Soon-to-be board member of NSGA offers critique of meet
Jerry LeVasseur competed at the National Senior Games last month — as he has for nearly 20 years. But unlike other athletes, he will soon have a place at the table. He will join the NSGA board as its only runner sometime this year. He wrote me that it’s “very disappointing and an embarrassment that the NSG track event was not santioned. There have been many records set and accepted in the past. The NSGA Board and staff are good people and want to do it right . . . The games committee is working on guidelines to give to the LOC to make the games better and consistent. Other venues were well run. I have emailed the board to look at the comments on masterstrack.com. I hope this will spark discussion to improve and not let this happen again.” Jerry wrote an article for National Masters News, and I’m printing it here as well. “I hope that athletes won’t write the NSG off but will offer suggestions to improve them,” Jerry says. “There are a number of world-class athletes that support the games.”
Here is Jerry’s column about the recent National Senior Games:
The 2009 National Senior Games at Stanford University in Palo Alto was the eighth that I have attended. It surely was a Festival of Sports and very enjoyable — even with glitches. There were almost 10,000 athletes, including former Olympians and many world-class athletes. It was the strongest and deepest competition I have seen with an average of 20 registered in my age group.
Missing were the top 3 that usually do National Masters. WAVA at Gateshead (1999) was stronger with an average of 60 registered although it was in an age group 10 years younger. Even the World Masters in Sydney with 28,000 athletes registered has an average of less than 10 in my age group.
The swimming events seemed to go well, according to my wife who participated in them. The venue was great as were the volunteers and officials. They couldn’t be more helpful and friendly. We watched basketball and they were well run. The only change I would propose would have overtimes extended from I minute to 2.
When we went to do track it was as if the older athlete wasn’t taken into consideration. We expected a meet like those in the past — not too different from National Masters.Being a track official as well as competitor of many years, I expected certain things. There was no hour before declaration, so heats weren’t combined with some heats having 3 or less competitors. Normally competitors at track meets are required to declare their intentions to participate in an event at least one hour before the event by signing in on a signup sheet for that event. If they don’t, they are automatically eliminated from that event.
Officials were looking for athletes that hadn’t checked in at the last minute. Some preliminaries were run as finals. One lady, who missed her event earlier, was allowed to run later taking the gold away from the earlier winner.
Some sprint races were too close together. There was no staging area, so we had to stand in the sun on the track before our event. There were no cups for water at the finish. I was told there was no ice on the infield for athletes with muscle problems.
When my wife strained a muscle in the triple jump, someone did appear quickly to help her out. The timing was great and results posted promptly. I was told by officials that they were told to run the event a certain way by the Organizing and Games committee. USATF rules were developed to make the competition fair and provide a level field of competition.
Because of conflicts with the loudspeaker system, awards were announced for the top 3 and not the top 8 as was done in every other sport. This was a lack of recognition to those that worked hard to place and it was later corrected. The volunteers that did awards did a fantastic job.Heats in the 1500, which were finals, were not seeded. If you had an early heat, you did not know what you had to do. Some missed placing because of it. When we do multiple events, we run against our competition. I was told there were inconsistencies in the field events as to how many advanced to finals.
There were no scoreboards at the jumps as well as no age group numbers, so spectators had a hard time telling what was going on. There was also no food as other sports had. The announcer did OK, but he was no Peter Taylor who I would recommend to do the games in Houston in 2011.
The road races were lacking age-group numbers. I was assured that we would be able to tell who was in our age group by the organizers months ago. When we got our numbers, we were told they were colored-coded, but only one number.The race director did a great job and understood our concerns, but his hands were tied. I counted the people ahead of me with the same color at the turn around and seeing many ahead with my age group color, I backed off to save myself for the 800 and triple jump a few hours later only to find a younger age group had the same color and I missed the awards by one.
Water ran out at the finish as did food for the 5K. Directions were hard to follow to get to the start and anyone on foot had a long distance to go to the start with one top runner getting there at the last minute only to pull a muscle in the first half mile.
The 10k was the next morning. Some runners did not do both because of the back-to-back races. Being on the NSGA Board, I will strive to correct the things that take away from the athlete having a good experience. I had one friend and national-class runner tell me he would not do NSG in the future because it was not run as a National race. Many that don’t participate in USATF events don’t know the difference, so we need to educate, communicate, participate and use USATF Masters rules and officials.
