George Mathews details proposed new drug category for masters
George Mathews
George continues:
Health Supported Athletes would still participate in competitions but would not be eligible for USATF Championship awards. Their results would be presented separately. They would not displace a non (HSA) athletes and they would receive duplicate medals which would include a sticker with the initials (HSA) on the back.
All other athletes in the competition would still be subject drug testing under the current rules and TUEs.
IMPLEMENTATION:
This proposal will be presented to The USATF Masters Executive Committee at the upcoming USATF Annual Meeting in St. Louis. If the Executive Committee believes this might be a possible interim solution it might present to the general Masters Committee for a possible implementation on a trail basis at the 2012 USATF National Masters Indoor Championships.
Also, an intensive program must be untaken to educate our athletes concerning the LEVEL 2 athlete status. I heard some reference to post-event TUEs at the USADA meeting in Virginia Beach but didn’t get the detail included in the masterstrack.com on 10/28/11. Even with this information there are plenty of questions such as what “limited to the following substances________1. Substances that are prohibited only in-competition” etc?I have known that youth athletes in the 2 oldest age brackets are subject to drug testing in national events and I have been told by a few very seasoned coaches (I am also a youth coach and youth club president) that post-event TUEs are allowed. The problem is I can’t find it in writing and am told (and also told to tell my athlete’s parents) to contact USADA to confirm if the post-event TUEs are allowed.
This is all part of the USATF Youth “Win With Integrity” and “Zero Tolerance” programs. I don’t know if these youth athletes follow the same LEVEL 2 regulations that apparently Masters Athletes fall under.
I guess that WMA must treat Masters Athletes as elite athletes since I have never heard of post-event TUEs. Been to a few WMA meets. I probably missed the memo.
40 Responses
Leave it to George for a great idea. Post TUEs won’t work for some substances as I have mentioned before. I spent considerable time and money (several different physicians and lab reports) making my case of my body making no testosterone and was told that it will never be allowed no matter what your condition. So maybe we start right there and list the substances that will never be approved no matter what the need. Otherwise you flood the system with post competition TUEs that we know in advance will fail.
I think what George proposes has real merit. Personally I would just stay clean rather than get a 2nd tier award. But if I had a heart problem, blood pressure, cholesterol, prostate, cancer, etc., or any other serious diagnosis that required me to take a banned substance, at least I could still compete. More power to helping those folks with REAL issues. Yes, mine is very real but I’m not dying.
Interesting proposal George !
Anyone that would choose to stay off prescribed medications for a physical condition so they would not fail a USATF drug test are cheating themselves. The USATF needs to recognize this. I will go out and throw by myself in a dirt lot before I quit taking meds to extend and make my life healthier as I get older.
If George’s proposal were adopted, how will heats and flights be organized at USATF sanctioned meets? Will Health Supported Athletes be placed in separate heats and flights? Would non-HSA athletes want to compete in heats or flights with some HSA athletes knowing that other non-HSA athletes are competing in other qualifying heats or flights? Would entry forms for championship meets ask potentially HSA athletes to list the banned substances they are taking?
Details have to be studied on, but the idea in itself sounds good.
How about this: Athletes using banned meds would compete in younger age groups. How much younger depends on the med. Fifteen or twenty years younger for testosterone and less for other meds.
After all, these meds are essentially turning back the clock to a younger and healthier hormonal milieu, so why lot let them run with the younger athletes.
I’m not sure how serious I am about this but it seems for feasible than the separate competition classes.
Cheers,
Jim
While George’s idea looks good on the surface (and follows the thinking of posters to another thread), I believe we might find ourselves with a “Scarlet Letter” situation. We should be careful before breaking ourselves into two classes of competitors. How we deal with what is obviously a much larger issue than I previously suspected (both the use of PEDs and health-related medications) will in large part determine what kind of a sport we’re left with. Is it all about the level playing field? Is it about the sheer act of competing as we age? Personally, I vote that we resist treating this as a black and white issue – as a “clean” and “other” sport. We should try fixing the issues surrounding TUEs and allowed medications – as well as resisting becoming apologists for those who are using PEDs for the old-fashioned reason (to cheat) – and see if we can’t remain a single, semi-harmonious body.
