LeBourne claims WR in M50 indoor 800, but frets about ratification
Anselm LeBourne
Results from Boston Terrier Classic show another sub-2 for Anselm in the 800.
Anselm continues:
There must be a better system in place to ratified new world or American record. Is the procedure the same for high school, college or open runners? In addition, each time you break a world or American record you have to send in identification to prove your age.
Why don’t they have this information stored in a database? It just seem to me that instead of the process getting easier, it’s getting more difficult. I hope this system is changed to an online system in addition to the paperwork so we can have two ways of applying for a new world or American record.
Join the club, Anselm. (President being Nolan Shaheed and vice president Mary Harada.) If I had a share of Apple stock for every WR that falls through the cracks, I’d be retired and traveling the world with Chris.
69 Responses
it’s a difficult system in many ways, and masters “take it on the chin” much too often. I could write from now to the Bloomington meet about this issue but I will not (for obvious reasons).
Just a few things, which apply to masters in general but not to Anselm’s case in particular (I don’t know the inside details):
1. Sanctions, rules. One irony is that masters are urged to go to sanctioned meets if they wish to set records, with one argument being that sanctioned meets follow the rules. Actually, the meets just follow the rules they want to follow (or are aware of), and this applies to records.
For example, the USATF rules mandate that someone be assigned to process any records set, and that this person shall have no other duties. If this rule were actually followed it would have said masters a lot of headaches over the years. In brief, masters suffer from both sides: they lose a record if not set at a sanctioned meet, or they set a record at a sanctioned meet and receive no help from meet administration in getting it processed.
2. Photos. A great fuss is made over getting a photo for record verification, but as the chief of FAT (fully automatic timing) at the Penn Relays (and many other big meets) told me several years ago, “Masters are the only ones who ask for a photo.” More broadly, can you imagine high school, collegiate, or open athletes who set a record at the Penn Relays, Mt. SAC Relays, etc., traipsing around the stadium trying to get signatures and a photo? But masters are supposed to do that unless an official gives them some help.
3. Automatic ratification. Last year, Joy Upshaw broke the world indoor record in the 200 for W50, and Barbara Jordan did the same in the 200 for W75. Both did this at Albuquerque nationals. Please don’t tell me that either of those marks has ever been listed as the world indoor record, because they haven’t.
Bloomington nationals are coming up, but yet we have uncertainty whether these marks from last year’s nationals actually count as world standards for this year’s athletes to target. Pity.
Oh, well. I hope that Anselm gets his marks. After all, he ran the times.
The USATF Web site was down when I wrote the comment above. It’s now back up, and I did find the rule about someone to process new records; it’s 139.3, Recorder of Records. If meets would follow just this one rule it would help masters a lot, as processing could be taken out of their hands:
“He/she shall see that records are properly applied for.” I interpret this to mean that this person must either do the processing of records directly or see that it is accomplished by someone else (not an athlete).
In any case, great run Anselm. After reading Peter’s post, it seems that attempts at records need to be planned to be at the very least sanctioned meets. I look forward to seeing Anselm run even faster and getting the recognition that he justly deserves.
So there is some minor consolation in knowing you will never set or break a record. 🙂
Even setting a WR or AR at a sanctioned meet is no guarantee that the record will be accepted. There are numerous instances of records set at sanctioned meets (and that is only one of many requirements), after that comes all the fine print – down to – a rail around the track or cones of specified height set at specified intervals around the track, that the track itself be certified, that it be a published meet (ie not set up for a solo run at a record) etc.
I am sure Anselm knows all the rules and took care that all the necessary steps were taken. Even after getting the paperwork filled out etc – and mailing it off to the appropriate person – who knows what happens. One waits for months – even years – to see if the record is “pending” or accepted. And apparently setting records at National Masters Meets is no sufficient for reasons not revealed.
The current system is not a system – it is a maze or an obstacle course set with unexplained and unseen barriers. This is one of many problems for masters trying to deal with USATF – an organization that is focused primarily on elite and wannabe elites. We need the masters leadership to step up and create better ways to deal with masters issues and stop assuming that USATF leadership will do it for us.
And please – those of you who want to chime in and say that we should quit USATF and switch to NSG – get a grip – bad enough to deal with an organization that promotes “just” our sport. NSG is about many sports – you want to compete for attention with Tennis, Softball, Basketball, masters swimming, and pickleball?
“We need the masters leadership to step up and create better ways to deal with masters issues and stop assuming that USATF leadership will do it for us.”
What Mary said!
Great performances Anselm
Great run, Anselm!!! Incredible to be consistent (year to year) under 2:00 for 800 at this age!!!
