Hope for record ratification of Hinton’s 2008 indoor mile
Records, and John Hinton, deserve more respect.
|
John Hinton, then 45, ran a 4:20.18 mile on Jan. 19, 2008. Nobody disputes this. But did he set a world indoor record? Well, yeah. The listed M45 age-group world indoor record was (and still is) 4:21.90 by Albin Swenson in 1993 (setting aside Tony Young’s 4:13 this year, which came on an “oversized” track). But USATF Masters T&F records chair Sandy Pashkin rejected the Hinton mark, citing the lack of a USATF sanction for the meet — the prestigious Hartshorne Memorial Masters Miles at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. Now comes word that any masters runner who breaks an age-group record at the SISU Foundation 800 Meter Challenge Race on May 2 in Arizona will see the record ratified — even without a USATF sanction. Why? Because the SISU 800 is being contested as part of an NCAA meet, which confers its sanction status on the masters 800. (Here’s the email exchange that supports this.) How interesting! But wait! There’s more! Who issued the opinion that OKs masters records without an explicit USATF meet sanction? You guessed it: Sandy Pashkin.
So I wrote Sandy on Tuesday: “It seems that John Hinton’s mile at the 2008 Hartshorne race came in an NCAA-sanctioned event. And since this appears to be enough for a masters record, Hinton should have his mile mark ratified as a USATF age-group record. Will you seek ratification of the Hinton mark under this scenario?”Â
Sandy replied the same day: “The Sanction was not for the mile which was on a different day than the College events.”
Say what?Â
I forwarded Sandy’s note to folks up in New York, and Tom Hartshorne replied:
Ken and company, Sandy is wrong that our mile events were on different days than Cornell’s Upstate Challenge Track and Field competition (formerly Cornell Invitational in the era when Sandy herself competed in our first women’s masters mile 1981.)
Proof of that is the elite invitation I sent out this year to our elite men and women 40’s invites which clearly states the date (1/24/09) and the fact that our event is a featured race of Cornell’s Upstate Challenge and the link below which is Cornell’s Track and Field calender for 2008-2009 which has the Upstate Challenge listed for the same date (1/24/09).
The same was true last year and the year before all the way back into the 70’s when the event was called the Cornell Invitational. If need be I can email a copy of our 2008 invite letter and dig up proof of Cornell’s calender for that Jan. 19th 2008 event during which Hinton set the record.
The Upstate Challenge has been a one day event for a long time. In fact, on the Friday preceeding the Saturday of Cornell’s Upstate Challenge every year for over a decade there has been a large high school meet held in Barton Hall, the very same facility that hosts the Upstate Challenge.
Wanting to give Sandy a final chance to make amends, I wrote her again Wednesday, saying:
Rick Hoebeke informs me: “The 2008 Hartshorne Mile and the college events ALL OCCURRED on the same day, on the same track and as part of the same college meet!!!!”
So what else do the Hartshorne people need to make the record happen?
Sandy has yet to reply.
Challenge meet — the same as the Hartshorne miles at the same venue.
In December 2008, Sandy submitted a long list of masters records to the USATF Records Committee, including one for a W35 800 mark done way back in 1998. So there apparently is no statute of limitations on records. She can fix this.
Sadly, all this hoo-haw could have been avoided had Sandy studied a rulebook interpretation posted by Steve Chantry as a comment on this blog on December 1, 2008:
I have just read the Masters Track narrative about John Hinton’s record at Hartshorne last year. I think that there is a mistake in their rule interpretation. Note that within the USATF rule cited: Rule 262 Rules Applicable to All Records on page 154 paragraph 3 (a) in the last sentence, it states: “In Men’s and Women’s Track and Field, Long Distance Running, Race Walking and Masters Track and Field, 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.”
I interpret this last sentence as meaning that the event must meet one of the following standards: 1) sanctioned by USATF; 2) sanctioned by a member organization of USATF; or 3) sanctioned by another member Federation of IAAF.
Here is the website: http://www.usatf.org/about/rules/2008/
Tom, your running club sanctioned this meet and your running club is a “member organization of USATF.” I don’t see the problem and they need to fix this.
