USATF invites YOUR picks for Masters AOY awards
The problem is age-old: Masters pick and announce Athletes of the Year (and top age-groupers) in a rushed process every December at the USATF annual meeting. The result? The winners are never present to soak up the love. Enter Dave Clingan and a long-overdue fix. Dave is the new USATF Masters T&F Awards Committee chairman, and he’s introducing a new drill: Decide the honorees earlier and celebrate them at outdoor nationals. So in August, award winners will get their plaques in person (at the Athletes Banquet) — and actually hear the cheers of their peers. That’s the plan for Orono. Only one glitch in this transitional year: The 2007 winners might be the 2006 winners. The Awards Committee (of which I’m a member) has to pick honorees by the end of April. Yup, this month.
But here’s the really cool part: You get to help pick ’em! Or at least nominate ’em.
Nominations will be made through this Web site. The final selections will be made by the 23-member Awards Committee via a different Web site (employing Wiki technology).
Mindful of the possibility that the 2006 winners — Bill Collins and Nadine O’Connor — would end up by default the 2007 winners, I’ve urged the committee to give the 2007 indoor season greater weight this year. (In future years, a fresh outdoor-indoor cycle will be considered).
Of course, Nadine is having a mind-blowing 2007 indoor season, so she probably deserves to get AOY for a third consecutive year. (Only Phil Raschker has done this before.)
I’ve suggested to the committee that the 2007 indoor season be given greater weight. It’s up to the individual members to say yay or nay to that.
Another radical departure from tradition: No more awards for each age group (one for track and one for field). Instead, six awards (male and female each) will be given in the 30-59 group and six awards (for each sex) will be given in 60-plus group.
(This allows for more than one superstar in the same age group to be honored, which has been tough in the past.)
And no more Performance of the Year (male and female).
Also new to the awards process: We’ll be deliberating via email rather than meeting in a stuffy room for an hour. In this way, we’ll be more apt to vote our hearts than be pressured by strong personalities in the room (which happens). We’ll be nominating folks and making our arguments over the Net, instead of over bagels and coffee.
Kind of modern, huh?
Anyway, here’s the USATF Masters T&F Awards Committee:
Dave Clingan, Awards Chair xroads@xro.com
Gary Snyder, Oversight
Becky Sisley, Active Athlete’s Rep
Jeff Watry, Combined Events Chair
Larry Patz, Indoor Rankings Coordinator
Sandy Pashkin, Records Chair
Jerry Bookin-Weiner, Weight Events Chair
Ray Feick, East Region Coordinator
Bob Fine, Southeast Region Coordinator
Steve Cohen, Midwest Region Coordinator
Christel Donley, Mid-America Region Coordinator
Lester Mount, Southwest Region Coordinator
Mark Cleary, West Region Coordinator
Rose Schlewitz, Northwest Region Coordinator
Jim Flanik, Games Committee Chair
Carroll DeWeese, Games Committee
Rex Harvey, Games Committee
Len Krsak, Games Commitee
Jerry Wojcik, Chair Appointee
James Broun, Chair Appointee
Phil Byrne, Chair Appointee
Ken Stone, Chair Appointee
Pete Taylor, Chair Appointee
And here’s what Dave has written for the April issue of National Masters News:
2007 Masters Track and Field Awards
As newly appointed Chair of the Masters Track & Field Awards Committee, I am looking forward to my new responsibilities. I would like to thank Phil Byrne for the fantastic work he has done as past Chair and am happy to report that he will continue serving on the committee as we move ahead with new plans.
Our awards have gone through a process of evaluation and as a result new policies will be in place beginning this year. In general, our process will resemble that used by the Masters Track and Field Hall of Fame Committee. In particular, our revised approach contains the following elements:
1. CATEGORIES:
Awards will be consolidated into the following categories:
(a) Top 6 Male Athletes of the Year Age 30 – 59;
(b) Top 6 Female Athletes of the Year Age 30 – 59,
(c) Top 6 Male Athletes of the Year Age 60+,
(d) Top 6 Female Athletes of the Year Age 60+,
(e) Male Masters Athlete of the Year,
(f) Female Athlete of the Year,
(g) Honorable Service Award,
(h) Lifetime Acheivement Awards for all athletes who have won annual awards 5 or more times.