I don’t believe we are going to change USADA/WADA TUEs without scientific research proving that certain health supporting PEDs don’t enhance performance in older athletes. USATF does discriminate in age testing when direct that only the two oldest youth age groups will be tested. Maybe athletes who must take PEDs for health reasons and can’t get a TUE from USADA and/or their doctor will need to stay out of national and international meets?
And so it is. George
Although this proposal is unsavory to me personally, I guess I could live with it.
What needless complexity and expense, though.
USATF should do away with masters altogether.
Master’s track should be an entirely different, recreation- and health-oriented organization, with those values embedded into its foundational documents and organizational structure and function.
USATF and USOC are NOT recreation- and health-oriented organizations, and should not have to divert resources from their primary missions to support such secondary values.
If an entirely different source of funding can be found, and earmarked for masters, then fine–set up separate accounts under USATF and let them run it.
If not, an entirely separate and independent organization should be founded by those having sufficient interest in doing so.
Response to #7 Pete
Pete–
From the tone of your post, I sense that your desire for unity derives from aesthetic considerations.
Why divide into 2 classes? Because as I stated on another post, the goals of state-sanctioned athletic competition on the one hand, and of recreational, health-oriented athletics on the other hand, are entirely different.
Take a look at my response to Bubba on the M40 methylhexaneamine thread, and you will see the thrust of my argument.
You, on the other hand, similar to Stephen on another thread, do not appear to have an argument at all–at least you haven’t here presented anything, or adverted to anything, that constitutes an argument.
Watch how easy it is for me to express my views in terms of your own conclusory post:
“How we deal with the issue of anti-doping now will in large part determine what kind of a sport we’re left with”. “We should be careful [to] break ourselves into 2 classes of competitors”. State-sanctioned athletics can be “all about the level playing field”, while non-sanctioned athletics can be all about whatever lawful purpose it wants to be about, including “the sheer act of competing as we age”. “Personally, I vote that we [not] resist treating this as a black and white issue – as a “clean” and “other” sport.” “We should [not] try fixing the issues surrounding TUEs and allowed medications”.
I would entirely accept, if you have one, an aesthetically-based argument supporting your position.
I have yet to hear anybody here articulate either a meaningful net inequity that results from application of the current anti-doping paradigm, or an inequity that is based on unsound social policy.
Like I said before, allowances should be made ONLY for those individuals who are of demonstrably diminished capacity to either understand or comply with the rules, for one reason or another.
George–
I’ve got to ask what somebody who has never heard of post-event TUE’s, and who is therefore unacquainted with the totality of the existing anti-doping regime, is doing presenting a proposal to change that regime.
George, you have not identified any particular, specific issue with sufficient particularity to admit of any meaningful solution.
In fact, you haven’t identified any issue at all, just a broad area of concern that:
“…deals with masters taking drugs on the USADA banned list.”
George, we ALREADY HAVE a system that “…deals with masters taking drugs on the USADA banned list.”
You need to tell us the specific problem you are attempting to address, convince us that it is genuinely a problem that should be addressed, and how YOUR proposed system would address that problem better than does the existing system.
Very wise info from A Master’s Runner. You describe the National Senior Games. I have long stated that we are a better fit there. We might be able to run as a subsidiary following their administration infrastructure, Games marketing horse-power, USATF officials and a Masters variation of USATF/WMA rules. Its doable. We run our show. Very similar organization to the one we have now.
I wonder who voted to institute USATF Masters T&F drug testing?
Still would be subjected to at WMA. Big reason to do testing, Europe does it and we look bad if we don’t.
George
Meanwhile, we need some volunteer legal assistance in helping our fellow athletes like Kathy Jaeger. Many of our older athletes who can’t work anymore and live on fixed incomes and can’t afford to challenge the system.