As for the records, I’ve made my own feelings known about the ratification process before (and won’t bother applying for records anymore).
Here’s what a masters track athlete should need to get a record ratified: personal info (name, address, age, USATF #), record info (distance, time, place, meet), an FAT photo of the finish, the meet director’s signature ONE TIME assuring USATF that everything was run correctly (from starter’s pistol to rails to track measurement, etc.), and a link to the published meet results (or hard copy of the same). End of story.
It’s even worse with road races, where the application is indecipherable and the form requires results for the men’s and women’s winners of the race (even if different from the masters runner applying for the record), chip times, two back-up hand times, etc. ad nauseum.
What should be required for road race records: personal info, record info, chip time, one back-up hand time written in by the race director or timing official, the race director’s signature ONE TIME swearing that everything was run correctly, the course’s USATF certification number, and a link to the published results of the race (or hard copy of the same).
Sanctioning for track meets isn’t usually a problem. But sanctioning should be dropped as a requirement for road racing, since the vast majority of local road races aren’t – and since sanctioning doesn’t require that a road race be measured correctly (certified) and doesn’t result in races being run any better than those that aren’t. Here in So Cal, both the most popular summer 5K race and our sanctioned 10K association championships were short, meaning they couldn’t be considered for record purposes.
This process is a mess. Many of our records aren’t records. The people in charge think there should be MORE hoops, not less (related to me by someone very much in the loop). And we masters athletes are expected to endure whatever humiliation and disappointment our records masters see fit.
Regarding Pete’s comment in post 2 on having a Recorder of Records – The BU Terrier Classic is a collegiate meet; while open athletes are welcome to compete in a number of collegiate open/invitational meets, those meets have no need or responsibility to check hundreds of sections of races for masters records. College meet directors are generally happy to assist, but on their terms – after the meet.
Hard to believe, but many race directors and officials can’t drop what they’re doing to complete forms. If the athlete is following through themselves, wait until the meet is over and go official by official to get what is needed. Write out the details of what photo is needed and deliver to the timing system operator. If you have to compete and leave, well, that’s your choice. Don’t interrupt or badger an official or director when they’re in a conversation, or working the finish line of a race, or officiating another event (all of which have happened to me while in a director or official capacity).
If there’s a problem with follow through with records, masters have their USATF Masters TF Committee; force the issue with the chair and your association rep and others on the USATF Masters TF Committee. But be ready to step up and work when you make suggestions.
Steve Vaitones
Steve is right – and folks if you have not been to one of the two BU collegiate meets – the Valentine meet and the Classic – is it an amazing circus. It is a collegiate meet – and they allow some non-collegiate runners – including masters. I ran the mile at a couple of those meets in past years. It is an extremely busy meet with multiple heats of most events, spread over two days.
It is difficult enough to get the required paperwork filled out at a non-national masters meet – never mind one like the Terrier Classic. At the masters meets the officials are busy enough but more than willing to assist -at least at the meets I have attended. At a collegiate meet such as at BU – wow – good luck with the paper work. Masters runners are guests there – and certainly not the focus of the meet.
Yes masters who hope to set records need to step up and be part of the solution. But there has to be recognition by the masters TF committee that there is a problem with how records are recorded and a willingness to enlist assistance. So far I have not seen that – and spare me the comments about going to the annual meeting – not everyone can do that – and if attendance at the annual meeting is a requirement for adding in this effort – the field has just been narrowed to the same old same old group.
Coincidental that this discussion is taking place within hours of a meeting of Canadian Masters Athletics, during which one of the more frustrating discussions was about World Records – or rather the loss of them – or so it seems. Harold Morioka is the Relay records coordinator for CMA, and of all BC records for masters for BCAthletics. He has identified 13 world records, 10 by BC athletes plus 3 by Ed Whitlock, which have been applied for – all forms duly filled out etc. – that are not shown on the WMA records lists. I am now a member of the Board of CMA, and have been pursuing this problem with our President, Paul Osland, who is doing what he can to get the individuals responsible for processing records – both World and Canadian – to folow through on records already set and improve the process going forward. At best he is met with assertions that the process is perfectly fine, that missing records are the fault of the athlete etc. etc. – including some of the barriers mentioned in the posts above.
In thinking about these frustrations it came to me that maintaining up-to-date World Records is probably the single most important function of WMA for the thousands of masters athletes around the world who are unable to travel to the various WMA events for one reason or another – not the least of which is the cost of doing so, though there are other factors also that prevent a particular athlete from travelling. The only way such athletes know about the standards for their event and age group – and possibly goals to aim for in their participation in local meets – is to consult the WMA records site. How is it that ONE person is the “manager” of this function for the entire masters athletics community all over the world.