2. AWARDS COMMITTEE:
The Award Committee will consist of MTF Regional Coordinators, Games Committee Members, MTF Active Athletes Representative, MTF Committee Chairs, and 5 members appointed by the Awards Chair. Objective: to insure fair and comprehensive treatment of nominees of all ages, regions and event specialties.
3. NOMINATION PROCESS:
All athletes are invited to submit nominations. They can nominate themselves or their fellow athletes.
4. VOTING PROCEDURES:
Instead of meeting at the National USATF Convention to cast votes, Awards Committee members will cast their votes via email.
4. AWARDS PRESENTATIONS:
Annual awards will be presented to MTF Athletes of the Year as our honored guests at the Athletes Dinner held at our National Outdoor Masters Track and Field Championships.
5. AWARDS CYCLE:
Nominations will be open for period of one month each year after the conclusion of the National Masters Indoor Championships. Nominees will be evaluated based on their performances from the immediately preceding indoor and outdoor track seasons.
6. AWARDS WEB SITE:
Public information about the MTF annual awards will be posted on-line at:
www.xro.com/awards. Please use this site to submit a nomination and to view the list of athletes who have been nominated.
START NOMINATING!
2007 Masters Track and Field Awards will be based on performances from the 2006 outdoor season and the 2007 indoor season. Nominations will be accepted from April 1 – April 30, 2007. Please use the website mentioned above to make your nominations. If you do not have internet access, you may use the form below to mail in your nominations.
Thank you for your support and participation!
Dave Clingan
MTF Awards Chair
2/26/07
17 Responses
I think that the CRITERIA for selecting an Athlete of the Year should be evaluated.
Last year, I broke a world and American record, won the indoor world championships and outdoor nationals (albeit amid controversy). However, the award was given to Willie Gault. Even though he broke the world 100-meter record, he ran in NONE of our national meets (or any masters meets, to my knowledge).
So, in my mind, the selection process is already flawed if some objective analysis can’t be applied to the athletes who are nominated for the award.
Dexter makes a very good point….athletes that support the Masters movement by PARTICIPATION should be recognized first.I really have to wonder if an athete with McClouds credentials doesnt have a chance WHO DOES?? not to mention thats is does not give encouragement to MANY/MOST other athletes…..
Dexter – First of all, rest assured that your masters peers, even those of us who specialize in distance events, both recognize your achievements and honor your contribution to our sport!
That said, I have a different take on Willie Gault’s winning the M45-49 Athlete of the Year award. As co-winner of that award with Willie, I actually felt that I didn’t deserve it. Though I set 3 American records (3K, 5K, 10K) in our age division and ran the second fastest 1500 ever for an American in M45-49, none of my marks compared to Willie’s. With no disrespect to yourself intended, I simply thought Willie stood heads and tails above the rest of us in the division. Also, for the record, Willie consistently runs in various local masters meets (including the So Cal Championships). And I’m not sure an athlete should be penalized at our level for not attending Nationals – since it’s both a personal expense and oftentimes conflicts with career/family obligations that open athletes don’t have to face. In my own case, I attend several National Championships every year, but not always in track (as a distance runner, I also have Cross-Country and Road Race championships on the schedule).
All that said, I have some big problems with this new award format, which I hesitate to even post since Dave Clingan is just about the best guy we have going for us in masters. But Dave knows I always speak my mind, so …
1) Athlete of the Year awards for individual age groups made the award stand for something: top performer of your age group for that year. With 6 awards for multiple age groups, the value of the award is lessened. Instead of winning a “Heisman” as in the past, it’s now like being named “All-American.” The winners are just one in a group.
2) While it might sound good to embrace a system that can honor more than 1 deserving competitor in an age group, the obvious result would be that some age groups will have no “Athlete of the Year.” Also, the current system already allows for honoring more than one athlete in an age group (e.g.–myself and Willie Gault for the “track” portion of the 2006 award). While limiting the number of honorees might make sense, it also might make for some irate athletes in overlooked age groups – and isn’t that the foundation for masters track? … Competiton within our own age groups?
3) The 2007 award will be based on indoor track – because even if we say it should also be based on the 2006 outdoor season … well, um, we already gave an award for that. I mean, come on! And that means that those of us in non-indoor track areas who focus on the outdoor season are already out of the running for 2007. Is that a good way to initiate a new process?
4) Lifetime achievement awards based on 5 annual awards will forever be biased toward those who competed before the implementation of the new process.
