Pete Magill is boycotting USATF records system, feels liberated
Pete Magill isn’t shy. He’ll admit he’s run for records — and to win. But not anymore. He’s done with the criminally dysfunctional system that forces athletes to carry paperwork with them, submit marks for records and cross their fingers that some technicality beyond their control won’t rob them of AR or WR recognition. He writes: “Oddly, I feel much more excited about racing for fast times in the future, knowing that I won’t have to run the post-race gauntlet trying to track to meet/race officials and explain to them why they should stop what they’re doing to fill out the incredibly complicated paperwork I’m waving in my hand! It’s amazingly liberating to know that all I’ll be doing in the future is training hard and running as fast as I can!”
Pete is one of the greatest U.S. masters cross county and 5K racers of all time.
Currently healing from a case of Achilles bursitis, Pete wrote me the other day about his frustrations with the record-ratification system. I don’t make this stuff up.
When I bemoaned his latest injury, keeping him from record chases, Pete replied:
Yes, not only was I in 5K and 10K record shape, but I surpassed the American M50-54 records for both the 5K and 10K on the roads. But I won’t be getting either record. I ran the 10K in 31:11, 37 seconds faster than the recognized record by Ray Hatton (from back in 1982), but it turned out that the race was only USATF-certified, not also USATF sanctioned (the USATF website showed the race as “record eligible,” but it turned out they only meant that it was measured correctly – USATF “certified”).
With electronic chip-timing and two backup hand timers, there was no question that I’d run an accurate time on an accurate course, but because the race director hadn’t coughed up the sanctioning fee, the result is unofficial. Just an interesting aside, I also ran faster than the listed American M50-54 5K and 8K records on the way to that 10K time!
Anyway, after this last bureaucratic snafu, I’ve decided that I’ve had it with records. A couple weeks earlier, I’d cruised to a 15:24 in winning a local 5K (that race was both USATF certified and sanctioned, and chip-timed with the back-up hand timers), which is 12 seconds faster than Nolan Shaheed’s age group mark, but I decided to toss the paperwork. I know there’ll be some little thing wrong with the paperwork, and USATF will demand I jump through a bunch of hoops … and then I may or may not get credited with that record. So I just thought, “Forget it.” And tossed it.
Frankly, I’ve had it with this crap whereby I train my ass off, run record times on USATF-certified courses and tracks, and then have to navigate the bureaucratic maze afterward in order to get USATF to give me an official nod on the time. I ran the times. They’re accurate. The courses were accurate. In fact, there’s only one thing now that’s not accurate: the USATF American records for the M50-54 road 5K and 10K.
So be it.
If this doesn’t touch the hearts of USATF decision-makers, nothing will.
Pete, sadly, isn’t alone. A half-dozen record-setters have expressed similar thoughts in recent years, which means more and more records fall through the cracks. This renders the record books ridiculous.
The idea is to run the fastest, throw the farthest or jump the highest/longest. Not be the best at getting paperwork filled out.
Does anyone up there care?
50 Responses
There is sometimes confusion about the words “sanctioned” and “certified.” On the roads, the key thing is that the length of the race be certified by some responsible body. In Pete’s case, the certification by USATF would mean everything, and the sanctioning by USATF would signify nothing.
In brief, you could advertise an “8,000-meter road race” as a USATF-sanctioned event, but that would mean nothing in terms of whether the race was actually 8,000 meters long. Someone might have used his car or some other inaccurate method to measure the course; the race could be long, short, etc. You need a CERTIFIED course.
On the track, having a SANCTION does not mean you will have good officials, bad officials, any officials. You promise to obey the rules, but whether you do that or not is up to you. Ironically, one of the rules (139.3) has to do with processing records.
Athletes are urged to go to USATF-sanctioned meets, where theoretically the meet administration is supposed to obey the rules, but many meets think nothing of ignoring the rule that they, not the athlete, must process the records set there. Thus, the athlete loses out even though she/he goes to a sanctioned meet.
Sanctioned meets also often ignore the rules about counting laps (has happened repeatedly at our nationals), forming heats, etc., etc. Pete Magill has been victimized here.
Well, the real problem is that quite often record-setting times that were done at SANCTIONED and CERTIFIED meets (ie-Sacramento, Albuquerque, and the list goes on…) are still routinely ignored.
