Records set at National Senior Games should be automatic
|
A masters mole writes: “I note that there are a number of postings across the web concerning the validity of marks at the NSGA Nationals for record consideration. . . . You may be in a position to refer those with concerns to USATF Rule 262.3(a) that states ‘no record shall be acceptable unless it was made in an event that had been sanctioned by USATF, a member organization of USATF or another member Federation of IAAF by competitors eligible to compete under IAAF Rules.’ National Senior Games (NSGA) is a member organization of USATF and is listed as such in the USATF Governance Manual.” I’ve forwarded this note to records chair Sandy Pashkin, national masters chair Gary Snyder and others for comment and action. If this is the case, then Kay Glynn’s vault WR at the USATF Pacific Association meet in June 2008 also should be ratified, as well as any other record set at an “unsanctioned” USATF championship meet.
Smoking citation in USATF governance manual: NSGA counts for records.
My source also writes:
This is not a loophole. If you think about it, we apply this Rule routinely to record applications from foreign meets (including Lahti). We also apply it to marks set at NCAA sanctioned meets, and, in theory, JC meets or high school meets. Those bodies sanction their meets, USATF typically does not co-sanction them. NSGA falls into the same category.
This also harkens back to the John Hinton mile debacle — resolved when it was learned that the January 2008 Hartshorne indoor meet (lacking a specific USATF sanction) still was eligible for records because it fell under the NCAA umbrella. And the NCAA is a member organization of USA Track & Field.
If the same logic applies here, then Flo Meiler, Don Pellmann, Audrey Lary and others should automatically see their Palo Alto records ratified (as long as the paperwork is in order, dates of birth are confirmed, etc.)
Thus it’s wrong to say — as Gary did last month — “We all know that the rules state no sanction, no record.”
But this also raises a haunting question: How come our records chair didn’t know this?
So much sturm and drang for nothing?
Rules say marks set in NSGA meet count for masters records.
Related posts:
- National Senior Games generates gobs of older age-group records
- National Senior Games aggressively marketing its 2011 meet
- National Senior Games results book ‘certifies’ world records
- Records set at National Senior Games in technicality limbo
- A senior moment at National Senior Games site
18 Responses
Actually what Gary said is correct – the rule does specifically state that a sanction is required. Is “conducting” a meet the same as “sanctioning” one? Or is that a semantic nit-pick? Perhaps there was a sanction granted, though we are unaware of it if there were. We at least need to think through the issue.
USATF had already charted a course of action which would have allowed for a “retroactive” sanction application. This puts a new light on the question, and I am certain that we will be discussing it as soon as the weekend is over! I am interested in others’ thoughts.
In my opinion, masters T&F needs to focus on outcomes (as is done in medical care). Are all the legitimate records accepted, and are all the phony records discarded? In masters T&F we have a poor score on the first measure (many legitimate records have not been accepted) and a pretty good one on the second (only a few questionable marks seem to have slipped through).
I say we should accept all marks set at US Sr Games not because the NSGA is a member organization but because, as I understand it, the officials at Stanford were excellent and the events where records were set were officiated correctly.
If this was not the case for a particular record, don’t accept it. And remember also, this was a national championship, far larger than anything we were able to put on at Oshkosh (this year), Spokane (last year), Orono (2007), or any previous year in our history. Given past history (records accepted from US Sr Games), people certainly expected to see their records from 2009 accepted.
What could be so terrible about accepting legitimate marks set at a national championship held at a major university (Stanford)? And let’s accept Kay Glynn’s mark in the bargain as well as the many other legitimate performances that did not get acceptance. Like my friend Aaron Thigpen’s 10.60 FAT for 100, a wind-legal record-breaking performance achieved at Mt. SAC Relays that was never accepted.
Again, let’s focus on doing the right thing. Arguments about what a rule might or might not mean are fine, but the central question is: Was the performance legitimate?
Peter wrote:
“Again, let’s focus on doing the right thing. Arguments about what a rule might or might not mean are fine, but the central question is: Was the performance legitimate?”
The requirement of events being sanctioned, which means events will follow the proper rules, is one step that can help ensure that performances are legitimate and trackable. Not a guarantee, certainly, but one step of the legitimization process.
Steve
Unfortunately, Steve, a sanction often means very little in practice. At the 2009 indoor masters in Landover, for example, the counting of laps was poor in the women’s 3000, even though provisions for accurate lapcounting are part of the rules (they were apparently ignored). The FAT crew was very poor and violated every sort of standard for timing. They even made times up, as I understand it. And yet this was a sanctioned meet and a national championship to boot.
Agree with you when you say that sanction is part of the legitimization process, but the unfortunate fact is that I have been to more poorly run meets that were sanctioned than I care to recall.
That is why I believe we should narrow our focus to whether the particular meet in question was run well or not. Easy to do for big meets, much harder to do for small meets. If small meets have a sanction, that may be an indicator that they are marginally better than nonsanctioned small meets, but we need to be careful about the smaller meets in general.
I was on the Rules Committee when this language was added. It was pretty much to address the RRCA road running events that had RRCA sanction but not a USATF sanction. The RRCA sanction process was in place to ensure the proper conduct of events, much like a USATF sanction should do.