5) Oh, enough already. I’m sure y’all stopped reading a few paragraphs back, anyway.
Pete makes some very valid points.
I’ve often said that Dave’s the voice of reason but ah, not this time. Ok, maybe it’s a workable idea to have 6 awards in multiple age groups, lemme think about that, but not spring Athlete of the Year on us now, and tell us that the year’s already over. I keep looking for him or Ken to say “April Fools.” Come on, say it ain’t so. Maybe it’s been an imperfect system but this doesn’t fix it.
First off, Dexter’s accomplishments on the track speak for themselves and should be applauded…but I do have a problem with the idea that only particapants of a National Championships, World Championships or ones who can “attend the most” championships should get bumped up for consideration in any award. Some athletes, myself included, can only afford to attend local and maybe a regional USATF meet if it’s close. Numourous collegiate invitationals on the other hand, are held right in my back yard. Yes, I’m sure Mr. Gault could probobly afford to attend Nationals and maybe World championships but he chose not to. He may have run in a collegiate field somewhere instead and so be it. I particularly like collegiate meets as well, They’re usually free to compete at, the atmosphere is usually fantastic and I’m competing against a competitive field of 10-20+ throwers as compared to most masters meets where I’m the only thrower in my group (40-44) or throwing against a field of only a couple or few no-experienced throwers. I have won two National Championships. One was the 2003 Weight Pent. held at Fort Collins, Co. 60 miles from my home and the 2005 indoor shot put, held in Boise, Id. 750 miles from my home ( …and almost was fired from my job for taking two days off to go and compete)If I could afford it, I could have won a couple more National championships throughout the years if I had attended, but I couldn’t afford to, much less, take the time off for. Last year, Stephan Blomquist(40-44) of Texas threw 60′ 11″ in the shot put which to me and others was hands down the best performance of anyone Men’s master in field events and he got no love from any awards commitee.I believe it’s because he only competed in a few meets in his home state of Texas. Do we ignore Stephan’s preformance and reward the 46 foot throw of the guy who went to every Masters USATF championships and World championships cause his schedule and finances could allow it? All of us paid for a USATF membership card and as long as it’s valid at time of the competition, you are a contributing masters T&F member. I think we should be carefull to not put a price tag on these awards, instead, evalute them based on valid performances on the track or field. Almost all of the records in the Men’s 40-49 shot and discus (Olfield, Oerter, etc.) were set as open athletes, not masters. Should we not acknowledge those records as well ? Would they have been shunned by the masters awards commitee? We should support Dave Clingan in his new role and I’m sure we’ll all be happy with the results( maybe not all, but you can’t please everyone…:) Take care and big P.R.’s for everyone this outdoor season!!!!!!
So it was written:
“2007 Masters Track and Field Awards will be based on performances from the 2006 outdoor season and the 2007 indoor season. Nominations will be accepted from April 1 ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú April 30, 2007.”
Here’s one vote for this being plain dumb.
So you have a “year’s” winner that’s neither fish nor fowl (but maybe foul), 1/2 one year, half another. I always see the indoor season as a lead up to the coming outdoor, making a true year of competition ; the previous outdoor has little to do with the following indoor.
And particularly for “2007” where some athletes will already have been recognized for the outdoor 2006 season as AOY for 2006.
If attendance to receive the award is the issue, why not 1) still vote at the end of the calendar year, 2) announce them at the USATF annual meeting, and 3) present them at the outdoor championship meet.
Start by giving out the 2006 awards in Maine.
Better to recognize in person a bit late than to have an award that makes little sense in the time period it covers
Steve V
I have to agree with Pete (as well as his comment about Dave Clingan as a great asset to Masters track and field and running). We all know that sometimes there are years when one age group may be “softer” than another. But that really shouldn’t matter -being the best in your age group is a main focus in Masters level competition and probably second only to achieveing age group record performances. I would much rather continue with individual age group champions and stay away from the “all-American” type grouping that this proposal would cause. When work and finances allow, I try to travel to different parts of the country to compete against others in my age group. Although I have won 5 National Championships and I have never been beaten as an M50 on the roads, some of my best performances have been at college meets where the younger competition will always be a step ahead of me. That’s because I race to win in age group competitions. If I can achieve a fast time, great. But the goal is always first to be the best in your age group. I think that is the kind of recognition that we should continue. And you know, if someone is not recognized as number one in their particular age group because it truly has some outstanding performers, there is still quite a bit of satisfaction knowing that you were in an outstanding field.
