George Mathews calls for USATF divorce, drug tests
George Mathews, who resigned as USATF Masters T&F chair last year, let his hair down for an interview in the new issue with GeezerJock magazine editor Sean Callahan. Among other things, George confirms my earlier posts on why he quit as chair. And he also renews his call for the masters to ditch USATF and align themselves with the National Senior Games Association. The complete interview is posted below.
Here's what GeezerJock ran (along with a photo I took at Charlotte):
The gospel according to MathewsBy Sean Callahan
Since his resignation last year as chair of USA Track & Field's Masters Committee, George Mathews has become increasingly outspoken about the state of Masters sports
George Mathews loves track and field. He has been a part of the sport since he was a shot putter and discus thrower at St. Agnes Catholic High School in Rockville Center, N.Y. He earned a track scholarship to St. John's University, but like so many athletes he stopped competing after graduation. "I took 23 years off as a thrower," he says. He became a road runner, running up to 10 miles a day. After seeing the hammer throw at the Goodwill Games in Seattle in 1990, he was inspired to start throwing again.
He met fellow thrower Ken Weinbel and became deeply involved in Masters track. In addition to many national medals, Mathews won the world championship in the weight throw and was second in the weight pentathlon in 2005. He succeeded his friend Weinbel as chair of the Masters Track and Field Committee in 2000. Last year he resigned before his second four-year term ended, initially saying that he needed more time to launch a new business.
But that was not the only reason he wanted out. Lately, Mathews has been speaking out on, among other things, why Masters track should consider leaving USA Track and Field and align itself with the National Senior Games Association.
GJ: You've started a new business furniture franchise in Idaho, is that correct?
George Mathews: Yes, I'm semi-retired. I had retired completely when I sold my business in Seattle in 2001. I tried to live in Southern California, but that didn't work. I realized that there's a double-edged sword of health. Can you afford to live that long?
Will you outlive your retirement savings? I have a daughter who lives in Idaho, so we moved to Hayden Lake, near Coeur d'Alene. It's really a beautiful place. About 18 miles away I bought 10 acres near Spirit Lake. I have built outdoor and indoor facilities where throwers can train. It's called George's Hammer Haven. I've created my field of dreams.
Why did you quit as chair of the Masters committee?
I really had to resign because of some financial impropriety (funds being moved from one budget item to another without Masters committee approval) by other people that I could not rectify. That's really what it was. I couldn't continue under those circumstances.
I took this issue to the extended committee to ferret out what was going on, and they didn't see any big problem with it. To me that's not how a business should work. I just couldn't run the organization if this was the kind of activity that was going on. I just felt it was time. I got to a certain point where I felt there's only so much you can do, and I was a little bit burned out from the whole thing.
In the wake of leaving as Masters chair, you've gone on the record saying that Masters track and field should leave USA Track and Field and become part of the National Senior Games Association. Why?
The big thing is the focus on senior athletes is number one at NSGA. USA Track and Field is focused on professional athletes. We (the Masters athletes) are a stepchild. I feel sorry for people coming into the job (Masters chair).
So much of what I learned I learned on the job. There's so much to it. They need to get to the point where they can pay someone to do it. To put up with what you have to put up with is asking way too much of a volunteer. Masters track doesn't fit in anywhere. I'd sit in on the board meetings, and it (the Olympic program) is all they would talk about.
The turning point for me was about a year and a half ago when I was at a board meeting, and it was the first time they ever used the word "professional athlete." I almost dropped on the floor. In retrospect I'd been around the program a long time and should have been prepared for that, but to me it was very harsh. I was an AAU amateur.
The word "amateur" meant a lot to me. I know that they have to do this for the elite athletes to survive, but that's not us. That's not Masters. We're a different animal. We have 8,500 athletes paying $30 a piece, and we were getting $34,000 a year. That's a pittance to run the organization. Whereas if you got involved with the National Senior Games, and you use the infrastructure they already have in place, you could use the rest of the money to achieve the strategic plan (for Masters track and field).
The strategy (of building a grassroots organization through local and regional competition) is languishing right now. We're not as focused as we could be on the grassroots level. We need to be working on and developing what this is all about, which is developing safe competition for athletes. That's what we exist for.
You're for drug testing at U.S. Masters meets. Why?
It's a matter of balance. It's being done in Europe. They're doing it in Germany and they're doing it in Finland. We need to do it here so athletes are prepared when they do compete overseas. At the same time, there hasn't been enough research to really decide what's right and what's wrong with some of these drugs that have to be taken just for life extension.
