Perth worlds ‘final schedules’ posted; Albuquerque sked taken down
The Perth2016 website is taking registration for the WMA world meet in late October. Remarkable is the posting of men’s and women’s “final daily schedules.” We don’t even see that for Albuquerque indoor nationals in March. After y’all noted the absence of some events, a provisional schedule was taken down and replaced with the note: “The schedule of events is currently down for revision and will be posted as soon as possible.” That was Monday. But some Down Under are worried about “being sanctioned” for competing in a masters games Nov. 10-12 that follow Perth. In the September-October newsletter of Queensland Masters Athletics, editor Viddy Jermacans writes: “WMA can confidently state that the IAAF will support our decision, and if necessary issue a sanction against any athletics organisation being involved in this [masters games] event in 2016.” The November-December newsletter noted the restitution of track and field to the masters games program. Bummer. Stay tuned as we sort this out.
24 Responses
Perth is a long way away in both time and distance, and thus I will comment on the second story, Albuquerque indoors (the meet starts 8 weeks from today).
Entries have picked up nicely in recent days, and at 8:00 this morning Eastern time we had 83 competitors scheduled to do battle in New Mexico, with the legendary Olympian Ed Burke heading the group.
The question I have is quite straightforward: What’s going to happen if these 83 entrants believed their events were going to be on specific days but the new schedule shows that some of these events will actually be on different days?
I hope that some of the visitors to this blog will comment on that question or other issues related to having a new schedule put in place.
WMA Perth daily schedule has been posted for some time. It may be a bit “easier” for WMA to do this as it generally follows a template used in prior meets. I see very little change aside from the 2 days between the 8k XC for women and the 5k track race – and 3 days for the men. It was the reverse in Lyon. I do not see why Albuquerque is having such a problem in determining what days and general time of day for a short meet. No one is expecting to see the heat sheets at this time – but it is essential to know the day of the week and if morning or afternoon for each event well in advance.
Re Perth. Please note that for all women over 50, the 200m semi finals, the 200m finals and the 200/300m hurdles, have been scheduled on the same day, November 1. Is that encouraging hurdlers?
ABQ sked is back up…still 800-3000 double on Sunday. Says 1500 on Sat and not the Mile. They have 4×200 and 4×800 relays on Sat even though the open 200 and 800 are on Sunday. Who’s the brains behind this mutation? For me I was only waiting for confirmation of these changes as now I officially cancel all my travel plans for that weekend and go elsewhere.
Perth: I noted from early early versions of the Perth schedule to the current the removal of the semis from the 800m. Now just two rounds, Qs and final. Don’t think that’s been done in recent outdoor Worlds, even in Sac were there were 1/2 the normal entries. Makes me wonder if they’re expecting low numbers.
Bill, thanks for post no. 4 about Albuquerque. As you indicated, the revised schedule definitely shows that we will have a 1500 and not a mile run, with the 1500 to be contested as timed finals on Saturday morning. I assume that all those who entered the mile (only 14 to date) will simply be shifted to the 1500.
I also noticed that there are still two race walks, one at 1500 meters and the other at 3000. As “Status of Entries” shows no 1500 race walk, that race may be hard to fill. Or perhaps there is an error in the Status of Entries page, and it should have been listed there.
The changes in the throws schedule are quite dramatic.
Once more I am forced to change my flights and room reservations for Albuquerque. I made the mistake of assuming the schedule would be the same with the shot on Saturday as it always has been in the past. Then they posted the first schedule with the shot on Friday. I changed my reservations accordingly. Now they have changed it to Saturday as I had originally expected and have to change again. This can cost extra money. Why this process is so ponderous is astounding. Most organizations (the NCAA, e.g.) have no trouble providing a schedule at least a year in advance. If a schedule has worked in the past, why change it and then have to change it again?
Didn’t notice any change in my events, but one wonders why they didn’t just copy-and-paste from 2011.
Eurovets have had their indoor championships sked up for at last two weeks:
http://www.emaci2016.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Daily-program-ancona-2016-eng.pdf
Can you even imagine running 800 meters and then running the 3000 meters the very next race. On the last day of the meet. At altitude. After maybe running 1500 meters the previous day. At altitude!!???