What is the real point of these changes? Is it about limiting the number of awards and making them more prestigious? And because they now will be much more prestigious – ie fewer athletes recognized, no more awards to the only person participating in some age-groups!In fact for some age groups there maybe a number of years when no one in that age group receives an award.
As for changing the time frame for deciding on the awards and then handing them out at the Outdoor meet where “maybe” more of the recipients will be in attendance. I fail to see the point. Unless plane tickets and hotel/dorm rooms are provided along with the award, some people will not come to the outdoor meet. They may have to work, they may not be able to afford it, they may be planning to use their vacation time to take the family somewhere other than to a track meet.
I have a hunch that it was getting to be too big a job to find the best candidate for so many categories. Fine – have fewer, make it more select, if it is thought that will encourage more to participate in masters track and field. Frankly I don’t think most of us keep showing up because we hope to be named age-group athlete of the year – and now that it will be even more select than in the past- if that ever was an incentive to train harder -more of us will have to motivate ourselves with other reasons.
By the way did Willie Gault turn up at the National Masters Indoor Meet to receive his age group award?
Okay! I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ve read them all, but first want to say that these views are well presented by some of the most thoughtful folks I know, so I have a lot of respect for what I have read. I get the message here: most people prefer the old system to the new, at least in theory if not in practice.
However, I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m going to try to articulate the reasons behind the reforms I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ve proposed, even though some have already been stated. And I will try to do that in the context of the criticisms I am hearing, in hopes of being responsive.
1) Criteria For Awards
The posts above prove something we all know?¢‚Ǩ¬¶. There are no universal criteria that will please everyone. Should the most weight be placed on record breakers? National and/or world champions? Consistent supporters of the masters program? Best age graded times? etc., etc. There is simply no easy answer. The fact that different people have different views on this suggests that the system not attempt to hardwire the criteria, but will function best when a knowledgeable committee is at liberty to take all criteria into account and use its collective judgment based on one member, one vote.
I believe that the 24 members of the awards committee are well qualified to do this. Some will place more emphasis on certain factors than others, but the end result will be a consensus by majority vote which will I hope will be fairly representative of the greater masters community. I believe this is preferable to working off a spread sheet, in a grueling three-four hour session, where committee members make rapid judgments, often based on age graded scores (which are unreliable when of comparing performances between different events). My issues with the criteria used in the past is probably the main reason I agreed to accept the chair position, but only if reforms were made in this particular area. The new procedure I have proposed does the following: 1) allows more flexibility in optimizing committee composition since members to not need to attend the convention meeting, 2) allows committee members more time (one month instead of three to four hours), to deliberate, 3) allows them more opportunity to consider a wider range of factors than in previous deliberations. As a member of the Masters Hall of Fame Committee, I have seen this method work well.
2) Number of Awards
Yes, there are fewer now. 27 as opposed to 60 or so. I can understand why people would react negatively to this?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ fewer awards, less chance of winning. I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ve thought a lot about this as I served on the Awards Committee for several years. I can relate to athletes who may see their chances of winning an award diminish?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùhey, count me in. But what I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ve observed is that awards in some age groups are given to athletes whose performances are clearly weaker than non-winners in other age groups. It?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s a tough call to make, but my feeling is that our awards, to maximize their value, should be given to the very best practioners of the sport, not confined to 5 year age brackets. Let?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s recognize those among us who have truly achieved greatness, not just because they topped a five year age bracket. I can see both sides of this issue, but my feeling is that the redefinition of the awards will add value to them; I expect them to be much more coveted– not the opposite as Pete suggested. I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ll make one further, perhaps more trivial point on this issue. No other committee has the number of awards we do, or anything even close. When our awards chair stands up and reads off over 60 names at the annual convention breakfast (attended by one or two winners) the room seems totally disinterested. That in itself is not sufficient reason for change, but it got me to thinking that a smaller number of awards would lend much more value to them. I do believe it will.