Pete, I’d be happy to validate your records by buying you a beer after the race. See you in Syracuse!
“sanctioned”, “certified” and with a curb around the road and orange cones of a very specific height as well to make sure no one cuts a corner – come on now – we all know that is really why road race records are rejected,
I am sitting at my desk looking at an envelope with the paper work for a 3k outdoor track record at hand. I have had the paperwork for a month and have yet to file it. Why would the powers that control the records accept this one when my record from last summer for the W 75 3k set at the Maine Sr Games has received no response. Why bother – hum – maybe I will join Pete’s boycott. Much less frustrating than trying to read the tea leaves and frog entrails for record acceptance. No wonder the W 75 outdoor 3k records has stood since 1985. (was there a curb or cones then , or FAT timing, or certified officials, or sanctioned and blessed track meets? ).
Is the paper work in all countries about the same? For track records in my country I have to write for about a minute, then I walk to three meet officials, they put a sign and that’s it. The record committee sometimes rejects records, but most are found to be OK.
Interesting point Weia, I would bet the paperwork is pretty much the same – but are the rules for setting records the same? That seems to be the problem in the US – at least in some instances. I am not familiar with road race records requirements and most of the complaints on this forum are about track records and what sometimes seems like a whimsical application of the rules. But we do not know if the application of the rules is whimsical or whatever as either a record is accepted – or one hears NOTHING at all.
It would be helpful if the person who makes these decisions would inform the applicant as to why a submitted application is rejected. Either one sees the record posted online as pending -(a vote months later at the USATF Annual Meeting) or nothing at all.
That is really what drives people here in the states around the bend.
And the rules for setting records -are they the same around the world – maybe someone can make a Ph.D. research project out of that -:)
Pete and all the commenters are spot-on.
Pete – i quietly threw my hands up several years ago. See you at Club XC Nationals!
Pete is right. We should just make Andy Hecker’s wikipedia list, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_records_in_masters_athletics
the official, unofficial records list.
Weia (no. 5) and Mary H. (no. 6): I won’t venture a guess as to the paperwork requirements in the US versus the rest of the world, but I do know this:
We often do not get the outcomes we should be able to expect. For example, in one of your best events, Weia (the high jump), we know that the indoor US record for W40 is 1.66 meters by the Olympian Trish Porter. I just went to http://www.usatf.org to confirm that fact.
We also know that Stacey Nieder, the graceful jumper from Alaska (which is part of the United States), jumped 1.67 meters in March 2010 and 1.68 meters in March 2011 to break Trish’s W40 American record twice.
Now, where did Stacey jump those heights, in some obscure meet in Alaska? No, the 1.67 she jumped in our indoor masters nationals (Boston 2010), and the 1.68 she jumped in the 2011 indoor masters nationals (Albuquerque).
This is what I mean, Weia, about not getting the outcomes we should be able to expect. Fortunately, Stacey’s 2011 mark is now being given consideration (it belatedly reached “pending” status); the 2010 mark was completely ignored. Oh, well.
I am so sorry for every one in this predicament. You are all amazing athletes and train especially hard to reach your goals. So it is especially frustrating. I do understand, as Bud and I have some pretty good records which couldn’t be accepted for various reasons. My guess is that that many more record holders have similar stories.
I have learned to read and reread the rules and ask lots of questions of meet directors beforehand.
However, I have learned to look at the record application process in the same way I look at going through security lines at the airport. Very few travelers have any mayhem in mind, but it is worth it to try and catch the few that do. The same with record applications: Few will cheat, but there is no way to ensure the validity of the records without going through the well established but sometimes annoying process.
The USATF should be ashamed of themselves…..it’s not like anyone is getting any younger. Maybe we as athletes should boycott paying the additional USATF fee, one encounters when registering for the nationals !
Nadine it would not be so annoying if there was some transparency to the process of having records approved or rejected. I do not think there was any cheating involved in records set at the USATF in Boston for example- Stacey Nieder – but the record has not been accepted, why? Boston was a national masters meet and many records were set and accepted from that meet. One is left guessing – that is not acceptable. Without transparency about why some records are not accepted the entire record submittal process becomes a bit of a guessing game, some are in, some are out, some are out but might become in, it is very difficult to respect that sort of thing.