I read that Americans are frustrated by the process – to the extent of not even “bothering” to seek recognition for their performances. Canadians are frustrated with the process as well. I will do what I can to be the “squeaky wheel” here, and Harold will, too. Who is listening to people like Peter Taylor, Mary Harada and Nolan Shaheed in the US? Can we work together on this?
And that ONE person hasn’t even the rights to update the WMA webiste herself, as far as I know.
I personally have had no problems with the whole process of breaking a record, doing the paperwork etcetera. All officials on all meets I’ve attended were very pleasant. After my last record jump I was not fast in sending in the papers and I got an email of the secretary of the record committee ‘you know you have jumped a record?’ That’s service!
It’s now noted as ‘pending’. The approvement will last one or two months or so.
The best place to consult our records now is wikipedia, not the WMA-site…
Weai,
Lucky you – and others in your region? – that there is a SECRETARY of the record committee.
Thank you for the tip re wikipedia – but what a sad comment on the WMA process and website
Good comments by all. Parenthetically, I think that meets like the Boston University Terrier Classic are the hardest for masters (see Steve V., comment no. 8), as they are not geared at all to the masters athlete.
In contrast, Penn Relays, Mt. San Antonio College (Mt. SAC) Relays, etc., have some events that are entirely for masters.
Then we have masters-only meets at the association and regional level, and we have national indoor and outdoor masters championships. What I would like to see at the USATF Masters level is some sort of public recommendation that would cover the host requirements for the various kinds of meets as well as the requirements for the athletes who want to set records there.
Take the Penn Relays, for example. Clearly that meet has an obligation to masters athletes to help them when they set records there, but that can’t be high on the meet’s priorities. Well, several years ago, the director of the Penn Relays, Dave Johnson, designated a specific official to process any and all masters records set at the meet. I think that is a nice response.
I wish that other big meets with masters components would do the same. For our national meets, I would like to see some sort of summary that would explain negative actions. For example, in the 200 at Albuquerque last year, I see four world records:
M60 Bill Collins. Entered on the WMA site within 1 month of the meet.
W45 Renee Henderson. Tied her own record, but Albuqerque is not mentioned on the WMA site.
W50 Joy Upshaw. Broke record, not mentioned at all on the WMA site.
W75 Barbara Jordan. Broke record, not mentioned at all on the WMA site.
In the 800 at Albuquerque I see just one record, an American mark in this case:
W85 Mary Kirsling. This mark has never been listed on the USATF site as either pending or as the actual record. Would be good to know why.
To sum up, I would like to see a classification of the meets in which masters could possibly set a record and then a published recommendation for each category on what masters should do to process records and, correspondingly, what the meets should do.
For national championships I favor a report detailing why apparent world or American records are not included on the relevant Web sites.
“To sum up, I would like to see a classification of the meets in which masters could possibly set a record”. The situation of track and field will be different in different countries, I’ll tell you about mine.
In the mean I do some 14 meets every year of which about 5 are masters only, the rest is open class. When I started to collect records in 1997 officials were not all that supporting, but most were. They had to get used to the existence of masters athletics. Nowadays at every meet they are supportive of masters, thse oldies are part of the flavour of a meet!
The national records committee of three has to deal mostly with masters records, followed by those of parathletes, then juniors and sometimes open class. Now and then I send them a thank you, they do us a great service. The same for judges and referees. I need their sign on the record form and I give them a hint in before that a record could be broken. Then they share in the excitement of record breaking and we all have a good day.
In addition to Peter Taylor’s(2) mention of Rule 139.3, Recorder of Records, and Pete Magill’s(7) summary of record requirements, masters athletes should be familiar with Article V of the Rules on records, beginning on page 155:
http://www.usatf.org/about/rules/2011/2011rules.pdf
Pages 253-254 contain the two page National record application form. It is daunting. It is doubtful that many masters athletes could actually obtain all the signatures required at an open meet.
You might also want to review pages 246-249 regarding the the application process for meet sanction.
In summary, the Masters record process is determined by rule. There is a process for amending the rules. I would propose that those who have broken masters records without being listed get together and propose a rule change for masters record that is efficient and reasonable.