Kathy wasn’t given the option for a post-event TUE. The USADA attorney advised her to agree with the ban because she wouldn’t win an appeal. Then they started sending other paperwork to her old address. One of letters she got advised her that she had to sign up for out of competition testing at her expense in 1 week or else? Another letter stated that they understood that she was retiring, which she says she never stated.
How can the average Masters athlete deal with this?
Innocent til proven guilty? Rich people get justice?
George–
Not having the financial resources to institute a challenge has little to nothing to do with having, as you call it, a “fixed income”.
First, an individual’s current income is not necessarily determinative of their net worth.
Second, a “fixed income”, taken literally, equates to a “guaranteed income”, which allows an individual the luxury of planning and budgeting to a much higher extent than somebody with an income that is not “guaranteed”.
Third, there is no reason to believe that the costs of a challenge are beyond the financial means of those receiving a guaranteed income EVEN IF that guarantee is the sole source of their net worth.
I don’t know anything about Kathy Jager’s situation, either financial or legal–but if you want to take up on her behalf, why don’t you limit it to her and give us a good reason to jump on board?
For instance, you state that she “wasn’t given the option for a post-event TUE”.
What do you mean by this? Isn’t everybody who is a paid-up USATF member “given the option for a post-event TUE” at the time of USATF’s acceptance of the payment of their membership dues?
I personally need more detailed information before I advocate on her behalf.
As far as “how can the average masters athlete deal with this?”, THERE IS NO AVERAGE MASTERS ATHLETE.
I personally could deal with the entire procedure quite well, to the extent that I chose to deal with it. Ditto for lots of other athletes–however, I understand that some people might have difficulty with it.
Is that difficulty insurmountable to the person of undiminished capacity? I don’t think so. It’s inconvenient, and it represents work–but it’s not insurmountable to the extent that a person of undiminished capacity absolutely requires assistance to express their interests and to preserve their rights.
And if they do require assistance, they can pay for it, to the extent that they think it’s sufficiently important, and to the extent that they have the sufficient capacity to enter into a lawyer-client relationship or to undertake a specific legal transaction.
If they can’t pay for it, they can do it themselves. If they can’t do it themselves, they are of diminished capacity and accommodation should be made for that condition, if diminished capacity is sufficiently proved.
If anyone wishes to further understand this concept of diminished capacity and how it might affect relations between an individual and the USATF, I would direct you to the psychologist’s handbook “Assessment of Older Adults with Diminished Capacity”, downloadable at:
http://www.apa.org/pi/aging/programs/assessment/capacity-psychologist-handbook.pdf
Although a joint publication of the American Bar Association and the American Psychological Association, the handbook is designed for use by psychologists, and focuses on evaluation and what it means within a legal context.
I know all this sounds ridiculous–attorneys, the US Constitution, and gobs of money just to run track?! That complexity is the quid pro quo for having governmental involvement in the enterprise–and there is most certainly government involvement in the USATF and USOC.
I know there’s an asymmetry here between the regulatory context and the actual activity, for many people–it seems to come with all the difficulties and complexities of a criminal act or a regulatory offense, yet the underlying behavior is not so overtly important or injurious.
Again, like it or not, society has deemed the values underlying particular forms of athletic competition, and the fora for expression of those values, of sufficient importance to impose a high burden on those who participate with official sanction.
Regulatory logic seems to presume that we are all working towards the same goal–to represent the country at the highest possible level of representation. Fair enough, even if you are only acting in your capacity as an individual citizen and running in a sanctioned local meet, the important thing is that you are acting in a representative capacity, by participating in an event where only those who have received sanction to do so are represented. The cost of receiving that sanction, that representative capacity, is a promise to adhere to the rules and some consideration in the form of a membership fee to seal the deal.
Consider that for individuals of substantially diminished cognitive capacity there is the Special Olympics organization and structure, which no doubt receives some public funding of its own, although that is entirely speculation on my part, and I have no actual knowledge of the depth of involvement of the government in the affairs of the Special Olympics organization.
Don’t like the mess? Don’t like the expense? Don’t like the hassle? Don’t want to waste your life and your health trying to figure it out? Don’t think you can afford the burden of full participation, either ethically, legally, physically, or financially?