I can understand that it may be difficult to cross all the i’s and dot all the T’s at local meets but when even National meet records are not accepted – there needs to be some explanation – was there too much wind? (pretty hard to have too much wind indoors btw) -no prescribed tape measure, no curb around the track, the implements were not properly weighed, ? What was missing? Athletes deserve to be told why a record application is denied so that they can attempt to break the record at another meet and not fall victim to the same mistake(s) again. This should not be made into a game of gotcha.
Mary, I am over my word limit, but I do like your suggestion about an explanation. Perhaps there could be a mandate that every rejection of a record at nationals be accompanied by a one- or two-sentence explanation.
To take another example of missing records, it is widely known that three sprinters broke the world indoor 200 mark at Albuquerque: Bill Collins (M60), Joy Upshaw (W50), and Barbara Jordan (W75).
On the very first update of the world marks, which was in March 2011 (same month as Albuquerque), Bill Collins received recognition of his world record. Even today, after at least three updates of the world marks, Joy Upshaw and Barbara Jordan are not on the 200 dash list.
With a brief explanation, one might have something like:
(1) We thought the FAT machinery did not work for these two races but did work for Bill Collins about three-fourths of an hour after Joy’s race.
(2) We didn’t think these women could run that fast.
(3) The starter said they jumped the gun but he decided to let them run anyway.
One thing I would not accept as an explanation is lack of paperwork, as these are nationals, not some pickup meet, and everyone must show proof of age to get into the meet and be a USATF member.
Furthermore, the competitors who break these sprint marks, such as Joy and Barbara, are widely known in the masters community. Why? Because they are very fast and have broken other marks in the past. For some reason we never have unknowns break world sprint marks.
It would be polite to give a reason. Reasons I have seen overhere: track sloping (we don’t live on rock so tracks can slowly sink into the mud), track not certified for other reasons, no wind reading and so on. Quite simple and understandable/acceptable things. The record committee is not liking to disapprove a record, so they do their best to approve them. My national record in the javelin W55 was on a track which was not certified anymore – a track has to be certified every five year or so (the mud, you know) and that particular track got the ‘uncertified’ mark. I knew that in advance, nevertheless did the paperwork. The committee carefully looked in the certification report and found out that the javelin run up only had a minor fault, old style white lining or so. So I got my record.
And since 2010 at nationals we have to do only a part of the paperwork, we do not have to look for referees, judges and so. They put their signs when we are on our way home already.
One important point is the USATF maintains USATF records, NOT American Records. That means marks set in USATF meets and races, not any meet or race anywere in the country, regardless of whether all the rules were followed or not.
Of course just because a mark is set in a USATF event doesn’t mean it should get automatically approved. I ran faster than the open American Record in a race that was sactioned, certified, and a USATF regional championship race. But the race officials cut a huge chunk off the certified course, so certainly it shouldn’t count. But it sure seems like there is room to streamline the process.
Appreciate all the input from everyone. Let me just say this, however: if you’ve never tried getting a USATF road race application filled out, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. 😉
To begin with, try figuring out where your (the applicant’s) name goes. If you won the race overall, this is easier; if you didn’t, you’ll still need to provide the names of both the men’s and women’s winner of the race, along with their chip-time and two hand times, with signatures of the timers attached for each.
Then you’ll have to try to figure out where your own time goes (good luck!) – and what time to put in (chip time, gun time, or hand time … there’s no indication of which time is needed, but if you put down the wrong one….).
You’ll also have to put down the course certification number and the race sanction number; good luck finding a race director who has those numbers on hand, as I’ve never met one (and am still waiting to be emailed the sanction number from my 5K “record” on July 4 … I stopped asking the director for that number after the first couple emails.)
You’ll also need a timing company that can somehow dicipher the myriad questions being asked of them on the form; the owner/head of the last timing company I tried to get to fill out the form (a company that handles a large percentage of So Cal’s races) finally shook his head, gave me his card, and told me to have USATF give him a call – yeah, I’m sure he’ll be getting a call any day now.
Most race directors have no idea there even is such a thing as a USATF American age group record; at both my races this summer, the race directors said the exact same thing to me when I asked them to fill out the paperwork: “But you didn’t set our course record.”