Parsing out the language, an event needs
- a USATF sancton
or
- a sanction by a member organization
or
- a sanction by an IAAF member federation
So the NSGA, as well as any other 5-F organization, should have their own sanctioning process in place to have their events record-worthy. It might have slightly different language, or processes, but an organization’s sanctioning is to see that their events are following the organization’s rules and are accountable. For example, NCAA members schools put on events, and are accountable to the conduct and policies established by the NCAA.
With regard to the comment above,
“This also harkens back to the John Hinton mile debacle — resolved when it was learned that the January 2008 Hartshorne indoor meet (lacking a specific USATF sanction) still was eligible for records because it fell under the NCAA umbrella.”
No, that’s doesn’t not seem to be correct. The Hartshore Mile, from what I see, is a separate and distinct event. It is not part of an NCAA meet or a special event during an NCAA meet. Just because it’s at a college does not make it an NCAA event. The entry for 2009 shows it’s a meet run by Finger Lakes RC. The entry also has an RRCA logo, which generally implies that it has an RRCA sanction (there is a sanction process), though it might only signify that FLRC is an RRCA member club. If it is indeed RRCA sanctioned, and the same was true in 2008, it would only take a quick communication with the RRCA office to find out if the 2008 Hartshorne Mile was under an RRCA sanction. And if so, then the Hinton mark is okay for approval. If not, then end of record pursuit.
Steve Vaitones
I don’t think I have encountered the triple negative as in, “No, that’s doesn’t not seem to be correct.” Does that equate to a negative? Or is the statement ultimately a positive? I know he has my name wrong once and right twice. I prefer the correct spelling and pronunciation of the name.
I have heard of two positives equalling a negative as when someone responds in disbelief to another’s statement as in, “yeah, yeah, sure buddy.” To be honest, as hard as I try I do not get your point, Mr. Vaitones.
Tom Hartshorne
I appologize for my disparaging tone in the above comment. Steve Vaitones is a master of details. As Co-Meet Director of the 1998 USATF National Masters Indoor Championships in Boston I first encountered his work when he assisted me in answering a question I had about the entry registration. The devil is in the details and to be a good meet director one has to cover all bases. That meet was one of the best run large scale masters track and field meets in the country if not the world (I was in my 5th year as a master and had already attended numerous national and world competitions including the European Indoor Championships).
As a detail oriented person it stunned me when he stated above, “Just because it’s at a college does note make it an NCAA event.” He is speaking explicitly about an event for which he is lacking the details. He has not followed all of the discussion of the Hinton record application over the last two years and yet, in a public forum, will still cast his negative vote. . .an emphatic NO. The Hartshorne Memorial Masters Mile is held at a college, an NCAA affiliated college, AND has been part of a Cornell University indoor track and field meet since it first appeared as a feature in the Heptagonal Games (the 8 Ivies and Army and Navy)Championships in 1968. Later it was featured in the Cornell Invitational (Gary Snyder has a copy of the meet program showing the event with the competitors names) and even later became part of Cornell’s Upstate Challenge. There has been continuity for 42 years. We existed as a component of an NCAA college meet before the masters 800 at Drake Relays, before the masters mile at Penn Relays (1969 start), and even before the first US Masters Outdoor Championships held in San Diego in the summer of 1968.
Trouble IS that all of the focus on detail for the sake of saying NO distracts from what Peter Taylor, so wisely, highlights above: “Masters T & F needs to focus on outcomes.” We should be using our talents to facilitate the breaking and recording of masters records not shooting them down. Newspapers and media in general love to write about masters, their ages, and their incredible performance records, given their ages. Some of the best advertising we have to bring in new blood to the sport (along with the obvious health benefits) are these kinds of stories. Let’s decriminalize the breaking of masters records and give the person breaking the record the status and respect they deserve for their achievement.
The National Senior Games officials at Stanford did at least attempt to follow USATF rules, and did as well as most USATF sponsored competitions. The member organization rule does appear to allow records without a formal sanction application to the USATF.
The matter of Kay Glynn’s record is enagmatic. It has always been my understanding that USATF Associations are the arm of the USATF that actually grants sanctions. When an Association puts on a meet, does it have to grant itself a sanction in order to have records count? That does not seem like a logical necessity. If Kay’s record was set at the Pacific Association Championship meet, it should not be rejected by reason of a lack of sanction.
Getting a USATF sanction means NOTHING to the conduct of a meet. All it means is the meet host filled out a form and wrote a check to USATF. Perhaps with the exception of a safety “statement” on the form, USATF says nothing about the conduct of an event.
The quality of a meet depends on the quality of the people putting it on and the officials conducting the individual events. Its a team effort but any individual can make a mistake that could potentially disqualify a record. USATF sanction alone does not make a meet a quality meet. Nor does the sanction assure a meet’s quality.
