Merlene Ottey, 51, aims for Daegu IAAF worlds on Slovenia relay
Merlene Ottey
About Ken Stone
Ken has followed track as an athlete, writer and web-master since the late 1960s, and saw most sessions of track and field at the 1984 Los Angeles and 1996 Atlanta Olympics. He also attended the 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 Trials, the last three as a blogger and Patch correspondent. [More...]
Ken Stone
-
16 Responses
Good for Merlene, simply amazing. However I’m curious did she submit the same paperwork that we who run in masters meets have to. Or did she get the “celebrity exemption” that seems to be given to those outside the master ranks. We have a whole bunch of Albequerque marks plus many others) yet to be acknowledged.
Interesting points, Aaron. Also, it is more than interesting, as your post suggests, that so many marks from Albuquerque (from the 60, 200, 400, 800, 60 hurdles, high jump, triple jump, etc.) have not yet been recognized. I understand that all of the 60-dash marks were thrown out, but what about the remainder?
Perhaps some of them were recognized in secret, but it would be a pleasure to see what actually happened. After all, the meet was in early March. After the initial rejections it would be nice to see whether any of the marks that did not make it the first time rose to “recognized” status (either pending for American or outright acceptance for world).
Just to take two of the many that did not make it:
Jeanne Daprano ran 1:20.57 in the 400 (American for W70) and Joy Upshaw ran 26.24 in the 200 (American and world for W50). I cite these two because both have won at worlds, Jeanne is in the Hall of Fame, and Joy has been in countless nationals.
We were told by our chair, Gary Snyder, that all the times at Albuquerque except for the 60 were accurate. Thus, I am puzzled, to say the least, why Jeanne and Joy were not given their records. They have extensive documentation of their age, have many recognized achievements, but still their marks went nowhere.
All record breakers at Albuquerque, of course, had to submit either birth certificate or passport just to get in the meet, but yet so many came up empty after breaking existing marks. I wonder why; it’s certainly a mystery.
Can you see somewhere which records are in progress? In my country at the moment those are pending: http://www.atletiekunie.nl/index.php?page=294&id=2
In one or rarely two months you know what happened if they are not approved.
Well, Weia, theoretically the American records that are “in progress” are shown with a “(p)” to indicate pending. Those records will be considered at the national meeting of USATF in December. One can only assume that records such as those of the great Jeanne Daprano (400 dash) and the marvelous Joy Upshaw (200 dash) are not in progress, because they did not get listed and thus have no “(p)” next to their names.
For worlds there is apparently no “pending” designation, and thus we cannot know what is “in progress.” We do know that the same month (March) that Bill Collins broke the world indoor mark in 200 for M60 (Bill ran 24.32), his time became the official world record for that age group.
In contrast, Joy’s mark and that of Barbara Jordan (36.80 for W75) did not make the list of world marks in the 200. In May (last month) the list of world marks was revised, and again Bill Collins was on it and again Joy and Barbara Jordan were not. Thus, one can only assume that they were rejected as world marks (although they could still become American marks at some future date). But neither one is even “pending” American at this point.
But to put a finer point on it, there seems little doubt that there are some marks that are “pre-pending status” that someone is looking at. These can not be identified.
The bothersome thing is, of course, that this was our national championship (Albuquerque), that the athletes had to submit birth certificate or passport with entry, and thus there should be no reason whatsoever not to immediately recognize the marks as either pending American or actual world.
Hey PT-
So I guess they’re waiting till Worlds are in Porto Alegre to bring you aboard to announce?
What a travesty. One more reason (besides the fact I’m too young and the sweltering heat) for me not to go to Worlds this year. Must have been in the cards all along.
Berea isn’t in the cards for me, either- flights just too dang expensive on a teaching salary that’s less than normal due to budget cuts. Shooting for Lisle 2012 or an extended vacay in New Brunswick if I can swing that.
Take care, PT…
Mellow
Thanks, Mellow Johnny. No, I did not make the cut for Worlds 2011, and I won’t be going to Worlds in 2013 (Brazil/Brasil). For 2011, I just wasn’t considered the right announcer by meet management.