Both entities can work together and benefit. Athletes should do both NSG and USATF events. There aren’t that many events out there and each state has USATF and NSG competition.I also suggest that anyone placing in the top 3 in USATF National and Regional Championships qualify for NSG. This should not hurt the State Senior Games and allow for those, because of distance to or conflicts of dates with qualifying state senior games, to participate. I would also like to see the steeplechase as a demonstration event.
Senior Games has been my passion. I have been involved with it for 17 years as a competitor, on local boards and now on the national board. The athlete should come first in all decision making and should be consulted in matters that might affect him.The National Senior Games have been well run in the past and will be in the future. Those that participate find it to be a rewarding experience and come back. The same goes for USATF Masters. Those of us that ran roads find the track to be fun, easier on our knees with great fellowship.
Jerry competes in USATF nationals, too, including here at Charlotte.
25 Responses
Jerry also informs me that Ray Hoyt of the NSGA national office will be working with USATF’s Jim Flanik and Andy Martin. “I suggested he include Don Lein and Gary Snyder also,” Jerry tells me.
Can you please post Jerry’s email address so we could contact him personally & express our concerns about the NSG and how to prevent future problems?
Also, we haven’t heard from Rick Milam or Joy Margerum, the co-chairs of the 2009 NSG meet. Did these two have any input into scheduling or are they just “big name” figureheads the NSG touts as advisors so competitors will then assume the meet will be well run?
Evidently the attendance was down from about 12,000 in Louisville to about 9,000 in Palo Alto. No doubt the economy had something to do with the drop, but I’m sure lots of track & field competitors saw the schedule and opted out of this meet.
How about recommending the addition of the HURDLE RACES in the future also!
The events (throws)I were in were well run. Officials did a great job.
I’ll admit I don’t know exactly what a meet “Co-Chair” does, but it seems hard to believe that it can be done well when one is competing in Finland while the meet is going on.
Jerry already mentioned this, but I’d like to repeat for the sake of emphasis, how important it is to seed the 1500m finals. Especially since NSG has qualifying meets, there’s no excuse for not using the qualifying times for seeding purposes. It is really unacceptable to run 1500m finals with a random selection of athletes, instead of insuring that the top contenders are competing head to head in the seeded section.
Another minor point related to the 1500m… lap times should be called out at the start line! We were instructed to use the scoreboard timer to determine our lap times, but its position on the curve made that impossible.
In general, I’m miffed about the age groups. You have to qualify for the Senior Games the year before the National meet is held. (Your age group is determined by year of birth, not your age on the day of the meet). Since I was entering the M55 age group in 2009, I had to qualify by competing against 50-54 year olds in 2008. This just doesn’t make sense! Granted, qualifying for NSGA Nationals is not so difficult. But in a more competitive situation, that criteria would potentially eliminate the best athletes at the meet. It seems to me, athletes should qualify by competing against the age group they are entering, not the one they are leaving.
Overall though, I felt the meet was well run and I had a positive experience at my first senior games championships.
Jerry has given me permission to post his email address. He can be reached at:
jerardl@myfairpoint.net
Anonymous, like you I have absolutely no complaint about the officials who conducted my event. They were Excellent! I rated them very highly in the athletes questionnaire NSG sent to me after the meet.
My problem is with the scheduling, and the last minute changes the NSG did to everyone.
As an ex-sprinter, and after reading the comments by Dr. Janson, and the brush-off letter he received, and looking at the ridiculous schedule presented to sprinters, it makes me wonder who drew up the schedule? Is it the job of the co-chair to look over that schedule? What exactly does the co-chair do? Since the NSG began planning for 2009 back in 2008 or earlier, maybe the co-chairs could have had some input back then, so where were they? And once again I ask, why no response from them about the comments and questions asked on this forum?
Its great if they were in Lahti competing in the World’s, but
what did he or she do for NSG before leaving?