3) Awards Presentation
This plan, to present the awards at Nationals for the preceding indoor and outdoor seasons, at least deserves a try. Having done a little research, it is clear to me that the majority of leading contenders for these awards do in fact attend the outdoor championships. Not all, but enough that in-person recognition will be meaningful. If I am mistaken on that point, we will find out in Orono. But picture this along with me: an opportunity for some 20+ athletes to accept a plaque for exemplary achievement in person, among peers, at a prestigious event. Our plan is to comp the dinners for the winners (I wish we could pay air and hotel but of course we can?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t). It has always concerned me that these awards have been announced in the absence of the recipients and generally mailed to them (in certificate form). I am not in favor of Steve?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s proposal to present that are based, in part, on indoor marks two seasons old.
Well, that?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s enough for now?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùat least enough to generate another volley in my general direction. Having been involved in the award process for a long time, I sincerely believe these changes are for the better. If I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m wrong, I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ll be the first to admit it.
In the meantime, please take part in the nomination process. Prepare a nomination for an athlete or athletes you feel are worthy of our highest honors. Include anything YOU think the awards committee should now about why the nominee deserves this special recognition. The nominations can be found at
http://www.xro.com/awards
Thanks for hearing me out…
-Dave
Dave – Thanks for the response to our objections! As always, your views are well thought out. Once again, though, let me repeat what I believe are my and many other masters objections:
1) The foundation of masters competition is age-group competition. This new format does away with rewarding age-group excellence and puts everyone into the same competitive group. As a middle-distance/distance runner, I’m now in competition with Adam Goucher, Jim Sorenson, Nolan Shaheed, and Earl Fee. I wonder if my 3 American records from last year would even show up as a blip in that competition.
2) Like age groups, single years also make for a nice tidy award. Using the outdoor track season from one year and the indoor track season from the next to determine an award to be presented at the end of the next outdoor season simply makes no sense to me – or to any other sporting organization that I can think of.
3) My MAIN objection: once again our masters leadership has implemented wholesale changes to some aspect of our sport without asking the athletes what they think. Whether it’s lowering the masters entry age, eliminating the mile and 3000 as official events, or throwing out the idea of age-groups in determining awards, these decisions keep being made without any effort to consult with the athletes who are effected. In an age when email allows instant access to a vast majority of masters athletes, there’s no reason in the world that matters of this importance need to be conducted without imput from the athletes.
Our USATF masters leadership has to stop pretending that we athletes are merely sheep to be steered according to the personal preferences of those in charge. Frankly, if masters track doesn’t learn to be responsive to myself and my masters peers, then I can find something else to do with my free time.
Pete
Just realized I should have left Earl Fee out of #1 in the above … Nevertheless, my point stands.
Hey Pete-
I responded to your views, but instead of responding to mine, you merely restated your own. I read your points carefully the first time. If my responses did not satisfy you, then it’s clear we disagree. Not surprising. You and I are good friends who’ve disagreed many times in the past.
But now you want to use this difference of opinion as evidence that all masters adminstrators, who act without your approval, are “pretenders” instead of “peers”. Is that really what you think I am?
-Dave
Dave – Absolutely I don’t think you are a “pretender.” I mentioned in my first post that I thought you were the best thing masters has going for it. And you’re right, the tenor of my post was unfair to you, and I apologize. Here’s my response to your post:
1) Criteria for the award. You’re right. There is no easy answer. I don’t mind this. I think a reasonable, dedicated panel can sort through the various performances and come up with a good choice for the award. All there with you on number 1.
2) My complaint isn’t about the number of awards. It’s about shucking the age-group criteria for awards without putting it to the athletes first. For my part, the lure of continued masters participation is age group competition. As with my concern with opening up road running and x-country to runners still in their endurance prime (age 35), my worry here is that once again we’re moving masters toward more of an “open” competition mentality. Also, as I’m sure you’re aware, age-grading (while a neat system and lots of fun) is certainly not a perfect (or anywhere near perfect) means of comparing athletes many years apart, yet now it will be the criterion. Thank god my 40-year-old self doesn’t have to compete against my 45-year-old self! That loser can’t hold an age-graded candle to me!
3) Well, it’s probably not really fair for me to comment on this, since I don’t care a hoot whether I get in person recognition for an award like this. Still, we’re talking about athletic excellence here, and I sincerely believe that recognizing the best performances within a calendar year should take priority over the ability to have a dinner and presentation. Dave, your rankings are the driving force behind many of us in masters track; they allow us to compete within our age group throughout the season even though most of us can’t travel to compete directly against one another. We don’t have to be there in person. Our community is just as often about being there in spirit.
