27.7, generated the verification code, edited the log entry to add that and "IND_V" showed up in my log. I tried changing the date, and it complained that it no longer verified. I changed the distance and got a similar complaint. <br /><br />2) I did a 5x100 interval workout, logged it as a 500m piece and typed in the verification code. No complaint. Okay, so someone in the middle of the pack can cheat. I'm going to lose a lot of sleep worrying about this, I can tell you! I suspect after this incident, Bill will be verifying any top 3 times submitted. So much for my fiendish plan to smash the 100k record by doing 1000 100m pieces over the next month. Maybe when he doesn't have something more pressing to do, he'll put in a check when verifying rankable pieces to make sure it was done as a distance row.<br /><br />3) I discovered that my PM3's date setting is off by a day. Good thing I noticed before I broke any records! <br /><br />Bill<br /><br />

Concept2 Forum

Race Verification

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General