USATF Masters Track & Field Chairman George Mathews has a strongly worded column in the current June issue of National Masters News titled “Status of the Inaugural World Indoor Championships.” Traditionally and rightly, the same column is posted within days on the USATF Web site. But not this month. I wrote to USATF webmaster Keith Lively to ask about the delay (since NMN has been out for two weeks).

Keith replied:
Ken,
Thanks for checking in. George decided not to submit an article for the
website this month. Please contact him if you have any questions.
Rather than wait another two weeks (or longer) for a reply, I’ve taken the liberty of typing in George’s column. Here it is:
As a follow-up to last month’s report on the bid by New York, I am sad to report that the WMA Council has voted to recommend that the first WMA Indoor Championships be held in Sindefingen, Germany. They can only recommend, as the General Assembly has not yet approved that such an event can be added to the Championship agenda.
We knew that, going into the bid process, but thought it would approve the Championships and approve having it start in 2004 instead of 2006.
We believed our strong technical superiority, 6 lanes vs. 4 lanes, and the ability to have the weight throw indoors, as well as many other points, would make us the obvious choice. We thought wrongly, that the Council would consider New York to be the best venue available for this inaugural event. Considering this, together with the fact that the next two outdoor championships will be in Europe, it seemed fair that the United States would get this meet.
When I pointed out the European dominance over the next few years, Torsten Carlius, WMA president, said we should be happy to have had the outdoor championships in Puerto Rico, which is a U.S. territory. He fails to understand that the second-place bidder for the 2003 World Championships is not part of the U.S. Federation and is, therefore, not an award to the U.S.
Why would anybody outside of Europe waste their time and money on a WMA bid that is obviously awarded on political merit? This being said, one thing is clear: The present WMA Council does not follow the WMA Constitution and By-laws. What will it take for them to gain credibility with its members?
I hope the Council will make sure there is complete discussion of the technical reports immediately so all delegates will have time to review them in advance of the General Assembly in Puerto Rico.
I suggest that the question of whether there should be a WMA Indoor Championships be taken up in the first session. And, if approved, that a vote be taken in the second session regarding whether the General Assembly should follow the Council recommendations to uphold the illegal award to Germany. If not, then bidders should be given a chance to make their presentations and then vote.
Germany is well aware that this could happen. All bidders were warned by Mr. Carlius that this could happen.
Even if this is the case, I believe, considering the European dominance of this organization, we will probably lose.
I think WMA needs to review how it does business and follows its own Constitution. There are other issues concerning promoters of international competitions being on the Council. They will probably just change the Constitution to meet their personal business requirements. We will see!
Elsewhere in the June issue of NMN, Canada’s Brian Oxley has a column that touches on the same issues. He’s sympathetic to the USA position. But he also suggests that certain unnamed members of the WMA Council didn’t realize that their vote on the WMA Indoor meet host would be a recommendation rather than an outright award.
Oxley writes:
Carlius, as eager as he is to to move ahead, asked the WMA Council to vote on the report (grading the WMA bid candidates). I have to say that not everyone understood that this could only be a “recommendation.” Even today’s speedy Internet dialogue is flawed. Some of us realized that the evaluation report (favoring New York over Germany and Sweden) had to be given credibility. Others thought along global lines — in other words, “Where would everyone like to go next if all three are possible sites?”
My view is that such thinking is for the affiliates, not the WMA Council, unless the Council is prepared to assume the responsibility for saying where you, “the affiliates,” should go next. The weakness of that argument is perhaps that the Europeans, in the absence of a Council decision, might prefer to stay home. Alternatively, our affiliates might want to visit new venues. Who knows?
Council’s vote? A narrow majority voted for Sindelfingen, but there must and will be a vote in the Assembly in Puerto Rico. Despite all unproductive rumors to the contrary, this is still a democratic body, and the Assembly must and will decide.”
As George Mathews would say: “We will see!”