I would suggest starting with:
Amended Masters Rule on Masters Record –
* All national masters records that are bettered at:
– a WMA Masters outdoor or indoor meet;
– a non-US National Championship meet (e.g. National Canadian Masters meet);
– a USATF National Masters outdoor or indoor meet;
– a sanctioned USATF Regional Masters outdoor or indoor meet;
– or any sanctioned USATF masters (e.g. National Senior Games);
– or open or combined open/masters meet (e.g. Penn Relays);
shall become the new master record immediately, unless FAT timing or wind gauge readings were not taken for events requiring such. The Meet Recorder of Records (Rule 139.3) after posting of the meet results shall be responsible for notifying the Masters Records Committee of any new Masters records. The master athlete may also notify the Masters Records Committee by providing the meet results. Any such new record shall stand unless within 30 days of the date of the meet, a challenge is filed with the Records Committee with evidence that the rules of competition were not followed (ex., non-USATF certified official used, improper hurdle height). The Records Committee shall be responsible for approving or denying any such appeal.
For another take on “meet records” see my NMN article from September 1999 – “Where is my meet record.”
http://www.ortmanmarchand.com/fs4.html
All great ideas, folks. I shot my wad in 2009 at Oshkosh nationals, where national chair Gary Snyder vowed to find a fix — if for no other reason than to get M90 record-breakers off his back. The geezers are such a pest!
http://masterstrack.com/2009/07/378/
When did all of the hassle begin? I remember in 2003 (DMR wr) Pete Magill did the leg work as I did in 2004 (4×100 wr)and things went rather smoothly. We found out ahead of time what we needed to do and who to work with and submitted it to Sandy. Before the season was over, the records were ratified. Great job Anselm, keep it rolling.
So unfair for us Masters! If Tyson Gay showed up at one of these meets and popped a fast one which broke a record, he wouldn’t have to jump through all these hoops. Let’s say he was 35 when he did it…I don’t see him emailing Sandy about it and I don’t see Flotrack, Runnerspace, ESPN, etc., questioning it.
What I will do is post Anselm’s achievement on my Facebook page and my running club’s website to at least get him some recognition. To me, based on the Boston Terrier results, he broke the WR so I will do my part to bring awareness to it.
I took the ideas of an on-line record application process through a common, redundant site, and an on-line status report to the USATF Records Committee as a whole. I even produced some pictures of what that might look like for the committee to see, With a lot of negativity and excuses why it would not work, they took the ideas under consideration. I have not heard about any progress on the matter. Considering how vocal I was about the records process, in multiple committees at this year’s meeting, I would expect if any action were taken by any of them, I would hear about it.
By the way, I have submitted records pointing out that an applicant already has their birthdate verified on file (and I point to the record where their birthdate has been accepted) and that has been acceptable. I did that with Nolan Shaheed’s 1500 record paperwork last year, which was accepted. Similarly, I have pointed to other records set on the same track, which I thin would suffice in lieu of finding the track certification paperwork each time. I’m not 100% confident on that one. Being doubly redundant, when I submitted Willie Gault’s records set at Occidental College, home of Jim Sorensen’s 1500 record, I couldn’t get the track measurement certificate. To be sure, I also went out and laser measured the track, so I provided those calculations with the record application. Those also got accepted but I’m not sure which basis pushed it over the top. Should all the be necessary? No. But that is our reality.
I will never set a world or US record but for those that have, this is a travesty. To HELL with these record keeping officials! You know and I know that the records set by the likes of Shaheed, Harada, Lebourne, Upshaw, Jordan, the M40+ 4×400 team that set 3:20 in 2001 etc etc etc are fair and square. Ken, John Seto or somebody should take the existing record list and replace the old with the new, include the date and location where they were set, and proclaim on this site for all to see that these are the records. Before long everyone will come to THIS site to see the TRUTH!!! Enough with cowtowing to Masters record officals who drag their feet for years and years. I
Does anyone really care if *Sandy Pashkin* says Anselm Lebourne is not the official 800m record holder??? I didn’t think so.
If it makes any of you feel better, sometimes the elites get screwed out of records too. About 10 years ago Jeff Hartwig broke the indoor pole vault American record at a fairly major meet in Germany. He was not aware he needed to submit paperwork on it and it never got ratified.
We need better gatekeepers who in turn need to develop better systems.
But we also need alternative organizations that are willing to maintain their own world and national record databases. Organizations made up of fellow athletes who can judge the quality of a performance and know which aspects of the qualification process really matter — and which are the inventions of bureaucrats and control freaks.
If you break a record by 0.01 seconds, the hoops you need to jump through should be different than if you crush a record (where the timing, track, etc. just could not have made a difference). This requires JUDGMENT of which there seems to be far too little in the keeping and sanctioning of records.
Again, it is always easy to ADD RULES and RAISE THE HURDLES. It takes much more quality to IMPROVE SYSTEMS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_records_in_masters_athletics
….I broke a world record in January 2011 200m F45;all the paperwork , photos ect have been sent to the EVAA ;my record is now onthe EVAA list with a mention WR;but a year after the event it is still not on the WMA site!!!!!!!!
