Athletes panel unveils plan to overhaul masters records process
Chair Steve Robbins
This may be the most important issue identified in the records process.
About Ken Stone
Ken has followed track as an athlete, writer and web-master since the late 1960s, and saw most sessions of track and field at the 1984 Los Angeles and 1996 Atlanta Olympics. He also attended the 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 Trials, the last three as a blogger and Patch correspondent. [More...]
Ken Stone
-
8 Responses
Well, with the vulgarity of talking about #2 and excrement, in my opinion you have opened the door for me to express my sober assessment of at least one member of the much-vaunted panel.
The panel members are most certainly not universally respected, as your post would suggest.
I hope all this actually happens. The current “non” system is so flawed as to be useless.
Fortunately for me I do not enter another age group until sometime in 2015 – I hope the new procedures will be in place by then- just a selfish comment on my part – as the new procedures should be in place in 2014 – come on folks – what we have now is a totally unacceptable. And one person should not be in charge of this – time to make some changes in that as well.
Thanks to the committee for injecting some sanity into the record process.
2.
Your document states:
Site certification
No meet director or athlete should see a record rejected because of a failure to have or find a surveyor to sign the application form. Research by the committee found that there are no USATF criteria for track and field facilities.
Suggest you check the new rule book page 110 item 16.
What constitutes a certified steel tape measure for the vertical jumps? What body/organization does the certifying?
John – Google “calibration” or some derivative thereof. There should be several places available near you who will calibrate your tape or laser. You can also order a metal calibration tool online for your tape.
Interesting to read that there are no USATF criteria for track and field facilities. I did not file an application for a 3k W75 outdoor AR because I was told that the track was not certified. Having failed to have a prior application for the same distance at another meet the prior year – I just filed the application away.
Between the nit-picking of what is and is not acceptable – cones around the track or a rail – or not – or cones not placed according to some unknown standard – or not being shown in the photo submitted for the finish time etc and never hearing anything at all about the status of the record application – I just quit trying to get the record accepted. Now I am slow enough that I am likely not to be able to break a very old record for this age group. I did it when I was 75 and 76 – and this summer I will be 78 -not at all likely I will do it this summer – and anyway – if I did it would be at one of those “uncertified” tracks -so why bother.
This very old records – btw – most likely was not subjected to the same “exacting’ standard used today . I know there was no FAT timing, and most likely no cones or rail around the track and for sure no certified track.
I am finished beating this very dead horse – change the system – do something to make it fair and transparent.
I am glad that someone is finally addressing the problems of recording records. It is long overdue.
The committee did a very thoughtful job. I particularly like having a web site to track the progress of the application. However if the meet director doesn’t appoint a Recorder of Records are the athletes still responsible for submitting their own applications?
I just hope it doesn’t take years to implement the changes.
This is also a big and frustrating problem with youth track. The rules committees don’t follow the Competition Rules Book or apply the rules as written and then don’t provide any explanation of why an application for record is rejected.
Leave a Reply