DON’T RUN IN SANCTIONED EVENTS.
Or, if you only want to participate to a particular extent, pay your membership dues and entry fees, run the races, bail out if the S hits the fan, and live with your decision.
But please don’t expect any sympathy for your not liking some of the potential effects of your adult decisions. WE DO NOT NEED A BAILOUT OF AGGRIEVED MASTERS T&F ATHLETES.
Grow up. Act responsibly and know what you’re getting into.
And if you don’t act responsibly, at least bear with what dignity you can muster the ignominy of sanction.
re Georges posts – I agree. Where is the research that says how a legally prescribed medication given under the care of a family doctor improves performance in someone over the age of 60? Guess it is easier for organizations to hide behind the ‘buggie man’ than do the honest work to determine effects rather than automatically presume the worst about someone. The TUE process for a masters is clearly targeted to get you on the banned list – the requirements to prove medical necessity is lengthy, costly and their own website says the chance of being approved just beacuse it helps your health is next to nothing unless it meets their criteria, which is not stated anywhere. I hope none of you purists have to make a health choice that might keep you from competing.
Kudos to USADA for imposing tougher testing standards on Kathy Jager! It is quite obvious that she has been using PED’s for a long time!
Anyone that is unwilling or unable to follow the rules of our sport needs to be removed from it!
Those of you who fall into to this category should consider going into bodybuilding, politics or starting your own ponzi scheme, as these are all great places for competitive egotistical people that lack morals and ethics!
I wonder what A Master’s Runner means? Is that the possessive form of Master of something or somehow describing a Masters Runner. I guess Ivy Leaguers know better. Wonder how much volunteer work you have done for USATF lately? People who can write such long, lengthy critiques could really help our Great Organization.
I guess I didn’t learn much about drug testing while serving 50% of my time on the USATF BOD during the turbulent early 2000s
Me, I spend most of my time lately with the USATF feeder system. That be Youth.
Good Bye, George
Response to #17 George–
Well George, because you could have BOTH advocated for Kathy Jager AND wrote what you did in your post, yet declined to do the former, thus far it appears that you are more interested in attempting to bolster your own credibility than in addressing any alleged inequity possibly visited upon Kathy Jager.
I should note that you haven’t bolstered your credibility one bit by stating your board experience. Regardless of what you did or did not learn during that period, the fact remains that you admit to not having knowledge of a critical element of the anti-doping regime that you would have changed. Not only that, but you still haven’t identified a specific problem with that regime. You therefore have not made out any case for supporting your suggested changes.
Again, you need to tell us the specific problem you are attempting to address, convince us that it is genuinely a problem that should be addressed, and how your proposed system would address that problem better than does the existing system–otherwise, it is impossible to assess or even understand either the effect that you perceive of your proposed changes, or the value thereof.
Finally, I too spend as much time as I can with “the Youth”–and after having won so many friends on this board and so quickly (George, Pete, Stephen, among others), I can see why.
You people really are different–you care about different things, you want different things, you see things differently. I was hoping for a broader perspective from this board, and a problem-solution oriented approach.
What seems to be happening here instead is that a vocal subset of masters athletes seems to be lobbying for something, something that they don’t necessarily all agree upon or even understand. Notably, I haven’t seen any meaningful dialogue among the posters advocating for change, to define the problems, to hone their arguments, to marshal evidence or to understand the totality of the context in which they will be making their arguments or in which their proposed changes will have effects.
All the more reason you should leave USATF, and have your own organization where you can figure out exactly how you want to run things. You should be on a totally different playing field.
And George, thank-you for noting the use of “Master’s”–yes it was, and is, intentional.
BTW, I consider THIS volunteer work for USATF, to the extent that somebody in a voting or otherwise influential capacity at USATF might glean something worthwhile from my posts that could inform their action or decision-making.
At the very least, I hope to illustrate that masters T&F athletes are NOT monolithic, and that any presentation made to the USATF or anybody else, purportedly on behalf of “masters T&F athletes” should NOT be considered as representing the views of ALL masters T&F athletes.