I think the biggest one is testosterone and that's a major deal. As you get older testosterone production decreases naturally, for some people more than others. So if that's what nature going to do, is it natural to be able to add it back? I guess the issue is, are you just adding (testosterone) back to what the average person would be? Can I say I have this thing called diabetes and this causes my testosterone to be depleted? Do I have this right to use that to fight this disease and still compete?
These are really big questions. I don't think there's any question that people are out there, probably a very small number, that are using performance-enhancing supplements. The youth are being tested. The professionals are being tested. Why leave out the Masters or senior athletes when every one else is being tested?

Comments
Granted, Masters athletes pay in more money than they are allotted back by the USATF, but there are some things I think I would miss in a realignment with the NSGA. I would miss competing in meets run by people who have been to track meets before. I would miss the legitimacy and order added by the presence of the USATF officials. And I would also miss competing in 8-10 meets a year that are within a day's drive of my home, because if the USATF meets were to go away my meet count would be cut almost in half. You have to ask yourself, "Would this move better serve the athletes, or is it more of an ego thing?"
Posted by: John Stilbert | March 30, 2007 5:40 AM
I agree with John. While we don't get our fair share of the dues we pay, the USATF's structure gives our meets a higher degree of professionalism. Masters benefit from the USATF structure— even though we are neglected step-children.
I have competed in many seniors games and they are often poorly run. Several years ago, I entered the senior Olympic meet in Pasadena. They cancelled the discus because they didn't have the key to the cage. The money I spent for airfare, hotel, and car rental was for nothing. In contrast, most USATF sanctioned meets are well run and have at least one certified official working the throws.
With the current system, masters are usually welcome at open meets. I enjoy competing against college kids, even though they usually kick my butt.
Our budget cannot afford drug testing. Testing is expensive and would quickly use up the $35,000 we get from the USATF and meet entry fees. Germany has a mammoth masters track and field program that is much better funded than in the US and can afford doping control. Our athletes are tested at the world championships. Athletes would be foolish to try to use banned drugs for the US championship and hope to pass the test a few weeks later in the world championships. We get at least some benefit from doping control at the world championships. Let's do a better job taking care of officials, hosting meets, and providing opportunities for competition before spending our scarce resources on doping control.
At the high school level, some schools have mandatory drug testing programs. Yet, in 10 studies conducted since 1987, only 4 percent of high school students have ever used steroids. These same programs have part-time coaches, rotten facilities, and poorly run competitions. A drug testing program for masters would create a parallel situation. With our current budget, doping control would give us drug-free masters but no money for competitions. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Posted by: Tom Fahey | March 30, 2007 3:20 PM
How much of the $8500x30=$255,000 would the NSGA take? What would be left for running masters activities including drug testing? With what the NSGA takes, could they improve the quality of officiating at major meets? Those seem like reasonable questions without obvious answers. George brings up some interesting points that seem worthy of investigation.
Posted by: John Altendorf | April 1, 2007 7:05 PM
George has been singing this song for awhile and I understand his frustration. However I think that it would make masters track worse and not better. Too many State senior games track meets are not up to USATF standards, do not use certified officials or have inadequate numbers of them, have substandard facilities especially for the field events, and lack such things as FAT timing, inside rails on tracks etc. I do not attend the track meet in a state nearby because it is poor organized. Others in my area struggle to uphold standards, and even the vaunted Huntsman Games track meets have very rough edges. Oregon has no State Senior Olympic organization, some states struggle to keep their heads above water. Some state games do not allow non-residents to participate. Whatever money might be paid into the NSG by "former" masters USATF members would be taken by the NSG -and used for national expenses and some distributed to the various states - and used - for what- golf, pickle ball, bowling, bike racing? And while the NSG may be in reasonable financial shape at the moment - it has also had its moment of near financial disaster.
Be careful what you wish for - the grass may be greener etc - and sometimes it may be "the devil you know if better than ..."
Should George's dream come to pass - I hope it happens after I have moved on to the great track meet in the sky.
Posted by: Mary Harada | April 2, 2007 5:57 AM
This year's Sacramento Senior Games (the "2007 Sacramento Sports Classic") will not offer any field events (“due to a variety of uncontrollable circumstances,” according to the entry booklet). But not to worry: there will be five divisions of ballroom dancing competition (beginning, intermediate, advanced, pro-am, and “Jack & Jill”). Yeah, sounds like a great idea; let’s drop out of USATF and donate our $30 apiece to THAT.
Posted by: Ed Baskauskas | April 2, 2007 10:11 AM
I have attended --they are not competitions--Sr. G. in the States of MI, GA, CT, and MA. Only in the MA one was the quality of the meet anywhere near USATF competitions all over the Central, Southern and NE States. Even then it left quite a lot to be desired, especially in officiating. NO to Matthews
idea.
Posted by: Carol A. Young | August 14, 2007 12:19 PM