There are 3 sprinting events in Masters indoors. And they are on different days. There are 3 distant events in indoors Masters and the toughest one is not on the first day but the last and the first day has no distant event at all.
If we were younger this might not matter but it’s very difficult for older people at altitude. Especially for those going for a PR or a record.
Thanks for your post, Nolan. Last year in Winston-Salem we had 91 runners in the 3000 (59 men, 32 women). Those races were run in the traditional time slot (Friday), with the 800 run on Sunday.
I looked at the women for the next calculation. In 2015, how many came back on Sunday to run the 800? The answer, 19 of the 32 came back, or 59%. This confirms that the 3000-800 is a common double.
This year, as you note, the 3000 comes right after the 800. I don’t think you will see many 800-3000 doubles this year. And yet, clearly the schedulers gave considerable thought to having such a different schedule, evidenced in part by the fact that 4 days went by after the first posting until the new schedule came out.
Thus, absent a statement of the rationale for the dramatic change I won’t have any comments on the wisdom of doing things a different way.
Bill Harvey: Sorry about the problem you encountered with the changes in schedule.
Bill, post #5, with regards to removing one round in the 800. . .last time I remember it happening in the “younger” age brackets, was because of low numbers in 2009 at the Worlds in Lahti, Finland. Most agreed that the world recession of 2008/09 had caused many to tighten the belt and forgo the event for cheaper competitions closer to home. In fact, in my experience leading up to Lahti of Buffalo ’95, Gateshead ’99, San Sebastian ’05, Riccione ’07 Lahti was the first time I encountered only two rounds for the brackets 40 to 60 years young.
I am in total agreement with Mr. Taylor and Mr. Shaheed. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. This changing of the schedule is like a small meet director coming in and rearranging the schedule the way it is in Misgosh, WI (my pardon to Wisconsinites if that town actually exists) completely oblivious to the way a national championship should be arranged and completely ignorant never perhaps having attended a previous national indoor championship meet where the races actually went off quite well with excellent times because. . .there was some space between races that a middle distance runner might want to race. USATF shooting themselves in the foot. If I remember they charge for each race that you sign up for online. I would only be racing one less than previous years most likely.
As Nolan said in so many words, we would love to be able to race the 800 and 3000 back to back but the reason we are still racing at 60+ and 50+ (the 40+ year olds still think they are 30) is that we are not stupid enough to actually do that to ourselves. So why are the schedulers stupid enough to schedule it that way? ” If it ain’t broken don’t fix, just change the oil (read venue)” we used to say back in the late 60’s and 70’s when you could still work on cars. I think the schedulers can still correct this before the dune buggy becomes a moon buggy and half the master middle distance runners bug out.
I’m in total agreement with Mr. Hartshorne (#13). What accounts for the schedule shuffling? Or lack of specifics? How does this benefit masters athletes?
O.K. if we have an event on Friday (AM or PM), we need to fly in on Thursday as flying in and completing on the same day is not the wisest approach. But it is NOT helpful to see that the M60+ Triple Jump is Sunday PM. Does that mean 12:30 PM, in which case making an outbound flight Sunday later in the afternoon is doable, or 4:00 PM which means likely missing an outbound Sunday flight?
And with all due respect to the racewalkers, the US National Indoor T&F Meet has one racewalk: 2 Mile RW. The World (IAAF) Indoor T&F Meet in Portland, OR, in March has none. So it is not clear why Albuquerque needs two RW events.
I already canceled all my travel and hotel for ABQ. And since I got an email back saying no refunds I simple won’t attend next year either whether they change the schedule back or not. My money goes to those who treat me reasonably and fairly. Those who just quote me their policies get tuned out.
Updates:
1. The mile has now been “officially” changed to the 1500, as the mile has been deleted from the Status of Entries page and replaced by the 1500. The original mile entrants have all been switched to the 1500, and anyone new coming in will apparently be placed in the 1500 regardless of whether she/he enters the 1500 or the mile.
2. The 1500 race walk, which has been on the schedule for a while but had not been in “Status of Entries,” has now earned its rightful place on that page. Status of Entries, however, shows no entrants for the 1500 walk. Perhaps the race walkers thought that the 3000 RW, which does have some entries, was the only walk available to them.
