Something a bit different this week, but never fear I'm working on a more typical article that should go up soon. I submitted this to woroni and my impression is they are going to publish it though I haven't seen any edits yet. In case it isn't clear from the article below, I do not think there is anything much wrong with the administration of the event and the individuals involved should be commended on performing so well year on year.
By all accounts, this year’s inbound bound was a fiasco. Less than half of the 64 teams made it to end-point and several participants experienced severe dehydration. Several teams ran close to 100km without coming near the finish line. Some teams were given the wrong end-point coordinates. In light of these catastrophes, it may be time to investigate whether IB needs to be run the way it is.
For those who don’t know, Inward Bound is a one of a kind ultra-marathon rogaining event held once a year by the ANU halls and colleges. There are seven divisions. It is customary for division 1 to run close to 100km, while division 7 runs roughly 25km. Participants are dropped in groups of four in the bush in the middle of the night, given coordinates to end-point and told to get running. This year marked the 50th anniversary of the event.
 |
| That's me in the back; we'd just run 72km, and won! |
In 2008, when I was sports rep for B&G, the event ran into some major hurdles with insurance and council permissions. The Interhall sports president worked tirelessly to get the event off the ground, but to no avail. An enormous effort was subsequently made to professionalise the organisational side of the event to great effect. Insurance issues were overcome, and the institution of rules for running through private property assuaged local councils. The runs in 2010 and 2011, in which I participated, were flawlessly executed by the same team that was in charge this year
The problem then is not the organisational structure of the event, and it would be inconsistent to suggest changes to the fundamentals of IB as a result of this year’s incidents. But the weekend shows how very wrong IB can go, and given the recent history of insurance issues and the ANU’s constant apprehensions about the event, now seems as good a time as any to consider some reforms.
Here is my proposal.
Halve the distances.
50 kilometres overnight with navigation is still epic. I would say it is just as epic as 100km because you would actually have people racing to the line instead of struggling to finish. Running speeds would increase dramatically. In addition, courses could be set almost entirely in national park, eliminating the irritating private property rules, which often cause post-event controversy.
IB would be cheaper and easier to organise. Insurance would not be so much of an issue. Fewer councils would need to be appeased. Colleges would find it easier to find people willing to run. The lower divisions would be more competitive.
Crucially, the event would be safer on so many levels. Principally, human bones do not mature to the point where running a marathon on them is safe until your thirties. I know several individuals who have suffered permanent knee damage as a result of running three high division inward bounds. Dehydration would not be so great a risk. Evacuation of broken ankles would be easier.
And the event would still be epic, and adventurous, and fun; so why not?
Comments
Post a Comment