The only “external control” I have ever gotten from USATF regarding the conduct of any of my events–over almost a quarter of a century–has been from a couple of other board members who objected to the way I conduct USATF Championship meets. This was because I was conducting meets in the name of the organization, not merely sanctioning them through USATF. They went so far as to deliberately sabotage my requesting athletes sign up at the meet where they intend to run. They didn’t like me using the USATF name to advertise that it is not only possible to conduct a meet with same day registration, but it is preferable (to do the work for the people who actually intend to run and when I have volunteers available to help). Call that political interference.
Primarily you get a USATF sanction to cover the insurance requirements of putting on any event on anybody else’s (meaning usually, public) property. Getting that insurance could come from other sources. Most schools that conduct meets get their insurance through their sanction through the other organizations like the NCAA. Many clubs (or I would assume large organizations like NSGA who do many other sports) already have blanket policies in place so they can conduct their activities like group practices on public facilities–adding a rider to cover a specific event is not much trouble.
Using USATF Officials is not a requirement of the sanction in either direction. USATF Officials can be requested by any meet. I have worked many non-USATF sanctioned meets under assignment as a USATF Official. I have participated many meets conducted well by volunteers who do not have a badge. And yes, I’ve also seen lots of people make mistakes.
In short, USATF sanction says nothing about the conditions under which a meet (where a record took place) was conducted. It just means USATF got paid.
It was alluded to that at Landover, times were “made up” in the sprints and hurdles, especially. I was there and can validate that to be true. Question is: In the case where a record was supposedly broken, does the record committee/person in charge of making a decision on a new record LOOK at the actual electronic timing photo? I think that at least one record was given out when a time wasn’t posted for about two hours and none shown on the board after the race….raising suspicions that the series of races did not have a photo time. Because if you didn’t get the photo during the race, there is no chance of having the real time after the fact. So….is it imperative that the photo is available to look at?
Yes, it is imperative. One of the requirements of the records process is that the photo be sent in with the record application. The lack of the photo is one of a number of requirements, any one of which means that a record can go unratified.
Thank you, Andrew Hecker, for your wise words. And thank you, Tom Hartshorne, for again putting things into perspective. I, like you, respect Steve Vaitones for all he has done for masters T&F over the years (and he has few peers when it comes to the overlooked skill of counting laps in an event with many competitors).
That being said, I think we have to focus once again on honoring our athletes and respecting the officials who signed off on these terrific marks they have posted. Consigning their records to the wastebasket is not a form of honor.
Also have to respond to Jerry Bookin-Weiner. While he is correct that a photo is imperative, that does not mean that such a practice is followed. In 2008, I dutifully collected photos for record performances by masters set at the Penn Relays. At one point the “chief of chiefs” of FAT at the Relays, a man who is arguably the top FAT person in the US, told me that “the masters are the only ones who ask for a photo” (clearly he meant for record purposes).
Separately, in an e-mail this “chief of chiefs” told me that he had NEVER had to send in a photo for an American or world record (this in a correspondence in which he listed for me other big meets he had handled). Thus, while there is indeed a requirement, one must question whether this rule is followed by groups other than masters.
I think that all of us want legitimacy, when it comes to something like a record, which, once approved becomes permanent. So as long as “masters” are requiring a photo, I feel more comfortable with any record that is approved. I know my race in Landover, my time was off by about a second because I have a videotape of the race. I don’t care at this point because it doesn’t matter to me but I don’t feel it is fair that a world or American record is given out by the same token, unless there is a photo to back up times that in some cases were “made up”.
Agree with the general idea that special care is needed for the Landover (2009) meet because of the many, many problems that occurred there. In fact, for the younger male hurdlers, 100% of the times originally listed on the Internet were fiction. I haven’t looked recently, but the last time I looked they had all been changed to “NT.”
From the Finger Lakes Running Club All Comers Meets info flyer on the club website, under Hartshorne Mile, 2009
“This meet is held at Barton Hall in conjunction with a Cornell U. Invitational. ”
To me, this reads that the Miles are a separate self-contained meet, not part of the Cornell Invitational.
Steve
So then, John Hinton did or did not run the time shown in the meet results? Parsing rules too closely serves no one. If USATF listed records are not timely and accurate, of course the record breaker is ill-served. But so is any other potential record breaker and the wider masters community. And finally USATF looks foolish and more concerned with maintaining a rigid rule than identifying the best marks made. If there is good reason to be suspect of a mark, then it should be rejected. If the mark was made, as in Mr. Hinton’s case or Ms Glynn’s case, then that’s the record and the USATF list is just plain wrong.
Discussion of the Hinton indoor mile record is now moot. The record has been accepted!
http://www.usatf.org/statistics/records/byEvent.asp?division=american&location=indoor%20track%20%26%20field&age=masters&distance=1&distanceUnits=mi&distanceType=run
Sandy Pashkin accepted the record despite lack of a USATF meet sanction because the meet was run under NCAA auspices:
http://masterstrack.com/blog/005448.html
Unfortunately, Ken, it’s still not moot. John Hinton’s mark was never accepted as a world indoor mark, even though it is superior to the listed mark. A matter of time, you might say? Well, records set at Landover (March 2009) are already up as world marks, but John’s record (set in January 2008) is not. Hmmm… I wonder who had the better timing crew, Cornell or Landover?
Leave a Reply