Our masters mole at the Indy annual meeting sent a summary of Thursday’s meetings, which includes discouraging word that the National Senior Games records won’t be submitted for ratification after all. But the happy news is that the USATF Masters T&F Committee budget could nearly double, thanks to Nike’s largesse. Mole writes: “The budget was adopted with some increases, especially for the regions, throws and media; there may also be an additional $50,000 for which we can apply via a grants process that is still a bit fuzzy in people’s minds.  We did a brainstorming session to come up with ideas to be considered for inclusion in a proposal once the guidelines are available.  Money may even be earmarked for us if we come up with a decent proposal that fits USATF priorities (such as anti-doping).”

Mole reports (along with some opinions):

Mary Trotto was elected the Active Athletes Rep on the Exec Committee — there were only 16 “active athletes” there to become delegates (including Willie Banks) so once again everyone who came to the convention has a vote; if others who aren’t here aren’t happy with the results of the meeting, they have only themselves to blame for not being present; if they had come they would have been able to voice their views and attempt to persuade other delegates.

The Multi-Event Championships seem set for the next two years according to a report from Jeff Watry (Multi Event coordinator)

2010 — Indoor at Carthage College in Kenosha, WI again; dates to avoid conflict with Kamloops are Jan 30-31, with Jan. 31 also the MW Region Indoor Championships. Note that Carthage doesn’t charge for the facility; Jeff would be happy to move the meet if another venue could be found that didn’t cost much.

2010– Outdoor  will be June 19-20 at SW Missouri State University in Joplin, MO.

2011 — Indoor probably back at Carthage College.

2011 — Outdoor at St. Mark’s School in Dallas the first week in June to allow recovery time before WMA in Sacramento.

A lengthy discussion about the records from the NSG.  There had been an earlier discussion that was evidently quite a departure in the Rules Committee with a number of issues raised including fairness to the athletes, the legality of an ex post facto sanction and the entire philosophy of the committee. . . . The Records Committee had suggested that the MTF Committee consider deferring consideration of these records until more information could be gathered.  The MTF committee thus was faced with three possibilities

A.  Recommend deferring (per the Rules Committee suggestion) for another year

B.  Recommend rejecting

C.  Recommend accepting

After a fair amount of discussion, a motion was made to reject.  During the discussion that followed several issues with the overall conduct of some events at the NSG were brought up.  These included:

A.  Someone who witnessed the weights and measures officials finding a long wire on a hammer, asking the competitor if he expected to set a record and when the answer was negative saying that it would therefore be OK and passing the hammer — this is in violation of the Rules of Competition.

B.  The same person weighing in an implement for use in an event the next day and having the implement returned to him after it was approved to keep and bring to the competition the next day instead of impounding the implements and delivering them to the throwing venue for use during the competition — failure to impound implements was another violation of the Rules of Competition.

C.  The field sheet for the record submission in the pole vault being done to three decimal places instead of 2 and being rounded up in the official results to a mark the athlete didn’t actually clear; this incorrect result could be corrected and the record accepted, but it does raise questions about how knowledgeable the officials who signed the forms and field sheet were about the Rules and whether any others may have not been adhered to.

However, these were minor points in the discussion.  In the Rules Committee discussion, they had pulled out the Rule Book to check on the sanction issue — the meet was not sanctioned at the time it was held and no sanction was applied for until November; the sanction was granted about three weeks prior to the convention, ex post facto. 

What the Rules Committee found is that the rules state that for a record to be accepted it must be set in a meet that HAD a sanction.  This was an important distinction to a number of delegates who said later that they were persuaded by this wording and the ex post facto nature of the sanction to vote to reject the records.

During the discussion, which lasted about 30 minutes, most of the people who spoke were basically in favor of rejection based on the lack of sanction at the time of the meet.  One cited a record that he set that was rejected because the paperwork indicated NWI for a race in a multi.  He said that while he wasn’t happy about it, he understood that the rules must be followed and even though he had seen a wind reading (legal) at the time of the meet, it wasn’t recorded that way on the meet paperwork that was submitted and he accepted that his record could not be ratified for that reason.  He thought this was an analogous situation.  That seemed persuasive to some as well.

When the question was finally called, a voice vote was taken and the motion to reject carried with only two dissenting votes.  No one in the room had made a strong case for accepting or deferring.

I realize that this will not be a popular decision with some in the blogosphere, but none of those who profess to be concerned and involved bothered to show up and make the case.  I’m quite sure we’ll be reading their long posts of disgust with this result, but if they were really so concerned they should have been at the convention to make their case and vote.

Tomorrow we are having the presentations and voting on sites for the 2011 Indoor Championships and 2012 Indoor and Outdoor Championships.  Rumor also has it that there may be a bid presentation at the joint MTF/MLDR meeting for Spokane to host the 2010 NCCWMA meet that doesn’t currently have a home.