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!