Lahti General Assembly to clean up Riccione leftover mess
Every two years, hundreds of masters enchiladas meet at WMA worlds to vote on rule changes, elect officers and take care of business. They call this the General Assembly. At 2007 worlds in Riccione, Italy, the assembly barely had time to pick a site for 2011 worlds (Sacramento beat a town in Brazil). That’s because delegates got kicked out of the meeting room when they ran late. So a bunch of issues were left to Lahti. But the WMA Executive Council ended up deciding a bunch of stuff anyway (like changing the hurdle distance for women over 70 from 300 meters to 200). So what is still on WMA’s plate this summer? Check out this list of proposals, sent me by a masters mole. Fortunately, delegates will get a chance to challenge Council decisions at the Lahti General Assembly.
5 Responses
Mny proposals for shorter hurdle distances, lower hurdles, lighter implements… Ah, those softies. I don’t like that. The long hurdles are shortened because some athletes fall during the last part of the race when they are fatigue… What is athletics about?
Now, I am looking forward to turning 70. I don’t want to attempt the 300 hurdles and I am only 67.
Nadine, just an “old softie”
Proposals include taking the M60-69 HH distance to hurdle #1 back to 12 m from 16m which was adopted 5 years ago. I certainly support that measure. The extra steps have been a rhythm problem for all the hurdlers with whom I have spoken about this. I think it is more a rhythm thing than it is an advantage for a “sprinter” over a “hurdler.” I do both, but prefer the 12m start distance.
“vii: Athletes bringing the sport into disrepute or discrediting the sport
Reason: To cover for unforeseen problems and irregularities in WMA competitions.”
What a farce! WMA Secretary Winston Thomas (BMAF Chairman Winston Thomas)himself ignored a complaint against his own BMAF Team Manager for IAAF rules infringements and verbal abuse at the WMA Linz 2006 competition. Make it “athletes, athletics officers and officials.” Or abolish the “bringing the sport into disrepute” rule altogether.
(Beware: Sarcasm ahead!)
RE: Steeple Specs Proposal 25, to reduce M50-55 barrier height to .762
Nope, rejected: . . . “ it is fiscally and physically impractical.”
M60 & up and ALL women are ALREADY using the .762 height!!
RE: Hurdle specs changes
Why allow W70+ to run 200M hurdles, but not M75+? Surely masters women hurdlers want equality, right? (Don’t count on it. If I counted right, there have been a total of 7 women over 70 to even attempt the 300 hurdles in the past 5 World Championships. Clearly enough data to make a rule change, right?)
Why don’t we offer 24” hurdles? Nope, “fiscally and physically impractical”. (We somehow seemed to fiscally and physically manage a drop to 27” not too long ago.)
Well, gee, let’s introduce a 60 or 90 meter hurdle race outdoors? Nope, rejected: “not fiscally or physically practical, many records would be nullified.” (We somehow fiscally and practically created 80M races and oddball spacings years ago, and nullified many records in the process.)
How about shortening the M60-65 Hurdles distance to the 1st hurdle to 12M from 16M? Oh wow, this was accepted! The justification mentions “consistency” with other hurdle distances.
Consistency. If there’s one thing you can say about the Masters Hurdle specs, it’s anything but consistent.
I’m generally against most of these proposals. But the problem is that there is no guiding objective regarding the hurdle events and why, how or when they should be altered to address the aging curve. What people WANT appears to be more important that the abilities an event is supposed to test.
If a 5-hurdle 200M race compares to a 400M 10 Hurdle race at some age, I want to see the age-analysis data that supports that. A hurdler’s stride is interrupted 10 times in the 400 IH race. That’s part of the race. If W70+ can’t handle 300 or 400 IH, why isn’t the non-hurdle 400M race ALSO reduced to help them with their pain?
The above is one of many examples that our leadership is unwilling to change. The current hodge-podge hurdle specs have been arbitrary for years, cannibalized to the point that they do not test the same skills intended in the original open-class events. Predictably, most record-holders and elite masters hurdlers don’t want change!
At what point do we say that an event has been diluted too much? Suppose we get 15 women or more 70 & older running the 200 hurdles in Oshkosh or Finland? I’d love to see that. But if we don’t, how difficult will it be to return to the 300 hurdles for this age group?
Goals and objectives need to be created for the hurdle specs, and then they need to be overhauled.
Leave a Reply