Of course, the NCAA qualifies as a member organization of USATF (or else records set at NCAA meets wouldn’t be eligible for USATF record status).
So now the ball’s in Sandy’s court.
Please make this right, Sandy.
Or resign.
29 Responses
In my original report on Hinton’s WR application being rejected for lack of a USATF sanction, I quoted USATF Masters T&F Chairman Gary Snyder as saying:
“I will review the (record) application to determine if wording should include a statement that the event MUST be sanctioned.”
As of today, the record application –revised in January 2009 — still says nothing about a USATF meet sanction (or USATF-member sanction):
http://www.usatf.org/statistics/records/forms/USATFApplicationForRecord.pdf
Six things we should never lose sight of: (1) This is probably the most heavily documented masters mile mark in history, with (A) fully automatic timing by FinishLynx; (B) God only knows how many backup hand timers; and (C) a videotape of the race that shows John Hinton requiring approximately 4 minutes and 20 seconds to run the race (his FAT was 4:20.18).
(2) During the period of 2001-2006, four world indoor marks and two American indoor marks were set at the Hartshorne and ratified by the relevant governing bodies. In fact, Rick Hoebeke of the Hartshorne Mile management (and former director) has testified that no mile mark set at the Hartshorne had ever been rejected before 2008.
Thus, precedent was completely on the side of meet management and John Hinton; they had absolutely no reason to think that the Hartshorne was not a record-eligible event.
(3) The Hartshorne Mile traditionally rates front-page coverage in the National Masters News (March issue). This gives further credence to the argument that any athlete who comes to the Hartshorne and runs a record would naturally expect to see that mark accepted.
(4) The Hartshorne Mile is the greatest masters mile in North America. Participants have included many-time world champions Earl Fee, Patty Blanchard, and Maureen De St. Croix of Canada as well as world champions Anselm LeBourne, John Hinton, Kathy Martin, Mary Grene, etc., etc. from the U.S.
Because it is the top masters mile in North America it would be incomprehensible for any athlete to think that his/her mark at this event would not be accepted as a record. Our athletes are not track and field lawyers; they must make reasonable assumptions about which meets are “record-eligible” and which are not.
(5) The word “sanction” does not even appear on the record application.
(6) The referee for the 2008 Hartshorne,a highly respected USATF official in upstate New York, signed off on John Hinton’s record and said that it was run under the governing rules.
The fact that John’s record has yet to be ratified is beyond comprehension. I was there that day – I am witness to the fact that, yes, it was THE SAME day as the Upstate Cornell Challenge meet. AND I got to see John run a race for the ages in a prestigious event that none of us in our wildest imaginations would think isn’t eligible for record setting. I have run Hartshorne in other years when records were set and subsequently ratified – Carolyn Smith Hanna’s W55 World Record in 2006 to be specific; and 3 others I could cite. What on earth is the problem here? I add my voice to the demand that Sandy Pashkin make this right or resign. Period.
I have two questions for masters tracksters: What if in l981, the year that Sandy Pashkin won our inaugural women’s Hartshorne Masters Mile during the Cornell Invitational in the time of 5:48.8 when she was 38 years old and still a sub-master – she had broken the women’s sub-masters American mile indoor record (let’s say that it was 5:49.4 at the time). . .would she have submitted the USATF record application herself? If back then she had been chair of masters record keeping would she have approved her own American record. Personally, I think her record might have gone into the books as legitimate.
What I am trying to say, I guess, is that if the track shoe fits then it should fit for everybody. If not then the track shoe is a glass slipper and is way too precious for the USATF to be paying our money to support an administrative position to oversee the effort.
I would rather see the fees that I am paying for myself and my son to be USATF members go toward youth and masters cross country and track and field development.
For the first time in over a decade of donating to the USATF I am not going to donate to the USATF as a protest to the unsportmanslike attitude the USATF has taken to record keeping. The USATF should be seen as an advocate to the amazing achievements of runners like John Hinton. Right now with respect to masters record keeping the USATF is like Steve Martin (although I prefer the Peter Sellers image better) as traffic cop doing a bang up job of being as inconsitent and silly as they want to be. Unfortunately, unlike having the option of veiwing or not – The Pink Panther – we HAVE TO PAY to see the USATF movie.