#18. You are probably right about everything. You guys have all the answers. I’ll stay out of this.
Mission accomplished. Carry On.
George
George – Don’t let this guy get you down. He’s a useless troll. Every message board has them. Hang in there!
Pete and George, wow, you guys have joined Stephen as real credits to this board.
While I understand that every endeavor has its heroes–like Pete and Stephen and possibly George in masters T&F–the criteria for heroism apparently don’t include the desire or capacity for sustained rational discourse regarding an issue they apparently feel is of some importance. Too bad.
Pete and George have, however unwittingly, proven their belief in one of that points that I made–that invective and polemic can be considered legitimate modes of expression.
And Pete has revealed his hypocrisy–Pete, what happened to your clearly implied desire to limit communication to that which expressed “common decency and respect”, and which was limited to “polite, enlightening conversation”?
Still no more detailed information from George about Kathy Jager’s situation.
And in their last 2 posts, no substantive contribution to the original issue from either George or Pete.
To A Master’s Runner
I’ve been reading your posts and I see that you are an intelligent person, with an extensive vocabulary, and an ability (and willingness) to argue your position tirelessly.
I agree with some of your opinions (and that’s what they are), and I think this long conversation on Ken’s blog is potentially very useful, in that it has brought out and contrasted several points of view about drug policy alternatives, that may lead to positive changes in policy or the actions of individuals.
But I think you are missing something important about masters track and field, and that’s the basic goodness and sincerity of most of its participants. That’s not something I need (or can ever supply) evidence to demonstrate, but I believe it’s obvious to most of us who participate in the sport, and one of the most attractive things about it.
I believe our fellow athletes deserve respect. My problem with your posts is not your logic but your tone and approach. While not every point made by those who disagree with you was clearly argued, I believe that those who read with an intent to understand can find the meaning behind their words and benefit from the conversation.
The tone you’ve used in many of your posts is superior and condescending, rather than supportive and collaborative. You’ve criticized form over content, and avoided looking for meaning that could be easily enough understood if you’d wanted to find it.
There are many kinds of intelligence; vocabulary and writing ability aren’t its only evidence. You appear to be unaware of what you’re missing, and overly satisfied with what you do have. Some of your words are bound to embarrass you when “the stars align”.
The fact that some of those who have given much have become frustrated with your lack of respect (if not for their many contributions, at least for their humanity and good will) is not a sign of their weakness; most folks just don’t value an argument as much as you do.
Thank-you, Doug.
Let me state at the outset that it is my belief that the original point of this entire discussion was to cast light on the current anti-doping regime, to discuss how it particularly affects “masters athletes”, to identify specific inequities that may accrue to said “masters athletes”, and to posit and evaluate solutions to said inequities.
It looks like I was at least in part wrong in this belief, at least insofar as a certain community of interest, as represented by certain posters on this forum, is concerned.
It is my hope to honor your post, and to respect your efforts, by responding thoughtfully.
Please understand that your post itself represents an argument, and thus invites a response. My response will be aimed at assessing the quality of the argument, and in fulfillment of this aim, will contain a counter-argument–but remember that it is the form of your original post as argument that has in large measure determined the nature of my response as argument.
First, I’d like to point out that you have misunderstood the entire thrust of my basic position. Doug, I’m NOT talking about “masters track and field”, as you put it–I’m talking about track and field, plain and simple. I don’t think anybody competing should be treated differently based on age alone–and that is the single dimension that defines the “masters” category.
People in T&F have a wide variety of motivations and express a wide variety of behaviors, including doping. I’m not sufficiently credulous or innocent to believe in “the basic goodness and sincerity” of track and field’s participants.
If you want to separate out masters athletes, and believe that they exhibit a “basic goodness and sincerity” superior to that which may exist in the totality of T&F, you of course free to do that–but if you want to convince anybody else of your belief, you need to provide some evidence–I’m sorry, that’s just how it is.