And it goes, on and on. I shan’t bore you more.
BUT … All that said, Don Lein, our masters LDR chairman, was incredibly supportive of my problems with the 10K record; there simply wasn’t anything he could do about it given the current rules. Don’s a good guy, as are most of the people in USATF.
So it goes.
In any case, next time I run a great race, I want to be able to savor that great race. My 31:11 10K at age 50 this past July was the best race I’ve run as a master. It was my crowning achievement. Yet within a couple days it was being treated like a throwaway race, with some running peers (and even some in USATF) suggesting that I just “do it again,” as if a 10K were a pair of shoes I could pull out of the closet at will. As if I should maybe be just a little embarrassed for having claimed a record just because I ran 37 seconds faster than the previous record on a USATF certified course, without having done the due diligence to ascertain that USATF had been paid a fee to make it official.
The truth is this: that 10K beat me up so badly that I haven’t been able to run a hard workout or finish a race since. I’m now forced to take a couple weeks off just to try to heal the injuries that blossomed after that race. So I won’t be running a road 10K again, not for awhile anyway.
And I won’t be ashamed of my time, won’t buy into the pretense that I didn’t really run it because it wasn’t sanctioned.
I ran it. It’s mine. End of story.
Wow, Pete. Two things come to mind: A. You are an incredible runner. The last time I checked, a 31:11 10,000 was 5:01.1 per mile. At age 50. Yikes!
B. Getting a road race record accepted is incredibly difficult. I can’t imagine going through the process you have outlined.
PS Not sure I understand Craig Godwin’s point. I don’t consider the Penn Relays a USATF meet, for example (it is SANCTIONED by USATF but not run by USATF). Numerous USATF masters records have been set at the Penn Relays.
As just two examples, both the W35 and W40 American outdoor mile marks were set at the Penn Relays (W35 by Mary Slaney and W40 by Alisa Harvey). Perhaps Craig can clarify his point.
It’s so disheartening to hear about all these records being disregarded and ignored after the hard work put in to achieve them. Is the sole purpose of being a USATF member just to be able to compete at any USATF meet, regionally or nationally?? If that’s the case and Pete is serious about being done with the system, can a few renagade meet sponsors get reasonably priced private insurance to run meets on their own and distance themselves, out from under the USATF as our governing body? I mean if all they do is collect membership fees and entry fees and then basically do nothing for athletes that have achieved greatness at USATF National Championships and then still be denied a record, or basically do what they want, when they want… why give them any money at all? Nothing will ever change unless we all stand up together and say, enough is enough. Until then I applaud Pete’s own personal snub of the USATF…
I’m not familiar with road records, just track and field. Who’s in charge of road running records?
Peter T – Yes, 5:01 per mile … And remember that the roads are significantly slower than the track (a road 10K is probably about 25-40 seconds slower than an equivalent effort on the track). And its that kind of sustained pounding on asphalt that finally beat my Achilles bursa into its present inflammed state. But you know what? It was worth it! For 31 minutes, age didn’t exist; I was floating, feeling better than I have in two decades! If it takes me a few months or a year or whatever to get back to that (after I start running again), then so be it. Ageless is priceless!
Yes, Pete M., you and I agree that was quite an achievement (averaging 5:01 per mile at age 50). When I was 17 I went through 3/4 of a mile on the track in 3:45, and someone yelled out, “You can break 5 minutes.” Right. I struggled home in 5:05.8 for what turned out to be my lifetime best.
Know what you mean about that feeling of floating –that’s what it’s all about. You’re eating up the ground with very little effort, and the markers (on road or track) go by very quickly.
Rod, (9 above), how is that wiki website kept up to date? If there is info “missing” how does it get entered? Is it up to an individual to make the addition/change as is the case for most wiki pages?
Anyone can update wiki-pages.
Hey Pete-
If you come to Oregon next summer to run the masters invitational mile, I will not only meticulously fill out your record application (for setting a new M50 mile World Record) but will also buy all the beer you can drink (in whichever order you prefer). That’s a promise! As race director, I haven’t messed up yet!
Dave –
Will you still buy me all that beer when I finish second place in my age division to Tony Young? 😉
FYI – I’ll be there. And Tony will have to work for that record!