Ken Stone, by way of this blog, has summarized (with the input of several others), in a most succinct and crystal-clear fashion, the logic and reasons why accepting John Hinton’s M45 mile record is warranted and patently justified, and not to mention, the fair and honorable thing to do! (USATF Masters) Admitting a mistake is not an injustice nor unforgivable, but ignoring the facts and not righting a wrong is!! I do hope justice prevails after all is said and done.
Thank you, Rick, for adding your comments. Without you and Tom Hartshorne there would be no Hartshorne Mile, and the masters track program in the United States would be all the poorer.
I especially appreciate your last sentence: “I do hope justice prevails after all is said and done.” Any track record ever set can be rejected, as the list of rules is so long, the possible interpretations so varied. We should be concerned with justice more than anything else.
And in many cases we can define with great precision what justice is — in this case, it is to ratify John Hinton’s record without delay. Would love to see ratification accomplished before the meet in Landover that begins next Friday. The M45 mile will be Saturday (March 21), and I continue to wonder what I will say (as announcer) if the winning time in what promises to be a hot, hot race is above 4:20.18 (John Hinton’s mark) but below 4:21.90 (the listed mark). What would you say?
New motto: JUST RESIGN!
I suggest we all get together and run competitor-organized, -managed and -documented meets and cancel our memberships in all organizations seeking to “control” our sport. There is no reason (other than pure bureaucratic compulsiveness) to “control” masters track and field; it doesn’t even make any money! So why should we have to put up with so many petty Napoleons? With universally accessible Websites like this one, any differences of opinion can be sorted out by participants who were there and saw what happened. Consensus can decide everything. There is no need for a pyramid of “authority”. We can have Open Source T&F! (Read “The Cathedral and the Bazaar”.)
Now that Sandy has the “rest of the story” and real facts she should approve this record and I hope she will do this. This is not Ken vs.Sandy or Masters vs.Sandy. It is common sense and doing the right thing! Let’s get on with it and put it behind us!
At this point I don’t care about stupid rules, or if this paper was filled out correctly, or if too many runners farted at the starting line.( I think they give you 3 farts unless it’s an odd day on which they give you 4 if it doesnt fall on a leap year or a full moon)
The bottom line is that a man 45 years old ran a 4:20.18 mile and it’s documented on tape and witnessed by a stadium of cheering people.
PHEW, Nolan. Thank you SO much for alerting me to that little known farting rule! 🙂 See you in Landover! Tom and Rick, could you EVER have envisioned a scenario like this with a refused record after Hartshorne?? EVER?
I believe Sandy is interpreting the rules as she understands them. Sanctioning is a very important part of the integrity of our records. The understanding that we recognize the sanctioning of college meets isn’t always crystal clear. We generally accept performances made in college meets that are sanctioned by that college’s athletic affilliation; NCAA, NAIA etc.
In this meet the fact that it has been recognized as “MASTERS” meet would cause Sandy to require a USATF sanction. After the fact it seems that itis now being identified as part of a college meet. Then it should be part of the college meet program.
This meet obviously should have been addressed many years ago.
Even if the facts don’t support the technicality of the rules and their interpretation thereof, the option is still there for the Masters Committee to interpret the rules as they see fair and approve the the record.
Sandy always has to submit the rules to the Masters Committee at the December meeting for approval. I had always asked Sandy to identify the rules she has rejected for the Committee and give them a chance to challenge her. I know she does that at all of the meetings I have been part of. I’m not sure this record was identified last December.
When the Masters Committee approves records they are also agreeing that the rejected records should be rejected as well. They have POWER, not Sandy. She’s just doing the hard work of pulling all the requirements together and making her learned evaluation to be submitted with her recommendation to the Masters Committee she works for.