Thank you, Maryvonne. Our own Joy Upshaw (W50) and Barbara Jordan (W75) broke the indoor 200 records last March at the USA national masters championships, as you can see from post no. 1, but neither one is mentioned on the WMA site. And so you are not alone.
Maybe by 2015 or 2016 your name will be on the site (unless someone else breaks the record first). Ayez bonne chance, Maryvonne.
We will have to pay to get the records done professionally. Thank WMA records officer Sandy Pashkin for her voluntary efforts. Subcontract the WMA world records keeping instead to a multinational firm of accountants, such as Price Waterhouse.
By 2015, Renée and I (or our Australian friends)will have broken this record four times!!!!!!
LOL
Firstly, I would like to thank all of you for your congratulations, it’s highly appreciated. Secondly, that’s exactly my point Fidel. For example, if you establish a new master’s world record and Bernard Lagat (“BL”) establishes a new American Record at the same meet, does BL have to send in all that paperwork to USATF in order to have his record ratified? How about establishing an online system but still leaving the paperwork system for those who may not be comfortable with a computerized system. Why do I need to send proof of age every time I break a record (how about keeping that information in a database), copy of photo finish and get all those signatures? We know today that 90% or more of the meet are automatic timing so why do I need a copy of the photo finish. I am so fed up of people talking about, well that’s the rules and you have to read the rules. I have a simple solution, if it’s not working to benefit the masses of master’s athletes then its time to change it yesterday.
Thank you, Anselm. I have worked with many athletes who have tried to get their records accepted, and sometimes I have been successful. The dream is that all of the legitimate records would be accepted and that 100% of those that are not legitimate would be rejected.
We do a very good job in masters T&F of rejecting ILLEGITIMATE applicants, but at the same time we reject far too many who are LEGITIMATE. We must have a new system that recognizes, and ultimately accepts, at least 99.5% of all legitimate records and does this with minimal participation of the athlete. That would be nice, and it would be fair. Certainly it would be much different from the present system.
I heard of two cases from my country: Joop Rüter’s mile record M70 has been in the pipeline for many years, and the 4×800 relay W60 of last september is in the pipeline now. Our record committee has sent e-mails several times.
Anselm and Peter: You are treating a fundamental problem in decision making. How to balance Type I and Type II errors. Any “easy” standard admits some illegitimate records. Any “hard” standard denies some legitimate records. It seems likely that the standard is too hard and we are rejecting too many legitimate records. But there is another problem. Making the standard harder through paperwork, finish line, and signature hurdles does not actually discourage the illegitimate records efficiently. It also discourages legitimate record setters who cannot move a stressed out team of meet officials. The latter has nothing to do with the quality of the record set nor of the evidence that it was legitimate.
The Wikipedia document shows an example of an alternative way of getting new world records up and public. We probably need to end run the current system, as it seems both dysfunctional and incorrigible. (It resists change, as has been seen for years.)
I agree with Mike. As a European it is even reassuring that you Americans have such stringent records requirements. Although there should not be such a heavy burden on the American athlete.
But as to that alternative, competing, masters world records system on Wikipedia – it is absolutely out of the question. We must have our own formal masters organization WMA in control of our own masters world records.
The existing WMA records system is an insult to those athletes who break world records and do not see their names up there. If the present WMA records officer is unable to do the job, then WMA must remove her and farm the task out to somebody else and now.
If WMA cannot ensure that its officers do their jobs, then dissolve WMA and vote in a masters committee of IAAF take over the entire masters athletics set-up.
Sorry for being a little blunt. But the present situation cannot continue.
The wikipedia follows WMA, but gives additional information and links and most important: shows pending records with a different colour. It has a worldwide record committee!
That’s very interesting Weia. I wondered how those records were processed. May we ask who is on the worldwide record committee?
Diane, I can’t give you the makeup of that committee, but I can give you and others some things to think about relative to our current situation here in the USA.
I can assure you that things are a bit rough in terms of accepting the “deserving” mark (as noted, we do a good job of rejecting the undeserving).
Just a few examples from the last couple of years:
1. Presumably because of the high altitude, only one record was set in the 800 run last year at Albuquerque indoor nationals. The athlete, aged 88, was from New Mexico and perhaps better attuned to the altitude. Regardless, she established an American W85 indoor mark for the 800, but she did not get the record.
I should note, Diane, that we have had a policy in place for at least a couple of years that US athletes need do nothing at all about getting their records accepted if they set them at nationals. And still this woman’s mark was not accepted.