Pete
John (24),
I try to keep the info up to date, but it does take work and I’ve been busy the last few months (which is a good thing). The Masters Athletics World Records are more up to date than the U.S. Records. Weia has also made good contributions. Others just come out of the woodworks. As she said, anybody can go in to wikipedia and make an edit. It should be written in wiki language, a format you can usually copy from elsewhere on the page. People like she and I are watching the pages, so if something doesn’t jive with reality, it will get knocked out or cleaned up when we notice. That is the opposite side of the “everybody can edit” philosophy. Junk just doesn’t survive the scrutiny of a public audience on the #1 information website in the world. Write to me if you need help.
It’s a date Pete
Get healthy
Why couldn’t an individual or group come up with a simple, transparent, but meaningful set of criteria for accepting records, and set up an alternative list or site for American records that would become the accepted official record repository? There could be a submission process that was more rigorous than a wiki, and a copy of the USATF paperwork could meet all requirements if the record setter also wanted to submit to USATF (so they wouldn’t have to re-do work). I’ll never set one of those records, but I’d be willing to contribute a significant amount of money to make it happen. We need to remember that “official” groups are only official because of the “will of the governed”, and that new official entities can be established if necessary.
How about USATF having an open report on the status of every application for a record? Record application X has been received . . . was accepted . . . was rejected because of: . . . is still under investigation because of Y outstanding issues . . . is waiting for official ratification in December.
Admittedly it would be a page buried somewhere on the USATF website, but it would provide the explanation and would be a learning experience for all those involved. If a record was rejected because; the officials were using the wrong measuring technique, for example. Do you think a meet, or a referee or the official involved, would EVER let the same mistake happen in the future? If the course were mis-measured, or was not certified or not sanctioned, do you think that would become an ongoing situation, year after year? Bad press alone on this blog would kill an event that didn’t clean up its act, that didn’t publicly announce they had cleaned up their act. And problems like incomplete information could be followed up on, until they were fixed. It is our lack of knowledge of the problems that makes us accuse the committee of dastardly things. And if they were doing dastardly things, openness would clearly expose that.
That’s my proposal for this year’s annual meeting: Other delegates want to get on board?
Good idea, Andy. Of course, you are talking about the USATF list, and Doug (no. 30) is going another direction, i.e., a list not maintained by USATF. Yes, it would be wonderful to have an explanation from USATF (1 to 3 sentences long) of every record that was not accepted, particularly records from nationals.
I don’t want to speak for Stacey Nieder, for example, but I don’t even think SHE knew that her own record, i.e., Stacey’s W40 high jump record from March 2010 (indoor), was not accepted.
Made no difference that she set it at our indoor masters nationals.
Back to Doug (no. 30), I would like to see athletes get out of the record ratification business. For example, I had the honor of processing both the W35 American outdoor record for the mile (Mary Slaney, 1997) and the W40 record for that distance (Alisa Harvey, 2006).
One went right through (Mary’s), while Alisa’s hit a wall; it was quite a struggle. Both were set at the Penn Relays. In my scheme, both Mary and Alisa would have had no responsibility at all for processing, nor would I have. In fact, there would have been no application.
There would simply be a hierarchy of meets:
Category I: Masters nationals, open nationals, Olympic Trials, Penn Relays, Drake Relays, etc.
Category II: You fill it in.
Category III: Please fill in.
If you set a record in Category I, that’s a record, no application necessary. Categories II and III would require applications from meet management, not the athlete.
What’s that you say? The mile times posted at the Penn Relays Web site are no good? If you really believe that, file a protest within 18 months of the posting of the record. But no one would protest, at least in my examples.
Why? Because they ran the times. Mary Slaney won her race outright against an open field, and Alisa finished 8th, also in an open field. The woman in front of Alisa ran 4:45.64, Alisa ran 4:46.29, and the next woman ran 4:48.86. But let’s say you suspect an error. If you are right, the record would come down. Simple as that.
I ask for more transparency from our USATF masters committee members re: record rejection. In the case of the Albuquerque 60m records (13 American or World records), the athletes deserve a thorough accounting of each result, i.e. “In the W35 60m, for first place the primary timer stated x.xx and the secondary timer stated x.xx, a unreconciliable difference of .xx.”