The Masters Committee has the power to approve what they believe is fair. The USATF Rules committee should not be able to overide the Master Track & Field Masters Committee unless it grossly conflicts with general interpretation of USATF rules. We should not have to justify ourselves to them.
If the USATF Rules Committee were to reject the wishes of the Masters Committee the option is always there for a challenge on the floor at the final meeting on the Sunday following the meetings. I don’t recall anyone standing up and challenging this rejection this past December.
Another reason we should be independent of USATF.
We should not be personally attacking Sandy. She is a hard, smart worker for us and deserves our appreciation. You will not replace her with a better person.
Live Strong and Long, George
Thank you, George. I think that the Masters T&F Committee considered this mark in some formal way at Reno and rejected it (but I would be grossly out of line to say anything more than “I think”).
One of the many central issues, of course, is fairness. Tom Hartshorne and Rick Hoebeke have literally put in thousands of hours to make the Hartshorne Mile the best masters mile in North America. To accept all American or world marks set there over a 40-year period and then reject two marks (John Hinton’s and Frank Condon’s) in the 41st year without any warning whatsoever to Tom and Rick strikes some people as not quite right.
In addition, less than 1% of masters athletes put on meets — instead, they run, hurdle, racewalk, throw, or jump in them. Thus, they are utterly dependent on what the meet directors (and USATF) have to offer.
John Hinton was an All-American at the University of Virginia; rather than becoming inactive he decided to keep running. At the age of 45 (on January 19, 2008) he set a world record at the Hartshorne. He had absolutely no say in terms of sanctioning, measuring, timing, or anything else. All he had to do was to run the race of his life, which he did on January 19.
George, Hardly after the fact. I recently sent Ken a program from the 1969 Cornell Invitational (which I hope Ken will post here as proof of what I am saying) which states on the cover in bold print, “CORNELL INVITATIONAL MEET and THE MASTERS MILE.” The Masters Mile which my father started in 1969 was always part of a college meet program. For several years it was run as part of The Cornell Invitational (later renamed Cornell’s The Upstate Challenge) and as a feature of the Heptagonal Games (the Ivy League and Army and Navy) Indoor Championships. Later it continued as a feature of the Cornell Invitational as the Heps started to move around the Ivy League.
The only misunderstanding or confusion, is the fact that nowhere on the USATF Application for Record does it ask for proof of USATF sanction or college meet (read NCAA) affiliation. If the application asked for these imputs the meet director would understand instantly that one or the other of these was a required field for record approval. And this director, yours truly, would have filled in the 40+ years affiliation with Cornell and our involvement as an integral part of the Cornell Invitational January meet. And Sandy would have remembered that our masters mile always has been and still is a featured event of Cornell’s January college meet.
Sandy ran in our inaugural women’s masters race and won the race, as a sub-master, in 1981. OK, I don’t blame her for forgetting, 27 years later that she ran in the midst of a college invitational meet. I do blame the Masters Committee for punishing me for not adding a note to the record application for Hinton’s world record explaining that our masters mile races have always been a part of a college invitational meet. I know a few things about track and field, having competed since I was 10 years old, but I did not know that being affiliated with a college meet conferred the sanction status that would have gotten Hinton’s record accepted.
Now that the Masters Committee knows the true story . . .that the oversight on my application for Hinton’s M45 world indoor mile record was not my failure to correctly fill out the application, but a failure of the application to ask the relevant questions. . .can they now make it right and approve Hinton’s record? There is nothing lacking from the effort that does not qualify his 4:20.18 for world record status. Recently, the only remaining complaint that Sandy lodged against approving the record was that our masters mile was on a different day and therefore is a different meet. NOT TRUE. Ken has shown that above with the copies of Cornell’s 2008 calender and our invite letter both showing a Janurary 19th, 2008 date for the running of Hinton’s record. If Ken can include the 1969 Cornell Invitational program herein it will prove that our masters mile races were always part of Cornell’s college meet. Come on guys do the right thing – make it right now and approve Hinton’s M45 world indoor mile record. Thanks again, Tom
I have no dog in this hunt, but note that we are being asked to look at a 1969 program as proof that a 2008 event was part of a particular meet. I don’t find that very persuasive. We are shown a website of Cornell’s calendar for 2008. That’s getting closer. Now it would be good to see a schedule for that meet that includes the Hartshorne Mile. That would be persuasive. If I’m not mistaken, that was the evidence that was lacking in Reno.