Well, let’s see, Dave Clingan found the meet to be “well run,” and he notes that he found it a positive experience. George Mathews, our former chair, says it was well run (on a different posting). Prof. Tom Fahey, who has tremendous experience both nationally and internationally, says “the officials did a wonderful job in the discus.” I wasn’t there, but I will take the word of these distinguished gentlemen who were actually present.
We see also that the meet had various shortcomings, and that’s too bad (schedule for sprints was primitive, to say the least).
The big question for me, and here I bow to Franklin “Bud” Held, the Olympian, is what to do about the records of Don Pellman and others. So far I haven’t talked to anyone who thinks the records should not go through, but I will talk to two more people tonight.
If I park for 2 hours and 12 minutes in a 2-hour zone, I expect to get a ticket, but I don’t expect to have my license suspended for 3 years. Why, then, should we deny a record-breaking performance on a technicality such as a sanction? Just for reference, a technicality is something that has very little or no bearing on the outcome.
If a runner ran out of lane, left early, etc., deny the record. If a thrower threw outside the sector, constructed his own hammer, something like that, forget about it. Those are important because they involve the actual event as conducted. But a sanction? I have been in masters T&F much too long (since 1976), and I don’t even want to think about how many sanctioned meets I have seen during that time that were poorly run.
If someone asks me what makes a good meet I would say you need (1) a meet management team that is determined, even insanely determined, to put on a good event, and (2) an excellent group of officials, including the timing crew. Sanction means nothing to me. In theory it does, but in practice, no.
Perhaps we should have Don Drummond, who sometimes contributes to this blog, tell us how the sanction helped to make Landover (indoors, 2009) a good meet. Or maybe we should ask The Great Earl Fee whether a sanction made things right at Landover.
Agree with George Mathews that the way to go is to become a subsidiary of NSGA — we (the masters core) could show them how to do things, and NSGA could give us a lot in terms of exposure. Our turnout for the last two masters outdoors has been pitiful, to be kind about it.
A physician’s first duty is to her/his patient, and in masters T&F our first duty is to our athletes. It seems quite clear to me that that duty overshadows any rule that has essentially nothing to do with a particular event.
We have to respect our athletes, and that means not discarding their records for trivial reasons. We also need to respect our officials, timing crews, and meet managers. Would recommend to readers of this blog that they talk to some people who have served us so well in these capacities about the fact that records on which they signed off were discarded. I don’t consider that to be respecting the people who help us so much.
Back to the records from Sr Games. Let’s get information on each one from the officials involved. If they all look good (measurement was correct, race was run according to accepted rules), let’s accept them all. Simply ask that the requirement for a sanction be waived (it means little anyway — see ahove).
I disagree that athletes should be part of meet management or that they should be making calls to meet directors about sanctions, etc. Next year I expect about 200 masters to compete in the Penn Relays; should all 200 call the meet director (Dave Johnson) to ask about the sanctions that will be in place, the provisions for certifying records? I think not. Do the other 12,000 or so athletes at Penn make those calls? No, they don’t.
Given the history of accepting records from Senior Games, any athlete who entered had the reasonable expectation that her/his record would be accepted if set there, sanction or no sanction. Again, our first duty is to our athletes. Apologies are nothing; ratification is what is important.
You have brought up a lot of good points.
Regarding the throws, let me enlighten you on a few things. First, seeing right where the throw lands. I have witnessed competitions without sanctioned judges and found up to five feet off, easily on where the throw landed vs. where they mark the tape. Want to give an American or World Record then? The Europeans would scream, and rightly so if we start giving out World Records to non sanctioned meets. It has zero relevance to parking meters, Peter. Come on.
And if the judges aren’t marking throws accurately, how do you know they are calling fouls by the letter of the rules? You don’t. Being sanctioned HAS to means SOMETHING. Or else don’t do it for anybody. Same rules for all.
The NSG judges were sanctioned judges. No one is suggesting that pending records be accepted from a meet without sanctioned certified judges. I would be willing to bet a sizeable amount of money that you never set an AR or a WR only to have it denied because someone didn’t send in the sanctioning fee to the USATF. Peter makes a great point. The US Indoor Championships in Landover were sanctioned. How many timing mishaps occured in that meet? But no worries! It was sanctioned!!
I have known Rick Milam for 30 years. You won’t find a more dedicated, professional track and field person around anywhere. His energy amazes me and he always thinks of the welfare of the athletes.