On the other hand, if you don’t want to convince anybody else of your belief, why express it in the first place? To satisfy an individual need for expression? To further solidarity and understanding among other already similarly-minded individuals? Fair enough, those are legitimate goals–but they evidence a lack of respect for not only your own beliefs, as they will never be refined through debate, but also for the differing beliefs of others, as you don’t seriously consider other points of view–and ultimately, it exhibits a diminished potential for leadership on any effort aimed at resolving an issue for which the underlying belief may prove important.
As far as your suggestion about “looking for meaning that could be easily understood if I’d wanted to find it”, you have just provided a good definition of the very kind of bias that you just exhibited in stating your unsupported beliefs, and that I assiduously try to avoid. I didn’t approach this discussion “wanting to find” anything in particular. That is never an efficient way to achieve a reasoned solution.
I think that I understand the basic essence of your criticism. It brings to mind the type of philosophical question addressed by many over the ages: What is more important, compassion or understanding? You suggest that I’ve focused on understanding at the complete expense of compassion, specifically as applied to masters athletes.
I have not only expressed my generalized compassion, but have provided specific examples of when, IMHO, such compassion can, and should, override understanding–specifically in cases of demonstrated diminished capacity and medical necessity to address legitimate disease states–and I have attempted to show how the current rules reflect that compassion, and have even provided people with a rough framework for why and how diminished capacity should be appropriately accommodated.
Where I do not believe that it is appropriate for a compassionate attitude to carry the day is where individuals are not doing what they can, and I believe should, to protect their own interests. If a subset of people want to participate under different rules of participation, fine–but there is no compelling moral reason to elevate this desire above the desire of any other subset of individuals.
Hence I am not “supportive” of the particular solution to the ill-defined “problem” experienced by a particular subset of participants that exhibits no particular weakness that should be addressed with a surfeit of compassion.
Age above 35 or 40 yrs alone is totally insufficient to elevate your aesthetic of some sort of solidarity over the understanding that can result from a reasoned approach.
I have criticized BOTH form AND content. Sometimes, however, the content of a post is not explicit, and can be informed by the form–that is, the form of a post is itself a type of content. Your clean separation of the two is as ill-considered as it is unhelpful.
Also particularly unhelpful is your isolated paragraph on “intelligences”, which you have conveniently omitted to define in any meaningful way. In fact, one of the major criticisms of the theory of multiple intelligences as advanced by Gardner, is that his particular characterization of “intelligence” is unfortunate and unhelpful. Like other posters have done, you have advanced ideas and concepts without detailing precisely what you mean by them, expecting us all to have some sort of common understanding that, of course, comports roughly with your own. Some posters here are apparently very comfortable in their cozy, essentially narcissistic little worlds, and are extremely resentful when somebody comes along and does the heavy lifting for them, upsetting their apple cart in the process.
The original point of this entire discussion was, I thought, to cast light on the current anti-doping regime, to discuss how it particularly affects “masters athletes”, to identify specific inequities that may accrue to said “masters athletes”, and to posit and evaluate solutions to said inequities.
I have detailed aspects of the current regime, I have detailed how the category of “masters athletes” is not monolithic, I have detailed the disparate effects upon different types of masters athletes, I have detailed how alleged inequities are not universally experienced by all “masters athletes”, and I have not only identified different inequities and posited solutions thereto, I have also evaluated all proposed solutions from a perspective that I have tried to make as broad as possible, taking into account not only the range of variability in “masters athletes”, but in athletes in total–which is mandatory if “masters T&F” continues to be administered under the umbrella of USATF/USOC.
I believe that the entire basis for your criticism is that you and certain other posters want to “feel good” both about yourselves as individuals and as a group, and your interpretation of my posts hasn’t been conducive to any “good feelings”. The only thing in my posts that should make you “feel not so good” about yourselves is my accusation, or observation, that your posts not only arrogate to assume a monolithic masters population, but also that your posts evidence no respect whatsoever for those whose beliefs differ from your own, and that your response strategies to my comments have included those of attempted intimidation, dismissal, moral disapprobation, and even invective.
Your problem seems to be that I don’t elevate the concerns, or even individual members, of your particular community of interest above those of any other particular group.