With all things presented, I am more than confident (Sandy probably does not read the blog)
that John will get his record.
Yes, there is nothing wrong with changing the issue, to make it right. How quickly it can/will be done, this I do not know. So Pete, you
will have to think of something to announce at
Landover, like:” John just ran a a new WR”, I pray for that..
Also, as a meetdirector, is has become a nightmare, to verify a record; not only the paper
work, incl. finish photo, checking on the officials certification, etc. and then finding
out that a presumed record had just been broken
a week before, which of course, I could not have known. So, tell that to the athlete… after they call me , asking if I submitted the paperwork,YES, I did.
I learned something from every comment made in this respect.
Nolan, I did not know, should I laugh or move away from you if I clerk you at a starting line.
(Hug) Christel
It’s not Dionley, the keyboard made me do it..
sorry,
Christel.
Tom, I was born in Ithaca. I’m with you. If he doesn’t break it again I’m sure the Masters T&F Committee will do the right thing in December when records are approved.
I sent Sandy a copy of my post.
When I referred to the USATF Rules Committee, I should have USATF Records Committee.
Keep On Living Strong and Long, George
I have been coming back to this blog to read the updates. But, mostly with the anticipation that now that it is understood that the Hartshorne Master’s Mile is a part of the Upstate Challenge (College meet) and that this NCAA affiliation has been noted by Sandy Pashkin as satisfactory for record qualification, John Hinton’s record would finally be ratified. Unfortunately, I still have not seen this occur. I do thank George Mathews for commenting about the process. Like Sandy, he affirms that the NCAA sanction qualifies. So, what remains to argue about? I have run this event for the last four years. It is a featured event of the Upstate Challenge track meet. We (the Master’s runners) always comment about the college kids who are fascinated as they watch the performances of the men and women more than twice their age. Every year I sit on the floor in the midst of my travel gear checking my spikes, sipping some water and getting ready while I am completely surrounded by the college kids talking fretfully about the race that they “have” to run. We (the Master’s runners) always end up engaging them in conversation and I know that I always end up telling one of them how lucky they are to be running and competing at their age. The Hartshorne Mile is an integral part of this college track meet -ask any of the college kids!
So why is there such resistance? I would think that it would be a relief that “Wonderful, now I (or we, as George Mathews describes is the process) have a way that I can finally ratify this wonderful performance by John Hinton!” I am one who looks for ways to remove roadblocks not one who attempts to find them. I would think that those involved here would want the same.
And then back to process. When I submit something official, I fully expect that all is good UNLESS I hear otherwise. To find out almost a year later that something was amiss is not good practice. If Tom Hartshorne would have been notified right away after he submitted the application for the record, perhaps this all could have been clarified much earlier. To have it merely rejected long after the fact and after Tom made an inquiry as he was preparing for the 42nd running of this event does not reflect fairness or quality of service. I would expect that before something of such significance was merely rejected, a representative from the governing body would correspond with something to the effect, “Before we can officially ratify this record, we need you to provide us with …” and then Tom could have provided that information. He was not even given that chance.
And now that this has become one of the biggest controversies in Master’s Track and Field that I can remember, not only Tom but many others have come forward with rationale that makes this a record eligible performance. First, it was not USATF certified (even though I pointed to the specific rule in my Dec blog that showed that was not the only criteria that could be used), then it was stated that NCAA sanction would be sufficient, and now it has been shown that it is and has been for many years a part of the University Meet. OK, what else is needed?
Tom Hartshorne sent me images of the 1969 meet program cover, mentioning the Masters Mile, and the page inside listing entrants, including the iconic George Sheehan, the running philosopher and author.
Here are links to the images:
http://www.masterstrack.com/photos/2009/program1.jpg
http://www.masterstrack.com/photos/2009/program2.jpg
Perhaps the reason that earlier Hartshorne mile records sailed through without a USATF sanction was because the the records chairman knew the meet was NCAA-sanctioned.