The brief explanation we were given isn’t satisfactory.
It is not difficult to give some explanation, so I am astonished to learn about the USATF policy. Here you see all pending records (track) of my country http://www.atletiekunie.nl/index.php?page=294&id=2 The penultimate column mostly says ‘in behandeling’, that is ‘we are busy with it’. Only one is labeled ‘Neen’, that is ‘no’. Clicking for more information you can read ‘too much wind’.
That would be enough already, but every three months or so the record committee gives a full list of all approved records, and all not approved with explanation, and this list is communicated to all clubs and so on.
Great ideas and suggestions from all of you on the fixes, and/or compromises of getting records ratified and or at least know why they weren’t, but has anyone, club or group actually contacted the USATF and inform them and press them to implement these solutions? I know most think my idea about this problem seems over the top and over-reactive, but it’s like an employee that steals from your business and you don’t do, say, or take action to remedy the situation, other than complain about it to your wife, husband or close friends, they will keep continue to steal. This isn’t a one time deal with the USATF and this issue. They’ve done this more times than I ever imagined, reading about this problem over the years here on Masterstrack.com. So I hope one, or group of you take the initiative to directly communicate with the USATF and help resolve this issue for your fellow friends and athletes, because though theraputive, if you think by posting about it every time this problem arises and think it will make a difference, I beg to differ…it hasn’t worked yet and they’re not listening. As Albert Einstein was suggested to have said, ” The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
USATF was/is/will always be useless from every perspective for our sport.
A revolution and/or startup is needed!
Pat Tobin
..masters runner and COO of U.S. Athletic Trust
Milton, I and another athlete contacted members of our USATF masters committee and voiced our concerns several times since last April No change.
Andy Hecker (post no. 31): One problem with giving a status report is that for some records we don’t know whether an application was even submitted (perhaps the athlete could not get all the signatures).
Thus, when asking for the status we may simply be told, “Nothing received.” That is why I emphasize starting with nationals. There the athlete is supposed to have no responsibility for processing; it is out of her/his hands. Every record should be accepted unless something crazy went on.
I’ll give you an example of a nonchampionship record. Around Feb 1 on this site we were told of two records set by the remarkable Anselm LeBourne. One was a 1:59.94 for a new American indoor mark for 800 (M50).
Now, we can see from http://www.usatf.org that that record has gone absolutely nowhere. And yet it was in a major meet in Boston, video was available for confirmation that he was right around that time, it was FAT, Anselm was capable of the time, etc.
Thus, for nonchampionship meets we need a “status of the records” rather than a “status of the applications.” This would be a challenge.
Liz (no. 36): Sorry you were unable to obtain any satisfaction in this area.
Brief follow-up to my post about Anselm LeBourne (above). The other M50 indoor record mentioned in the February 1 post by Ken Stone on this site was 4:13.56, which Anselm uncorked in the 1500.
That record also went absolutely nowhere. I am shocked. What, a legitimate record that disappeared into the mist? Again, what a shock (!!!***).