2. An athlete set an American record in the high jump at indoor nationals to great fanfare and acclaim. Her feat was a key part of the USATF story about the meet, a “+” was placed next to her name in the results to indicate it was a record, and her record was thrown out.
3. I won’t belabor the point about Joy Upshaw (W50) and Barbara Jordan (W75) that I made earlier: world marks in the 200 set at our 2011 indoor nationals are not listed as world records essentially a year later.
4. An athlete went to the Mt. San Antonio College (Mt. SAC) Relays in California, a major meet for American colleges and high schools, and broke the world mark in the 100. Sometime later all parties agreed that she was NOT going to get her record, as Mt. SAC is a meet in which you are supposed to get on the track, do your race, and then leave. The problem had to do with getting the signatures of officials.
I watched this race on video at least 10 times, there was a starter and an assistant starter, time was FAT of course, and the result became an official part of the meet’s historical database.
From what I understand, the intervention of an influential figure in California track and field enabled the acquisition of all of the signatures, and the athlete eventually got her mark. But the point is that this mark would have been REJECTED by our system as not a record if not for the intervention.
In conclusion, Diane, we have many marks here in the US (you live in the US but are both Canadian and American, yes?) that appear to be records but are branded by our system as “not a record.” We need a system that will brand these marks as “record.”
Imagine if a pediatrician sent 10 children she suspected of having type 1 diabetes to a laboratory for blood testing and all 10 came back as “normal.” Astonished, she somehow managed to get 8 of the 10 tested at another laboratory, and 7 of the 8 came back with very high blood glucose values. What a scandal that would be. I think we need a new “laboratory.”
Peter, First let me clarify my status. I returned home to Canada in 2008. I now live in Comox, a small town on Vancouver Island, and have “dropped” my naturalized US citizenship.
In fact I am now on the Board of the Canadian Masters Association – and very frustrated by the fact that so many of the documents carefully completed by our top Canadian masters and their coaches just go “down the rabbit hole”, as Ed Whitlock described it.
Harold Morioka, as chair of relay records for all of Canada, and for records for BC athletes, has been submitting requisite documentation, and trying to get recognition for Canadian athletes for more than a decade. currently he enumerates 30+ that have not been “posted” – not to mention the 5 indoor WRs set at a meet in the Kamloops facility last weekend. You may remember that the WMA Indoors was held there in 2009, and the facility fully approved by WMA officials to meet their standards. We’ll see what happens with these applications, which have been completed most diligently by Harold – photo finishes and all.
For now, some of us “up here” understand the frustrations of our American friends – and now some European athletes too. Our process for recognizing and posting Canadian records is working very well. It’s the process, or lack thereof, for WRs that is frustrating many of us.
Which is why I asked Weia for more info re the records committee she refers to. I do appreciate your response, recognizing your name, as I do, as being such an important observer and commentator on the US Masters Athletics scene.
Pedro (if I may call you Pedro),
I admire your energy in researching and posting this information. Always informative.
The answer may be hidden in an older thread but has anyone contacted Ms. Pashkin asking why so much resistance and delay in ratifying records?
Gracias, Fidel (y Diane). As they say in English, “I don’t go there” (regarding the type of inquiry you mention, Fidel). I assume that hundreds (or even thousands) of people over the years have made an inquiry about their own records.
Diane, I did not realize the situation re world records in Canada was as bad as you describe. You are missed at our meets, as you are a lovely person.
Entonces…. Just to make sure we do not have ourselves to blame. Any athlete who has asked Ms. Pashkin about a missing masters world record, please step forward now and inform us of Ms. Pashkin’s response.
I have several times had answers form Sandy, and several times got none. One of the intereseting answers is that she had no access herself to the files on the site – one reason for the slowness of the process.
@Diane: on the committee: you! On wikipedia everyone can add information. The main work has been done by Trackinfo, some 99% I estimate. I and some others have done some corrections and additions and from time to time we look for updates of WMA. And I did some e-mailing to national record keepers for extra information.
Ideally record keepers from the main countries would keep the page up to date, they are free to do that.
When you see spelling or date differences between WMA and wikipedia most likely wikipedia is right. We have found quite a lot of misspellings.
Its hard to believe that Ms. Pashkin is not aware of this discussion or past ones about this whole issue. Has anyone EVER seen a reponse from her?
The plot thickens. It must be very demoralizing for WMA records officer Sandy Pashkin to compete with that alternative Wikipedia masters records site, which is maintained by the same masters athletics community she is obliged to serve. We must get our act together and all pull in the same direction. There is no room in our little masters athletics world for different tables of masters world records. It is completely crazy.