Although records become official at the annual meeting, there’s no reason why this one (and other marks worthy of record consideration) can’t be listed on the USATF masters records page as “pending.” In fact, a light-green box denotes this:
http://www.usatf.org/statistics/records/view.asp?division=american&location=indoor%20track%20%26%20field&age=masters&ageGroup=&sport=TF
Note the latest “pending” mark: Feb. 28, 2009, racewalk for M35 by Tim Seaman.
Just do it.
George speaks about the “integrity of our records.” But that’s the point. Our records have no integrity when “rules” are deemed more important than actual, verifiable … you know … records. This isn’t an isolated case. Not even close. Good grief, this post lies on the same page as one that documents Nolan Shaheed, one of the preeminent athletes in our sport, running a record for the 4th time just last evening – and crossing his fingers that this one sticks.
Well you know what? That stinks.
Here’s a new definition for “integrity of our records”: the actual records.
Because the 2nd-fastest and 3rd-fastest and even 5th-fastest and 25th fastest times are really really good times, but no amount of pencil pushing and rule-mongering will ever make them this: record performances.
For record ratification, we have an existing process in place, and we have a (hopefully) shared sense of ‘reasonable’, and in this case they sure seem to be at odds.
For me, reasonable means that the content of the records ends up being what it should. I’d argue that the process should therefore make sure that the record setting performances end up as the actual listed records, with a ‘reasonable’ allowance for rejection due to not being able to know that something actually happened (hand timing for example), or it didn’t happen in the way the record demands (oversize track for example). ‘Reasonable’ also should include making sure that EVERY verifiable true performance makes it in.
This is so that I, Dave, can look on a list and see what has actually for sure been accomplished by actual athletes in actual reality. That’s really what the records are all about, isn’t it?
Can’t we have the process give me a list that has this? What else could anyone possibly want out of a record ratification process?
I wrote a long comment and then wiped it out (a technical genius I am not). The “Hinton Affair” has gotten so much attention because it is the ultimate example of how things have gone awry in the masters program.
This was the most evidence-backed mile mark I have ever seen (FAT by FinishLynx, I don’t know how many backup hand timers, and a videotape of the race). Tom Hartshorne will send you a copy of the videotape if you like. If a mark like John Hinton’s can’t get accepted, nothing is safe. That explains a lot of the attention it is getting.
Thanks to George Mathews for explaining the process to us. Thank you, Pete Magill, for explaining that a critical aspect of the integrity of records is that they be the actual records.
A couple of examples: In 1997, Mary Slaney ran 4:26.10 at the Penn Relays, and that remains the American W35 outdoor record in the mile. I knew Mary was not thinking W35 marks, and thus I handled it for her (not to mention the fact that she would have been prohibited by security from walking around the stadium trying to get signatures). Following Pete Magill, it is important that I did that, as that ensured that the right record is on USATF.org (Mary’s mark is still there).
In 2006, Alisa Harvey ran 4:46.29 at the Penn Relays, and that remains the W40 outdoor mile record. I handled that one for Alisa. The difference: It was a protracted process, a long, long battle over many months to get that mark accepted.
Alisa had a FAT 1500 of 4:26.29 on the way to that mile record(breaking the existing 1500 mark), and even though it was FAT and was set at the Penn Relays (the largest meet in the country)and was supported by an application it never even made pending status. That goes against the idea of integrity of the records.
On January 19, 2008, John Hinton ran a FAT, videotaped 4:20.18 at Hartshorne for an M45 record. Not accepting it strikes at the very integrity of our records.
I agree with George Mathews about a lot of things (including the basic issue of control of our program), but I must differ with him on the value of a sanction. In 2004 I announced Decatur, and the lap counting was shameful. And yet Decatur was our national championship and a sanctioned meet.
In 2005 I announced the Hawaii outdoors, and the lap counting was abysmal. This was also a sanctioned meet.