I feel confident in stating, albeit not with more than 99.888% certainty, that this is the first time in the history of masters T&F that race walkers have had two track competitions available to them in our indoor championships. I hope that any walkers reading this posting will alert their friends that they can go to the line twice, not once, in Albuquerque.
I am beyond shocked at the change from the mile to the 1500 meters. The National Masters Indoor meet has been one of the very few opportunities to attempt an indoor mile records. I do not know who is responsible for this but given the efforts of those behind the “bring back the mile” campaign – this is a kick in the teeth.
Or …is there an underground campaign to do away with the indoor mile records for masters? If so – who is behind this?
Mary….From the 2016 USATF Competition Rule Book: Page 170
RULE 331
MASTERS TRACK AND FIELD CHAMPIONSHIPS
1. The standard Championship events are:
(a) National Indoor Track and Field
60 Meters, 200 Meters, 400 Meters, 800 Meters, 1500 Meters, 3000 Meters, 60 Meter Hurdles, 800 Meter Relay, 1600 Meter Relay, 3200 Meter Relay, 3000 Meter Walk, High Jump, Pole Vault, Long Jump, Triple Jump, Shot Put, Weight Throw, Superweight Throw, Pentathlon
Then the rule has been changed – for as long as I can remember there has been a mile at the Indoor National Masters. BTW -where is the 1500m RW on that list? And when was the mile dropped and the 1500 m run put in its place?
Have set WR in the mile indoors at the National Masters in Boston 10 years ago – and having watched others set masters records for the indoor mile at the National Masters Indoor meets -do not tell me that I am just an old fart with a bad memory – the rule has been changed – I have missed the last 2-3 indoor meets due to family health issues so I may have missed the fact that it was changed prior to this year – I am disgusted – absolutely disgusted.
And who the *&^% thinks it is good to run the 800m and 3k back to back?
Mary, Mike is correct. The 2016 USATF Competition Rules stipulate the 1500, not the mile, for masters indoor nationals.
You will be interested to know, Mary, that I was able to find the USATF Competition Rules for 2015, and they also stipulated the 1500. Those rules governed our indoor championships for 2015, held in Winston-Salem. As you know, even though I don’t think you were there, that meet had a mile and no 1500.
I was also fortunate enough to find the 2014 USATF Competition Rules, which governed our championships in Boston. The rules specified a 1500, not a mile. As you know, Boston ran the mile.
Looking further, I found the 2013 USATF Competition Rules, which covered our indoors in Landover, Maryland (I know you competed there). The rules specified a 1500, and we ran a mile.
My first national indoors as an announcer was 1996 (Greensboro). You may remember some of the women who took gold there: Mary Rosado in W45, Jo Marchetti in W50, Jane Arnold in W55, Grace Butcher in W60. As I recall, the late, great Louise Adams won W70.
Yes, Mary, I am talking about the 1-mile run. Greensboro did not run a 1500.
This presents an interesting question. What are the implications for records, for fairness to the athletes, etc. of NEVER running the stipulated distance, instead running a different distance that is just over 109 meters longer (mile rather than 1500)? This is a puzzler.
By the way, for a long time this year the 1500 wasn’t even listed under Status of Entries for Albuquerque. Instead, the mile was listed. What does that tell you?
Time for one of our lurking Games Committee members to sort this out.
If the LOC or Games Committee wanted to contest the mile at indoor nationals in the past, why not again? There’s no question the event is record-eligible, BTW.
Maybe someone at LOC decided it’s “easier” to run the 15. Or did pressure come to bear to follow the official slate of events?
Some indoor tracks have TWO clocks.If they do, it would be good if they considered running both the mile and 1500 in the same race.Of course that’s just wishful thinking and maybe a wee bit impractical but it would make everyone happy.
Would that make the 1500 mark a preem (or is it preme) for the mile race, like they do in cycling?
It’s just a pipe dream but records can be set in route if there is proper timing which can be 3 official hand timers or another clock.Those who want to run the mile line up here, those for the 15 line up there. That option is available in a mile race but of course not in a 15.
Leave a Reply