Liz, Sorry to hear that you got no satifaction from headquarters on this, but that again tells us all they could care less and don’t take this issue, or us as athletes seriously. Master’s athletes, or Ken Stone could try and contact Track and Field News to see if someone could write a small article about this subject and see if it catches the eye of USATF officials. But I would personally protest them in their pocket where it hurts them the most. This also goes beyong master’s athletes as well. I went to a meet early this Summer that I vowed to try and stay away from because of lousy meet management in past years. I figured to give them another chance. So what did they do this time? Lost all the field events results for youth, open and masters. To tell you the truth, I think they just threw the results away because it was too much work to post. They had our cash in their pockets now and they’ve gotten away with this type of behavior before, so what’s to stop them from not continuing it…definitlely not the USATF. The meet directors club is about the sprints and middle distance( I always notice they never lose those events and those results were always first posted first ) and they’ve done this in the past, never being reprimanded for it…ever. I know this because I called Colorado’s chair person after I found they lost the results and told him of my, and the other field event athletes problem andc concerns about this meet. He left me a message on my answering machine that went something like this, ” I understand your disappointment in the clubs poor meet management and your request to have them banned from sponsoring meets in the future, but I can’t do that. We have a hard enough time getting clubs to run meets to begin with and we’re actually looking for more to do so…” Really? So no problem with leaving out a third of the meets results? If more decide to do this, it’s A-OK in your book? No reprimand, punishment, just charge athletes entry fees and post nothing as if they never were there… CHA-CHING!!!! So I’m thinking of running a meet or two here in Colorado next Summer with a few buds of mine. I figure it to be a decent money haul day with just collecting entry fees from clubs and athletes statewide, concession sales, t-shirts. I’ll have parents and friends of the athletes or just spectators to time, measure and judge, ( as was done at this meet as well) Then comes the easy part, lose all the running event results entirely and post online only the field events, while refusing to refund the clubs or competitors while being backed by Colorado’s chair person saying we needed more of if this!! In the immortal words of Chris Farley, ” Me Likey!!” ( By the way , you can go to the Colorado USATF website and look on “Youth” Summer meets results and the meet in question is the first summer meet of 2011)
Speaking internationally, WMA, and their affiliates all should be open about the records process. I’ll say IAAF, through their various press releases, is probably the best example of what should go on everywhere. When a record or a medal is withdrawn due to, say, a drug violation, we know about it within the limitations of what they legally can say about private matters. iaaf.org/aboutiaaf/news/newsid=46531.html and articles like this tell us what is happening. So why can’t USATF, or WMA do that? Why not create a simple space for that on the website?
While we’re on the subject of records, we can’t always set a masters American or World Record every time we step on the track (or field), and apparently even if you do set a record, good luck on getting it recognized! But one of the temporary joys of high school/college track was setting a meet record. Alas, keeping masters meet records seems to be a lost art or likely never an art at all.
See: http://www.ortmanmarchand.com/fs4.html
I’m a little behind, but I compiled meet records for –
*the World Master Games from 1998-2005
http://www.ortmanmarchand.com/wmg.html
* NORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN WAVA/WMA REGIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS MEET RECORDS from 1992-2008
http://www.ortmanmarchand.com/wavarr.html
I seem to recall that National Masters Indoor Championships kept a meet record list, but I don’t think I have ever seen any meet record list for the National Masters Outdoor Championships.
*As for Regional USTAF Meet records, here is the link for the up-to-date Masters Pacific NW Regional T&F Meet Records:
http://nwmtf.oregonathletics.org/RECORDS.HTML
* The Masters West Region has a website with meet records at:
http://www.mastershistory.org/West-Region/West.pdf
*The Masters Mid-American Region has a website at:
http://www.usatfmasters.org/reg_ma.htm but does not appear to contain a link to regional meet records. However, I did locate a list of Mid-American meet records from 1975-2009 at:
http://www.usatfmn.org/Websites/usatfmn/Images/June2009%20Mid-Am%20meet%20records.pdf
* No Regional Meet records listed on the Masters Eastern Region website either:
http://www.usatfne.org/index.shtml
*Back in 1993, I believe I set two regional masters record at the SE Masters Regional Meet in Gonzales, LA. But apparently the meet records were lost. There are no meet records list on their website.
http://www.southeasternmasters.org/
Note that some Regional Masters meets will only accept meet records set by those who are members in the region, which doesn’t really meet the definition of “meet record.”
It would be very helpful if NMN could post the Masters Region websites in its USATF Officers box.
I once attended a championship race in North Carolina and there was a person assigned by the meet director to get the paperwork filled out when a record was broken. Great idea!! Which as a race walker, was totally appreciated as we also have to get 3 signatures and addresses and phone numbers from each of the 3+ judges and head judge (they usually disappear after the race) and the meet director signatures.
There has been recent discussion and dismay regarding the state of the Masters American record books. We can’t always set a masters American or World Record every time we step on the track (or field), and apparently even if you do set a record, good luck on getting it recognized! But one of the temporary joys of high school/college track was setting a meet record. Alas, keeping masters meet records seems to be a lost art or likely never an art at all.