While there were obvious limitations with the meet, I thought it was a wonderful competition. It might have been difficult to get a sanction considering some of the non-traditional events in the program (i.e., softball throw).
There are many good comments. It must be pointed out that the games were a success with the volunteers and officials doing a fantastic job. I and others went home feeling it was a rewarding experience. Many of the athletic( track&field and road race) paticipants that don’t compete in USATF don’t know that the items I pointed out make for a better meet. Over the years I have pointed out to NSGA and the next LOC some of the same items and they have been corrected. Thus, my concerns about this years meet. We can comment here but it does not get to the right people. I did point out this website to the NSGA board and there is concern and discussion and an effort to make it better. One reason I wanted to get on the board is to have representation by an athlete. There will be openings in December. Join me and we will try to make a difference. Masters USATF and NSGA need to work together for the benefit of the athlete. Athletes should participate in both NSGA and USATF events. We don’t have alot to choose from as we do in road races. To get additional events included start with the local Senior Games and have them include it. Many have the 3K and should add hurdles which should be in the national event.
I have been on the local senior games board and we(Maine) now have electronic timing, certified officials and are scantioned. We still need some improvements but will get there. My friend Mary H said she will be doing the Maine games in 2 weeks. My goal will be to have her attend annother NSG and end up writing how good it was.
I need to address Race walking, especially the 5K. A map was available showing the course (same as 5K), but no directions on how to get there. At the start of the womens 5K I commented that they are not going in the same direction as the road race. i asked an official why and he said the route has been changed. We now had to run back and forth on a street. This entailed making five (5) hair pin turns. There were 6 judges and 1 master judge. We were exposed to these judges 35 time.
There were 82 Walkers and 29% were disqualified in the men’s division, including 1 90 year old. I would think the judges would drop their paddles and cheered him on.
in the womens division, 20% were disqualified.
I’ve never seen so many disqualification at any Race Walking event. In the 1500 RW a 96 yr. old was disqualified. Good Lord, Give her the benefit of doubt.
This was so poorly run, I/m pretty sure I won’t be competing in 2011
As this was my first experience running at a NSG, I was not quite sure what to expect. Sure there were some surprises such as an observance of no hurdle races, running semi and finals of the 400 on the same day, and seeding of some of the heats incorrectly in many races. Of course, I was somewhat dissappointed in finding out that my 2:06.37 record in the M55 800 may not go in because of the sanctioning issue. Interesting to me was that one of the officials actually gave me the paperwork to fill out and said that he would submit it on my behalf. Not being an experienced record setter, I just found this to be quite a nice gesture.However, since I did record two previous times lower than my current listed record earlier in the summer at sanctioned meets and have the paperwork, pictures, sign-offs etc.to submit, all is not lost.
Moreover, the NSG experience was overall a positive one for me. The volunteers and officials I interacted with were both helpful and professional. I found the supporting venues to be varied and well organized. And of course the weather in Palo Alto was great compared to what we had been experiencing in Houston all summer! I am sure this will be a learning experiencefor all involved and if I were a betting man, I would almost guarantee that our Track & Field Meet in Houston will be sanctioned when the NSG comes here.
Like Horace, I also thought the NSG was overall a positive experience for me. Professional officials, good venue, good weather, excellent competition, and a lot going on (including an appearance by Bruce Jenner who graciously signed autographs for all). I had fun talking trash with Mr. Jenner minutes after I came off the track in the 1500–which was his last race in the 1976 Olympics–he did a 4:12. I was more than 40 seconds slower than my time at a USATF association championship last year, for reasons I will explain later.
The announcer was adequate, but not in Pete’s class (Pete is without peer).
I liked the medals and the medal ceremonies (I came home with two bronzes in the road races).
This was my first NSG, and I previously competed in the USATF Masters Orono (2007) and Spokane (2008). NSG is a more comprehensive experience than USATF events, and has some similarities to the Olympic Games.
USATF runs its championships as all-comers meets, and I am in favor of some minimal qualifying standard. In previous years, one had to finish first, second, or third in the State Games to qualify for the national games–or meet a qualifying standard that is quite high. This year, NSG initially lowered its standard to first, second, third, or fourth, s a result of poor advanced registration. And then NSG lowered its standard so that all athletes who competed in a sport in the previous year’s state games were eligible.