Once again, I apologize for wrapping you personally into my general gripe about masters athletes being left out of the decision-making process.
Nevertheless, it would be nice to have an idea like this presented to us for input (on a blog like this or through email) before rules are changed, rather than being told after the fact that we must adapt to changes in our sport.
All the best, Dave!
And I’ll see you in a month in Portland!
I understand the need to reform the existing process. Certainly 3-4 hours to make such decisions is absurd.
Clearly no changes are going to be made in the proposed new system – reducing the number of awards, combining age categories and the like. Athlete input apparently is not considered important, posting to this blog is not a substitute for a serious effort at athlete imput. Ken’s blog is read by some but not many of the active masters track and field athletes.
I understand the desire to eliminate awards to weak performances – and it does detract from those whose performances are worthy of notice. There should be a better way to deal with this than by doing away with age-group competition and making the award extremely select and eliminating the mere mortals who might have a banner year one year when they enter a new age group and have a few months away from the star who always wins everything within an age group. Now we all have to compete for a few spots within a very large category or rather a handful of the stars will compete with each other, the rest of the athletes will not have to spend any time wondering if maybe this year they finally get some recognition.
Perhaps in recognition of the exclusive nature of the new awards – the name should be changed to “The Stars of the 35-59 age group and 65 and up age group”.
To Pete-
Thanks for the olive branch! Looking forward to discussing this with you in excruciating detail, til we’ve exhausted all possible rational and irrational arguments, when I see you next month in Portland. But I promise to wait until after you’ve taken on Tony Young in an epic battle to see who can break the M45 American Mile Record on May 12.
To Mary-
Actually, a change has already been made to the proposed system. My original proposal was to give awards five deep in each age bracket (plus the overall M/F athletes of the year). The awards committee (those 24 members that Ken listed in his original post), voted to expand the awards to six deep. Which brings up another point: there’s a recurring theme on this blog that “athletes” are not involved in these decisions. Not true. Take a look at the committee list. It is packed with current or former athletes with many, many years of active masters participation experience. In addition, they are intimately involved in various aspects of the sport which keep them in close contact with masters athletes. (Who knows more about masters athletes than Pete Taylor?) This is why they are on the committee, and I assure you their views are no less diverse than the views you see on these blogs.
On another point. “Exclusive” is a relative term. To be truely INCLUSIVE we would give out 400 awards: top male and female athlete in each event, in each age group. After all, Pete the distance guy has to compete against Gault, the hurdler. Apples and oranges. To be totally EXCLUSIVE we could give just two awards: Top Male and Top Female athletes. In fact, that is two more awards than the youth committee bestows upon its athletes, probably because of how sensitive and politically divisive this particular subject can get. The best approach is somewhere in between the two extremes. Everybody knows I am deeply committed to recognizing the accomplishments of as many athletes as possible, which is why I work my butt of to make the masters rankings as comprehensive and accurate as possible. But my feeling about awards tilts the other way. With fewer awards, we can give out better awards and provide a higher level of recognition to those who receive them. Let’s agree to disagree on that one.
To everyone:
Help me out here… only a few nominations have been submitted so far. Please check out the awards web site (http://www.xro.com/awards) use the resources link to gather pertinent data, and submit some nominations on behalf of deserving athletes. In some ways, I’ve gone out on a limb to set up a system that encourages more athlete involvement in the process. I need some meaningful participation on your part to prove that the masters community is willing to do more than talk about the outcomes that they would like to see occur.
Nominations will be closed on April 30, 2007.
Thanks!
-Dave
As Dave mentioned previously, We all have a say in who can be nominated and we can describe why they should be. I know that this new system may not please everyone, but to not use our influence as athletes to help pick candidates for these awards and instead, just find fault in the way it’s being run is absurd. If you’re not content for now, with how things are being run, at least use your power to vote and voice your opinion and give this commitee a chance to work out the cobwebs. Good thing Dave is in charge of this deal because if it were me , I’d scrap the whole thing and tell everyone to be happy with the medals they win at meets. Dave, as I’ve mentioned in the past, your contribution to Masters track and Field by running this rankings site is phenominal!! It gives us motivation to attain higher goals, sets in print our acheivements and lets us know where we stand with our peers in the Track and field community in the USA and around the world. I hope I speak for most of the Masters athletes out there when I say, Thank you for all that you do for us.. 🙂 Milton Girouard
Leave a Reply