In 2006 I announced Charlotte outdoors, and the conditions on the first day were unsafe for running more than 800 meters (first event was 5000). In addition, they had perhaps 25% of the personnel they needed to handle all the heat injuries they had in a timely manner. And yet this was a sanctioned meet. It meant nothing in terms of having a safe meet, at least early on.
I have announced Hartshorne three times, and I can tell you that it absolutely puts to shame most of our outdoor nationals. The only meet I would place on a par with it would be our Boston indoor masters. From 1968 through 2007, no mark set at the Hartshorne was ever rejected. Let us accept John Hinton’s mark from 2008.
One last thought on this issue- Everyone knows that John Hinton ran this record performance. As Pete Taylor has said many times, it is fully documented with video, FAT, numerous back up timers and many, many eyewitnesses.
So, now all we need to hear from those that make the decision (or not) to ratify the performance is what they would like from Tom Hartshorne. I know that they, like everyone else caring and pasionate about track and field, want to find a way to ratify this record. Forget all of the rhetoric above, just tell Tom what specific piece is missing and allow him to produce it.
I don’t want to jinx John but truly the greatest ending to this senario is John breaking 4:20 this weekend in Maryland.
I’ll be rooting hard for him.
Nolan Shaheed
Hi Sandy, I just want to comment on John Hinton situation. To be able to run a World or American record everything must come together in order for that event to take place. It takes years and sometime a life time of hard training and a great deal of sacrifice in order for you to achieve that GOAL. This event may never happen again in your running career. Sandy I’m not asking you to give JH something that He don’t deserve, but consider that he earn what He achieved.
I want You to look at this from the perspective of an Athlete that You once were and I add you were a very good athlete. I have know you as athlete and a administrator for over 30 yrs.Tell me Sandy what would you do if this would have happen to you?
If anything you can do to make this situation end on a positive note I would appreciate. Thanking you in advance.
George Mathews wrote:
“When the Masters Committee approves records they are also agreeing that the rejected records should be rejected as well. They have POWER, not Sandy. She’s just doing the hard work of pulling all the requirements together and making her learned evaluation to be submitted with her recommendation to the Masters Committee she works for.”
Truth is, the overall Masters T&F Committee doesn’t have time to challenge Sandy on her records list, nor the resources at the annual meeting to fully doublecheck the marks and meets.
Sandy could save herself a lot of misery if she had an actual committee to help her — or save her from errors.
Gary Snyder needs to recruit a committee of at least three people to serve with Sandy. All other Masters T&F Committees have multiple members. Sandy’s is the only one with a single member. No wonder she’s the focal point of attention.
HARTSHORNE’S FINAL PLEA AKA THE OLD COLLEGE TRY: FOR RATIFICATION OF HINTON’S M45 WORLD INDOOR MILE RECORD – TO PASHKIN AND SNYDER
Dear Sandy and Gary,
Imagine that this spring some creative masters athletes approach the Penn Relays Committee asking them to add a co-ed masters 4 X 400 meter relay to the schedule – open to track and field administrators, officials, sponsors, and athletes (with no club affiliation necessary). Citigroup agrees to sponsor the event but there is a furor over the fact that Citigroup would be funding the race with tax payer’s dollars. Citigroup cancels the funding but the Penn Relays Committee likes the idea enough to fund the event themselves and even puts together their own team of runners with dieverse abilities and backgrounds.
Fast forward 5 years. The concept has become so popular that the event has spread around the world. Even the Asian Track & Field Games now hosts a co-ed 4 X 400 masters feature in the midst of their annual open track and field championships. Co-ed masters teams are traveling from China and Korea to race in the featured co-ed 4 X 400 at this year’s competition to be held in Japan. Records for the event are being kept and a world record has recently been set in the South American Games by a masters team from Uruguay.
