Elites check in with their takes on 200 at nationals
My recent boycott-the-nationals post has prompted a raft of insightful replies — mostly critical of my analysis. That’s fine. The debate is long overdue, and even if I prove to be dead wrong, I’m proud of provoking some careful thinking on an issue that’s pretty much been left to a handful of people. One thoughtful response came from many-time world sprint champ Steve Robbins. He writes from an elite’s perspective.
Dr. Robbins wrote me yesterday:
“I don’t participate in the egroup dialogues, but I do read them. I wanted to comment on your recent take on the Masters Invitational Program. While your focus was on the lack of depth in the higher age groups, I see a number of other concerns. My comments are specifically directed at the forthcoming USATF Indoor Nationals exhibition masters’ 200:
“(1) Location. The meet is in Boston. Many of the top performers in my age group (60-69)–including Neidig, Edens, and Barnum–reside in the west. That’s a long trip to take for one race.
“(2) Cost. For those of us in the west, the airfare and hotel will cost at least $500. That’s quite a bit to just run an exhibition race. This is not the Penn Relays, where athletes can at least rationalize “I got to run in front of 40,000 people!”
“(3) Timing. The organizers are trying to get the strongest entries. But many of those same people will be leaving for Linz less than two weeks later. I expect many budgets (especially for those outside the northeast) will be squeezed by Linz alone.
“(4) Indoor lanes. My final comment is, to me, the most relevant. The organizers will select six runners for the exhibition race. Anyone who has seen the data knows that it’s nearly impossible to run a fast 200 out of lanes 1 and 2 on an indoor 200-meter track. So anyone who draws those lanes is at a severe disadvantage. I expect a lot of quality runners won’t like the odds: Even if you’re selected, you’ve got a 2-in-6 chance of not being competitive.”
Another world-class sprinter/runner is Larry Barnum. He posted this on the masterstf Yahoo Groups mailing list:
“Ya gotta be kidding, Ken. Boycott a Master’s Invitational at USATF Nationals, oh, yeah, that’d show um. Huh? We’ve got fewer and fewer venues to compete at, so the goal would be what?
“In the past I’ve often disagreed with Mark Cleary’s approach to these exhibitions. He and I have talked, frequently argued, pratically pouted, and yet he’s also listened. So instead of just complaining, or even thinking outloud about boycotting, maybe suggest to him an alternative for next year. He’s generally responsive to positive input. (Aren’t most of us?)
“I assume the event has to have some crowd appeal so it helps if there’s a full, relatively evenly matched, competitive field. Pick an event with a suggested field that would showcase not just one runner but a group of them.
“Actually, I like the way it’s set up this time. And even though they’re more ‘qualifiers’ in the younger age groups that alone doesn’t mean they’d form the best age-graded matchup. They’re top people in each group yet it’s more a question of who’s gonna commit to showing up. Given all the other things going on, WMA Indoors in Austria, Master’s Indoor Nationals at Boston in March, time and travel expenses, conditioning, injuries etc,, that take their various tolls, and not equally across the board, it often depends on who’s
left standing.
“And for the record, certainly a collection of M60’s that included Don Neidig, Steve Peters, Roger Pierce, Paul Edens, Bob Lida, Doug Smith, Alby Williams, or maybe add Stan Whitley, who’s moving up soon, and ya got some fantastic age graded sprinters, almost all well above 95%. And, at least the one’s I know, they’re also great guys who’d make wonderful ambassadors for the Master’s Program. (Hey Mark, ya takin note?)”
Me again:
So there you have it. Two very smart guys dissecting an important issue of masters track. This kind of debate should rage publicly and include many people. But the tendency in masters track is to confine such arguments to stuffy meeting rooms at the annual convention
I’m willing to take a licking online if my posts serve to stimulate a discussion. Maybe I’m off my rocker on Mark Cleary. (But maybe he can stand to learn from his critics.)
More important than who’s right is the necessity to expose all ideas to scrutiny.
Masters athletes deserve a voice in their programs — including the Masters Invitational Program. They don’t belong to masters leadership. They belong to us!
2 Responses
Yo Ken!
Speaking of “learning from your critics” its time you learned a few things here…
Lesson 1a:
Steve Robbins hit the nail on the head: getting athletes to agree to compete in invitational exhibition events is an uphill battle and an extemely difficult task for the event coordinator. There are usually more reasons for qualified athletes not to participate than there are to participate.
Lesson 1b:
Give Mark some credit.
Lesson 2a:
The format and composition of the invitational events are not determined by cloistered beaurocrats in stuffy meeting rooms. They are constrained mostly by practical circumstances and coordinated by Mark and his committee, which consists of regular athletes (including me) who regularly communicate with other athletes and sincerely have best the interests of the sport at heart.
Lesson 2b:
Give Mark some credit.
Lesson 3a:
This debate is not “long overdue”. It is worn out and tired. While input and feedback is always welcome, most of these issues have been raised time and again and beaten to death. I refer to previous egroups posts and past issues of NMN. There’s nothing new about these critiques about how Mark handles the program.
Lesson 3b:
You’re off the Mark! Time to cast Stones somewhere else!
I think Mark Clearys idea for the upcoming Nationals is GREAT.< period.. He is giving the older athletes a chance to run if they choose to. As Robbins stated there are more than a few logistical factors the athlete must consider as well. I think Ken Stone is a great assett to us as well…i do not agree with Ken in all things BUT i love that he states his position clearly. Dave said Mark has good intentions for Masters track and Field….i have come to beleive this as well from my experience this past July in Carson Ca. at the Regionals. I have been critical of Mark many times in the past and how did he treat me at the Regionals??? I felt with OPEN ARMS…he treated me like a track athlete FIRST and foremost. I had written a letter to NMN about my positive experience at the Regionals but apparently there were some technical difficulties at the meet..with a letter reviewing this.. and my “thank you” letter never got published. I watched Mark Cleary run around for 2 full days..he must have logged 50 miles just on trips across the infield….as i watched him…while drinking the free water his club provided to me i said to myself “this guy honestly cares about track and field”.. If i have something to say im a lot like Ken Stone i say it…i myself see that as a positive thing. people know where guys like myself or Stone stand..we are not perfect..far far far from that. But give Ken some credit for telling you his thoughts in an open forum…Ken Stone and Mark Cleary BOTH care about Masters track and Field..Mark thanks for the great meet and im going to try and make it this July as well
Leave a Reply