I applaud the efforts to reform the VT program. Actually, I do believe that the suggestions that have been made are not so much a reform as a way to return it to a form that remains true to its original intent - provide a way for people in "NADAC deserts" to participate in NADAC activities. It was from the outset clear that you could not submit a VT run that took place when there was a trial that would be an alternative, at the time defined as within 200 miles and 5 days.
As human nature goes, it is easy to stretch boundaries and push envelopes. So there clearly are some, I believe a small minority, of people who choose to do VT as a more convenient and less expensive way to earn their points as compared to attending a trial. It has also gone to a situation where there are clubs/informal groups that have seen the opportunity to put on VT events that essentially are trials, albeit without a judge, score table and trial secretary in place, and also possibly without the necessary liability considerations in place. These developments clearly are outside of the intent of the program.
I also don't see any justification for why it should be cheaper to earn a VT Q than earning one in a trial. Amanda is managing a huge workload of judging the VT runs. In a trial, you have a continuous flow of runs, and as the judge you judge what you see. As one team has finished their run and leashed up, the next team starts. Most videos include a good amount of time for each run prior to start and also after the finish. Amanda is not only doing the role of judge for those runs, but also is the timer, score person and trial secretary. Just the work of judging these runs takes up a lot of time for someone who also needs to spend it on all the other work to support the core mission for NADAC. The current fee for VT does not really cover the time that would be best spent on other activities like course design, club support and all the administrative tasks needed to run a big ship like NADAC. Raising the submission cost to where it becomes on average neutral with trialing is reasonable in my mind.
I hope we can retain the VT program, but return it to the form that better ensures it remains within the original intent. I'm saying this as one of those who has invested, and continue to invest, a lot of time supporting the program. Nonetheless, trials represent the core priority for NADAC, and if the VT program detracts from that, it must be changed or eliminated. The efforts to reform the program have my full support and I think the palette of solutions Chris has suggested offer a good opportunity to save the program.
Personally, I think the major benefit of the program has been to supply courses for training. In many places, there is a scarcity of opportunities to find trainers that understand and support NADAC style agility. I know that many are using the courses for that purpose, and that alone is helping develop skills that encourage people to enter NADAC trials. So whatever happens to the program, I hope that at least that aspect will remain.