The year is now 2014. Ten teams are entered in this year’s co-ed 4 X 400 at the Penn Relays. Doug Thompson and Mark Cleary have lobbied the Penn Relays Committee to admit meet directors into the mix and they have agreed. Thompson will lead off a southwest contingent that will include Rick Easley, Cleary, and jeff Brower. The original Penn Relays committee team has expanded its net and pulled Peter Taylor out of retirement to run their leadoff leg. Taylor requested the third leg claiming he could do the most damage there, but Peter Mundle has already nailed down that leg. A team coached by Sid Howard has put together a miracle team with George Mathews as lead off, followed by Alisa Harvey and John Hinton. Sid is looking for an anchor and approaches you to compete. You accept. There is a time trial and one of you wins the anchor spot.
RACE DAY: Race day comes to Franklin Field and it is a beauty, sunny and 65 degrees. Because the race has become such a crowd pleaser the committee has moved your event into prime time, Saturday afternoon 3 PM, to be run in front of 45,000 fans.
In the paddock you shake the hands of the teams lined up on either side of you. One has been organized by Ed Gonera with Julie Hayden on the 2nd leg. And the one on the other side has been put together by none other than Bill Collins who apparently has Tommy Jones as his anchor. A chill goes down your back. All of a sudden your stomach feels very queasy. You hear the announcer call your race and the runners begin to head out single file on to the track. On the way out of the paddock you are greeted by Bill Cosby who steps forward to shake your hand. You are surprised and then very excitedly you yell above the din of the crowd, “Bill, I love your work from the 60’s. . .vooba! voooba! The Ark piece I still love it, help us Noah to win this one.”
And then just as quickly you are out on the track sprinting down the outer lane to warm up. The gun goes off. There is a roar from the crowd. You look over at the end of the backstretch where you see Taylor boxed in by four or five runners. Mathews, Thompson and several others, looks like Gonera and Collins, are passing the entire group. Then at the top of the homestretch you see Taylor break free and match strides with Thompson.
Harvey takes the baton in third. As it turns out Gonera and Collins have passed Mathew in the homestretch. Harvey’s second leg takes the lead and Hinton manages to gap the field on the third leg. You have a good 8 second lead on the 2nd place team. Your recent best is 59 seconds, but you are definitely behind in speed work. what masters runner isn’t? You feel quite nervous about even accepting the baton. You relax, thinking that even a 60 second leg would probably clinch the win. Thompson’s team has moved into second and Brower looks ready to go. The Penn team has moved into third with Mundle’s spectacular third leg run. Collins’ team is snug behind in 4th and Gonera’s team is 8 meters back in 5th place.
You take off controlled and easy but have a bit of a panick at the 200 meters hearing the crowd roar as someone is moving fast behind you. The announcer is calling the race but your mind has gone numb and all you can think about is reaching the finish line without falling down. Somehow you actually pick up the pace over the last 80 meters finishing two meters ahead of Brower. The announcer calls off your split – 58 seonds – and the overall time and the names of the winning team. He then proudly announces that your team just set a new world record.
Within a minute or two you are back in the paddock removing your spikes. Sid Howard comes down out of the stands waving a piece of paper and yelling, “You did it, you’ve got the record and I already have the application for the world record filled out. You just have to take it into the Franklin Field House.”
You are dizzy from the effort, but you ask, “The ground floor?”
“No, that’s the ortopedics unit, we don’t want to go there,” Sid laughs, “Upstairs, you hand it in on the second floor. here’s the application. I am racing the very next race – the M60’s 4 X 400, or I would deliver it myself.” And with that Sid is gone.
You finish changing, talk to a few of the other competitors in your event, wish luck to the relay teams moving forward in the paddock and head out the back. Just as you are passing the guard, you realize you have left the application for the world record on the ground back in the paddock. You tell the guard that you have to go back in. he challenges you. “Is it really imnportant?” he demands.
What do you say to him? Do you leave it back in the paddock on the ground or do you make the effort to deliver the record form to the second floor of the Franklin Field House?
Then you find out you are disqualified.
(5 fart rule)
Just checked the USATF.org Web site (12:46 pm, EDT, Wednesday). The M45 indoor mark of 4:20.18 by John Hinton is not shown on either the World or US list of records (as either “pending” or the approved mark). Thus, it looks like we will go into the Landover meet with the wrong record listed (still shows Albin Swenson from way back in 1993).
Leave a Reply