Competition is often warranted, and in this case, Anthony, I believe it is. If competing records systems were to show Sandy Pashkin the sort of job that could be done, the competitive pressure might lead to improvements all around.
Once when I was consulting to a cooperative of over 10,000 farmers whose marketing organization was woefully inefficient, one of my colleagues merely proposed a competing organization. Standards improved immediately, as the fat and happy organization did not want competition to show them up.
Of course, we could ask Ms. Pashkin what she needs in the way of help and resources and systems to do a better job. If she is open to that discussion, that might be a reasonable approach. But it is my understanding that that way was blocked a long time ago.
It would not be terrible to merely maintain a list of all “pending” records — all efforts that broke the WR at the time of competition. The list could include which of several criteria had been met thus far in the way of documentation. Many WR holders, I imagine, would not mind being listed as “pending awaiting X documentation” even if the reality is that their records would be “pending” indefinitely.
Mike, I understand where you are coming from and I am all for competition and what not. But let’s examine what alternative world record data means in practice. And it is not just the Wikipedia masters world records site. I am particularly conscious of this business because just this week I was trying to convince a good friend to post an excellent masters result from the recent 23 February 2012 elite indoor XL Galan in Stockholm:
Swedish long jumper Mattias Sunneborn is 41. His 7.44m was just 8 cm from the indoor M40 world record.
My friend however got the impression, from Martin Gasselsberger’s otherwise admirable Masters Athletics All Time World Records – Long Jump, that the indoor M40 LJ world record is 7.60m (Hans Schicker GER Munich 1989) 16 cm better. So my friend had no confidence in my WMA figure with the result that he simply did not post at all. He could not. Different world record data (“competition?”) clearly leads to confusion and paralysis. My case rests.
Indoor is not (yet) on wikipedia.
Confusion is indeed a cost of multiple record systems. There are costs and benefits to each and no system is perfect. The cost of the single, bureaucratic quagmire we now have is palpable and large. We need to keep options on the table, honestly assessing costs and benefits of each. Most agree that what we now have is not acceptable. It may be a single person, it may be about incentives, it may be about resources, or systems, or design. It may be the lack of competition.
As Weia points out, your friend would be confused in any case, as he read an outdoor record and that it was an indoor record.
Come off it Mike. Weia simply pointed out that the masters indoor world records are not yet on Wikipedia – which may be just as well under the circumstances. And my friend is not confused at all. He did not read an outdoor record as an indoor record. If you look carefully that M40 LJ result on Masters Athletics was given as “7.60 i” = indoor. Right?
The organization that fixes masters world records must function like your Supreme Court. You cannot have two or three competing Supreme Courts.
That kills the competition argument. But there is a need for a loyal opposition. If anyone wants to work on masters statistics they are free to do so – as long as they do not call their list a list of world records. Their competition can be expressed in collations per event that question existing world records, list pending world records, or what you will including goading the current WMA Records set-up into action. That would do masters athletics a service. Competing World Record tabulations do not. And to complete the Supreme Court analogy – you can always compete to be a judge on the Supreme Court (WMA Records Committee).
Incidentally, there is also definitely scope for Masters Ranking Lists, All Time and Annual, such as Martin Gasselsberger’s. They are really interesting (because they apply to many more of us) – as long as they do not also propose to be world record lists.
Some of you are making this way too complicated. How often is a world record submission put forth in a specific event and age group anyway?
Not often.
This whole thing has become a textbook example of “over-analysis breeds paralysis”. As if ten M50+ 800m world records are competing with one another right now for a spot atop the record list! Give me a break. Lebourne ran the fastest time ever using F.A.T in a track meet. He sent in the paperwork. He is the current WR holder. DONE!!! What are we waiting for? As if making him the world record holder is going to bring the planet to a standstill.
Instead , get all athletics governing bodies to meet at a world summit in a remote underground bunker, appoint committees, then subcommittees, review the videotape, take ten more years. What a @#$%*+” JOKE!
regarding post #10
“Harold Morioka… has identified 13 world records…which have been applied for – all forms duly filled out etc. – that are not shown on the WMA records lists. I am now a member of the Board of CMA, and have been pursuing this problem with our President, Paul Osland, who is doing what he can to get the individuals responsible for processing records – both World and Canadian – to folow through on records already set and improve the process going forward….”
That’s laughable and shamefull at the same time.
John, I’m not sure about what’s “laughable” about the efforts of SOME of us in Canada to push for changes in the current system.
Weia, I just checked the Wikipedia records site – and am impressed. I’ve bookmarked it 🙂 I see all the references explaining why a performance is marked as pending, but am unclear as to what the two slightly different colours indicate – most are a turquoise colour, but some definitely more green.