The NSG Track and Field competition was not without problems, as this blog has highlighted. The scheduling problems were certainly not limited to the sprints. For months, my 1500 final (M55) had been scheduled for Thursday afternoon. I made my travel arrangements based on that. A couple weeks before the games, several of these finals, each with more than 30 competitors, were moved to Saturday afternoon. Other 1500 finals with less than five competitors were not moved. It would have been nice if athletes would have been notified of this change by the officials.
This was not good for me, not only because I arrived two days earlier than necessary. My final was moved so that I had to compete just after my Saturday morning 5K road race and before my Sunday morning 10K road race. I wanted to compete in the 1500, although I decided simply to not go very fast.
I have heard complaints in this blog that it was not a good idea scheduling the 5K and 10K road races on back to back days, although I could see that this would save money for those who were only competing in the road races. However, I suspect many older athletes are not geared to competing at a national class level on back to back days. And if the weather in Houston is as expected, I would expect back to back road races would not make much sense and could result in serious health issues for some, if not fatalities.
Overall, I give the organizers high marks, although I would be more than annoyed if I had trained all spring and summer to set an age group record and did so, only to find out after the fact that it didn’t count.
Landover’s timing mishaps, etc. have not been addressed, you are right. And yet, I have seen World Records posted already from Landover that would never hold up to scrutiny. A lot of races were taped in the stands by spectator’s video camera, don’t forget. When you review some of the races, the times do not hold up from the official results, especially in the hurdles and pentathlon hurdles. But still, we give out World Records from them. Oh, well…let’s all just remember like Rick Riddle said a couple days ago on this blog….we are fooling ourselves if we think the world takes what we do seriously. We’re just a sideshow where we get people’s attention for fifteen seconds when they say, “hey, did you see that”? I laughed when I read that….it puts things in perspective somewhat.
Well, I will try again, this time very briefly. I looked back at my post and saw that “an excellent group of officials” constituted one of the two keys to a meet. How could anyone (Anonymous or not) interpret that to mean that I wanted unqualified officials?
I want specifics, not generalities. If you tell me about sanction I will say you have told me essentially nothing. What I want are details on two records(just for starters):
Who was the chief of the pole vault? Is this person experienced (Olympic Trials, NCAAs, Mt. SAC, etc.)? Surely this person remembers our M90 vaulter, Mr. Pellmann. Was the record vault measured correctly according to the chief? If so, and if the chief had good credentials — that’s a record. That’s what we should be investigating, not whether there was a sanction or not and why there wasn’t.
On Audrey Lary’s world mark in the 400. Who was the starter, and who was the referee for running events? Is the Stanford Univ track 400 meters around? Did Audrey Lary leave early or run out of lane? Who made up the FAT crew, and did they sign off on the record? If everything is right, that was a record.
According to one informant, there were at least 40 records set. Let’s investigate all of them and find out which were legit.
I don’t know how to make it any clearer. People deserve records when they compete in national championships if everything about their performance was in order. I hate to say this, but some people never get a second chance after their day of brilliance.
I know this is about records but we were told at the beginning that the vault would be Sunday, 8/9. It was posted on the website for a few months. We entered, got our flights, etc. Then they changed it to prelims on 8/8 and finals on 8/10. We’ve never had prelims or finals but they stuck to this so we all changed our flights and paid the extra fee. Then they decided it would be finals only and that they would be helped on the prelims day. This wasn’t until a week before the meet. So again we’re stuck another two days in Palo Alto. Four days total of the trip had to be there because they couldn’t tell us when we compete. It ruined an opportunity to really get out and enjoy the area. I hope we never see prelims in the field events again. Bubba
PS – next time they are in my hometown of Houston. I sure hope its better but get ready for severe heat and humidity.
Bubba, Gary, Horace, Jack, Mickey, et. al.,
Does anyone know if the track and field meet for the 2007 NSG in Louisville was sanctioned? Can anyone comment about the schedule?