Might see you in Lisle 2012 for outdoors.
She ran 24,50s in 200m in Koper, but wind aided. World record is 25,65s.
“In May (last month) the list of world marks was revised,”
The WMA-site says the latest update was in january but actually it was yesterday!
That list is always chaotic. The world records set at the Europeans in Hungary last year became officially on the WMA-site in three steps, many months apart. Reason?
Not related to this topic, but might be of interest to Weia:
KRAGUJEVAC (SRB, Jun 25, 2011): Former European champion Dragutin Topic cleared here 221 cm at age of 40 what is new world masters record. The previous officially recognized outdoor world best for 40+ category was 215 by Dalton Grant in 2008.
Thank you so much, Weia. To review:
The world list was updated in March after the Albuquerque indoors in US. On May 25, 2011, as I indicated, it was updated again. And now, as you report (and which I missed), it has been updated as of yesterday, June 28.
I examined the 200-dash marks for indoors and found that for the third time the world records of Joy Upshaw (W50) and Barbara Jordan (W75) were rejected even though the mark of Bill Collins (M60) continues to be listed (and has been listed since March).
This is of great interest to us in the United States because Bill Collins ran his record 200 about 1 hour or so after Barbara Jordan ran her record time and perhaps 40 minutes after Joy Upshaw ran her record. And yet, the marks of both women were tossed aside.
Well here is one for you – I set a WR in the indoor mile in Boston in early January 2011 – now you would think that IF I set that record – it would also be an AR. But the WR is now lower than my Boston time – Helly Visser of Canada – good for her.
However – I ran faster than the current AR – (former WR) set by Louise Adams – so apparently if one sets a WR – and it is then broken by someone else in another country – one also does not get credit for an AR. Is this a new rule? – My record was set in early January, it was sent in to the record keeper the end of March – I do not mind having it bested by Helly- in CANADA – but I really do mind that the AR IS NOT UPDATED – AND IT IS THE END OF JUNE. There is NO EXCUSE for this sort of thing.
What in heaven’s name does one have to do to get the AR records updated. perhaps we should just abolish the lists since updating them seems to be so hit or miss – and mostly misses.
For what it is worth – I no longer feel it is worth going after records since having them accepted is such a crap shoot.
This has become such a farce that a new system should be instituted or the record keeping just abolished.
It sounds messy.
My latest indoor record has been jumped 27 february, it is on the web of our national federation, as AR on the European website and as WR on WMA, since yesterday I presume. Personally I have never had problems with my records, except that it could take a couple of months before WMA published them.
(Thanks Milan, I missed it…)
A word of advice to all of you…this is all a lot easier to deal with when you don’t set any records (and don’t have hope of ever setting one). 🙂
In all seriousness, this is a shame and this mess needs to get cleaned up. What is disturbing (and baffling) is the lack of consistency as PT pointed out.
I’ve written extensively about the record morass on the world and USA level, and the common issue in both is Sandy Pashkin — appointed (but not elected) as the judge, jury and executioner of all submitted marks.
I’ve talked until I’m blue in the face of a need for someone to be more accountable and answerable. But the powers that be choose to go the “easy” route and reappoint Sandy year after year.
Meanwhile, train wreck and train wreck occurs in our record system. I offered a petition on this issue at the Oshkosh masters nationals in 2009, presenting my case for reform at the USATF Masters T&F Executive Committee meeting. Much was said, but NOTHING was done.
I’ve shot my wad. I have no more bullets in my holster. What should we do? It’s up to you.
Here’s the petition issue:
http://masterstrack.com/2009/07/252/
It would be cool if someone(s) at least kept track of top/’record’ results from major meets like World and National Champs. Maybe even Regional and Association Champs.
Here in the Pacific Champs, they seem to do a great job of ensuring everything is by the books. I wouldn’t question a result listed.
We do have a good set of local records for the Southern California Association
http://www.scausatf.org/events/masters_tf/SCA_Masters_Meet_Records.pdf
and West Region
http://www.scausatf.org/events/usatf_masters/USATF_Masters_West_Region_Records.pdf
All of the through the hard work of Jeff Davison.
Leave a Reply