Now to figure out how to contribute to this list on behalf of some of our athletes awaiting ratification.
Back to John: While it’s true that there may not be that many forms coming in in any particular event or age group, it is also true that given all the events in T&F, road running and racewalking; plus all the age groups for both men and women, there can be a LOT of forms to review, results to scan etc. As I mentioned in #10, is that not a lot for one person to deal with? There is a WMA records committee, but I don’t see how/where they are assisting the manager. The process needs to be improved/changed!
Anyone is free to call their list whatever they like. The true measure is not the official backing but the legitimacy of the record list.
@Diane: green means approved as European record. Will become approved as WMA record inevitably.
Updating the page is rather clumsy with such long tables, an alternative is to put them in whatever format on the ‘talk’ page, than I or someone else will fit them in.
Thank ‘Trackinfo’ for his massive work on this page!
John – Just because the record keeping officials make a complex mess of it, doesn’t preclude the possibility that the solution (working around them) need not have a thorough discussion. Many can appreciate your desire for a simplified approach, but as long as the record keepers move like molasses, the alternatives may well be complex (e.g., multiple lists — as in boxing).
Mike, in your response desribing the current system you say it’s a “complex mess” and it “move(s) like molasses”.
Exactly my point. Whoever is in charge right now is incompetent.
Take Lebourne’s 1:59.62. The meet used F.A.T. The site published the times. EVERYONE reading this knows he now holds the WR. Put him atop the list. Guess what. The earth will still turn. Masters track will continue. I doubt the attorney general’s office and FBI will be summined.
If someone ELSE believes they’ve broken Lebourne’s record, then by all means they can indicate when and where and whether F.A.T was used. If the time is faster than 1:59:62, then THAT person is the new record holder. Done.
What we need is a CURRENT list of records, perhaps kept by Ken on this site. Unfortuntely what we have is a multilayered broken bureaurocracy that is denying these record holder their just reward.
I agree with you, John.
Which list of recoreds would you want to look at to see who is the current M50+ indoor 800m WR holder, a list that includes Anselm Lebourne or one that doesn’t?
Everyone wants the most accurate list. Unfortunately, this doesn’t really help here. This is a principle in the law: how many guilty would you be willing to set free in order to avoid imprisoning an innocent man? Everyone and every system of jurisprudence answers it differently. In our case, the analogy is, how many mistaken records would you accept to avoid rejecting one correct record? As a mistaken record tends to supplant another, the answer may be arguably ONE. So we need to set a standard just high enough so that we supplant good records no more often than we accept them.
The need for this ratio changes if we keep not only a records book but an all time best performances list — 10, 20, maybe more, deep. This might be a good idea for masters track: to start keeping all time lists, asking for past performances (with modest support) be submitted.
To be clear about the wikipedia page with outdoor records: it is not an extra/parallel list, but the list of WMA records with some extra’s. And as feature that anyone with knowledge of possible records can add them.
Weia
Thanks for the explanation re green/turquoise – I see it now.
As for additions – what/where is the “talk” page?
I am, indeed, thankful to trackinfo. I’ll look for ways to convey that. I do see he gets big “stars” from wikipedia for all his work. Hurray for him.
Every wikipediapage has a ‘talk’ tab, upper left, next to the tab ‘article. For questions, remarks, whatever.
Here the direct link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_world_records_in_masters_athletics
Above right is a tab ‘new section’, click, give it a name and start typing. Than ‘save page’ below.
Again my thanks, Weia. obviously I’m not very knowledgeable about how wikipedia “works”, though I am aware of what a valuable system it is in so many areas. We seem to be having a conversation within this blog. May I contact you directly? My email address is dianepalmason@gmail.com.
My friend wrote:
I agree with you that there should be 1 list of records, so hopefully the Masters can pull it all together.
Wow! Nolan Shaheed new M60 1500m WR! I would stand Nolan a pint if he came to my neck of the woods. Although I suspect mint tea would be more appropriate. And you never know. Performances like this are enough to get me to take the boat over the Baltic and experience WMA 2012 Jyväskylä as a spectator!
Not to spoil the party but is this not some 9 new masters WRs in the past 7 days? At least three separate masters results set-ups will then be keying in all this data in their separate ways? Food for thought.
@26 and 29: Maryvonne: Your 200-meter record is now the official indoor mark for W45. Congratulations.
I looked carefully at the new listings, and you are in there, sans doute. Unfortunately, Joy Upshaw (W50) and Barbara Jordan (W75) were not included, even though they set their world marks in March 2011 in the US indoor masters championships.
Leave a Reply