In Palo Alto, prior to the W50 javelin contest (Sat 8/8/09), my hubby, who is a certified USATF official, met an official who bragged about putting together the schedule. This man was 1) proud of his work, 2) claimed that my hubby couldn’t possibly understand what he was up against working with NSG, and 3) claimed that since he was a certified USATF official, he was qualified to put the schedule together. It certainly didn’t bother him that the shot put and hammer competitions were scheduled at the same time. Nobody entered in more that two field events could possibly declare their intent one hour prior to each contest as required. (My hubby notes that that official’s statements about the schedule only make sense if the intent was to minimize the number of officials needed).
I respect the hard work of the many officials (including my hubby), but this took the cake.
Karen,
The 2007 NSG in Louisville was USATF-sanctioned, according to the USATF events schedule, which is searchable for dates in the past as well as future:
http://www.usatf.org/calendars/searchResults.asp?startDate=06%2F01%2F2007&endDate=09%2F01%2F2007&ageGroup=M&includeAllAges=ON&name=&series=&city=&state=KY&country=&associationNumber=&prizePurse=&distanceSelection=other&distance=&distanceUnits=&distanceComparison=%3D&submit=Search
Thanks Ken.
Well, I guess that settles it. The previous National Senior Games was sanctioned, it’s the largest track meet for senior athletes in the U.S., and from what we have heard the officiating was very good and the scheduling poor. Once the record applications are reviewed they should all be accepted if everything seems to be in order.
Given the history of the NSG,why would any athlete even bother to call to find out whether the 2009 version would be sanctioned? And how could anyone be sure that the answer they received was correct? We’ve missed too many records in the last decade — why discard 40 more unless we know we have to?
L plan on presenting the following to NSGA.
Please review and comment
Athletics Criteria for NSGA and LOC’s
Race Walk
As flat a course as possible.
Have age group numbers on back.
No more than 4 loops for a 5K.
Certify the course and use certified officials following USATF rules.
Oldest women first followed by oldest men.
Give adequate directions and transportation to site.
Road Races
Consider oldest runner for safety when setting up course looking at hills and temperature.
If over 80 degrees start by 7AM.
Have age group numbers for back.
Have adequate water and after run nutrition.
Certify the course.
Use chip timing.
Give adequate directions and transportation to site.
Track & Field
Have hour before sign in so heats can be combined for no shows with plenty of communication and explanation of it.
Use certified officials and USATF rules.
Seat running events especially multiple heats run as finals.
Have covered staging area with plenty of room with clerk bringing runners to the track.
Have water available at the finish and nutrition food off the track.
Provide area or time for practice and warm up.
Communicate in advance any unusual situations to athletes.
Use preliminaries and finals for sprints with finals the day after.
Have 200 and 400’s on separate days as well as the 800, 1500 and 5K.
For field events have qualifications and finals the same day.
Use age numbers for back.
For field events have device showing height or distance.
Schedule longer events for early morning.
For all events recognize all award winners.
Try to keep schedule as published and communicate any absolutely necessary changes that would benefit the athlete.
Jerry,
“For field events have qualifications and finals the same day.”
This was done at Palo Alto. And from rumors we’ve heard it is standard practice at NGS meets. It would have been helpful if this had been stated and reflected in the original schedule.
A far bigger problem was the scheduling itself at Palo Alto. For example: The hammer and the shot put were scheduled at the same time for many age groups. The W 50-54 shot put and javelin had overlapping time slots. The javelin was contested in the rugby field, approximately 0.4 miles away. 15 minutes into the javelin event, about half of the W 50-54 throwers were supposed to check in at shot put.
The real slap in the face was the response of the NSGA, “you just have to pick one event.” But, that statement didn’t come with a refund!
The top track and field events at the meet were the 100m and the shot put. Those two events need special attention with scheduling to make sure they do not comflict with anything else, including each other.
The schedule could be improved dramatically by using a USATF National Championship meet as a template.
Even better, several events pair naturally and should be scheduled so as not to conflict. Some of these common pairings are obvious, the various throws, races of consecutive distances. Other common pairings may not be so obvious, such as the events in the pentathlon, heptathlon, decathlon, and other commonly competed multi-events.
Thank you for asking for input.
Thank you, please add more from this subject. I bookmarked your blog.
Leave a Reply