See: http://www.ortmanmarchand.com/fs4.html
I’m a little behind, but I compiled T&F meet records for –
*the World Master Games from 1998-2005
http://www.ortmanmarchand.com/wmg.html
* NORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN WAVA/WMA REGIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS MEET RECORDS from 1992-2008
http://www.ortmanmarchand.com/wavarr.html
I seem to recall that National Masters Indoor Championships kept a meet record list, but I don’t think I have ever seen any meet record list for the National Masters Outdoor Championships.
*As for Regional USTAF Meet records, here is the link for the up-to-date Masters Pacific NW Regional T&F Meet Records:
http://nwmtf.oregonathletics.org/RECORDS.HTML
* The Masters West Region has a website with meet records at:
http://www.mastershistory.org/West-Region/West.pdf
*The Masters Mid-American Region has a website at:
http://www.usatfmasters.org/reg_ma.htm but does not appear to contain a link to regional meet records. However, I did locate a list of Mid-American meet records from 1975-2009 at:
http://www.usatfmn.org/Websites/usatfmn/Images/June2009%20Mid-Am%20meet%20records.pdf
* No Regional Meet records listed on the Masters Eastern Region website:
http://www.usatfne.org/index.shtml
*Back in 1993, I believe I set two regional masters record at the SE Masters Regional Meet in Gonzales, LA. But apparently the meet records were lost. There are no meet records list on their website.
http://www.southeasternmasters.org/
* I could not locate a Masters Southwest Regional T&F website at all.
Note that some Regional Masters meets will only accept meet records set by those who are members in the region, which doesn’t really meet the definition of “meet record.”
It would be very helpful if NMN could post the Masters Region websites in its USATF Officers box.
Peter T – When I said “USATF maintains USATF records, NOT American Records” what I was trying to say that a USATF record is only the fastest run in a USATF sectioned meet, and also following some very complex application procedures. It is not necessarily a list of American records. It is quite possible (as this thread shows) to set a legitimate American record that not eligible to be a USATF record. USATF records are a subset of American records, just as American records are a subset of world records.
Of course the real issue in most cases is the process for getting a legit USATF record approved.
But Pete’s 33:11 would technically be an American Record (a legit time on a legit course by an American) but not a USATF record since it wasn’t a USATF sanctioned event.
But the problem is if the USATF is maintaining USATF sanctioned records only, who has the authority/credibility to maintain American records? For the most part the USATF records are considered the American records by default, although Andy’s Wikipedia page is starting to fill the gap.
For a very similar scenario, look at the NFHS high school records vs. the Track and Field News high shcool records. NFHS is the national governing body (think USATF), but the T&FN records (think Andy’s Wikipedia page) is known to be more complete. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_high_school_national_records_in_track_and_field
Thanks, Craig. Of course, I would prefer to use a somewhat broader definition of USATF records, as there are various organizations that are acceptable to the USATF in terms of sanctioning.
I am not a rules expert, but I do know rule 262.3 (a), where it speaks about sanctions:
…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.”
Among the 5-E members of USATF, which are apparently the organizations that can provide this sanction, are the NCAA and the NAIA. Road Runners Club of America is another one. As I understand it, one could just go to an event that had been sanctioned by one of these bodies (or another 5-E member) and one would be “good to go” for records. One would not have to go anywhere near a USATF meet.
What I object to is having people go to a USATF event (like the Pacific Assoc. USATF championships or the USATF national masters indoors) in good faith and not getting their records accepted when there was nothing wrong with the record.
I do think your point is well taken that there is a gap between American records and USATF records, but given the range of groups that can sanction a meet or race (I have named just three) I believe the term “USATF record” has to be defined more broadly.
Peter T.
USATF is your God…do not dis-obey them!! They will only accept who they want and accept. Who are any of you, or the record breaking athlete to challenge them!! The almighty OZ has spoken!!
Magill will you at least consider Relay Records just so at least 4 of us can drink oregon craft brews afterwards? Young, Blackmore and Paulk for the new M50 4×800 summer 2012. Comon on mates its an Olympic Year! Good things happen.
KP
KP – Will run anything with you, Mike, Tony, and beer afterward. Just won’t fill out the paperwork; one of you will have to deal with that. 😉
Clingan — “All the beer [Pete] can drink” ?? Are you serious? Did you inherit a brewery?
It would be fun to watch a men’s 50s 4 x mile relay. It would be very interesting to see them run it after the beer.
Leave a Reply