For that I make no apology whatsoever.
When it comes to state-sanctioned athletic competition, all athletes should be required to comport with the same standards of conduct that further the goals of the state involvement. If any athlete is of demonstrable diminished capacity–diminished physical capacity, as far as medical exemptions are concerned–appropriate accommodation should be made therefor, while preserving the values underlying, and goals of, the state involvement.
If you want special accommodation for your group, and you want for whatever reason to continue under the administrative umbrella of the USATF/USOC, you should have to show that the effects of the specific implementation of any such accommodation preserve, on the whole, the values underlying, and the goals of, state involvement.
YOU ARE, OF COURSE, ALWAYS FREE TO START AND OPERATE YOUR OWN ORGANIZATION DEDICATED TO FURTHERING THE GOALS AND EXPRESSING THE VALUES OF YOUR OWN COMMUNITY OF INTEREST.
The decision is yours. Don’t cry that not everybody thinks you’re special. Don’t expect special treatment based on chronological age alone.
And if you want to continue under USATF/USOC, learn how integrate and communicate with people who think and feel differently than you do. That includes engaging in argument as form of discourse, if the occasion demands–and in this case, it was YOU who demanded it.
To A Masters Runner,
If PED was short for pedantic, you’d probably test positively for appearing arrogant, pompous, self-righteous, judgmental, inflammatory, and inconsistent. That’s a shame because some of your ideas seem solid; you write well when you’re not lecturing or judging others, although the language gets a little precious for my part.
As Doug T so persuasively points out, there’s no generosity, no giving the other the benefit of the doubt, or wondering what else they might have meant. You seem to pounce on words, take them out of context, and see them more concretely to prove some narrow point, all to win some empty victory. Boy you sure should us.
You accused another: “Your assumptions are unwarranted, your factual predicates are unsupported, your propositions are logically flawed, and your arguments are dissuasive. …. a disaster in argumentation and advocacy.” Uh, this is a masters track blog, not a critique of a term paper. And yet ironically, you’re doing the very thing you criticize. Some of us might call that projection and the style pedantic.
But you’re attacking a bunch of guys, I, and many on this post, admire as people, runners and contributors to this sport of masters track. But I have no idea what you’ve done or do for it, so that may not be fair to you. Nor do I understand how you qualify as an arbiter of what’s “substantive” or “a contribution to this discussion.” We’re not here to further your goals.
Stephen is a many times over world champion sprinter, World and American record holder. Pete Magill is a record setting distance runner who created an incredibly generous and informative blog for masters runners. George is a national champion in weight events and has worked for years on the board as Chairman and in other roles, and is a respected voice in masters track. All of them are bright and verbal and bring something to the discussion.
Even though Dr. Robbins was a professor, his style is not pedantic. He posited an idea, maybe not quite the “Modest Proposal” a la Jonathan Swift, but an idea for comment, not attack and criticism. Sure, many may not agree with his thesis but this is a blog for dialogue and discussions, for an exchange of ideas, not a debating society or a flame throwing contest.
Now, on the field of battle, all three of these guys are incredibly competitive, cutting no slack, taking no prisoners. Yet, after the race, I know Steve is one of the nicest guys, and what I’ve seen of Pete, he is too. They’re playful, positive, and supportive. They’re nice guys who not only don’t finish last, they generally finish first, on and off the track. Competitive and collaborative seem to be common occurrences in masters track. So it’s curious that single-handedly, you’ve been able to provoke seemingly nice guys, across the board, from the sprints, distance, and field events, with your pedantic stance and inflammatory style. And they don’t even agree with each other! I don’t know Troy, but he seems like a very reasonable sort too and ya got him and a couple others going.
Friends who know I run masters track are supportive and interested in what I’m doing and inspired by the stories of others. They’d never think “master’s track is a freak show full of narcissistic and/or overcompensating losers.” So that seems to say way more about you and your peers than about masters track. That’s sorta sad. You’re passionate about track; you’ve spent time and energy posting here; it’s obviously important to you, and yet you fear they’d consider it “unworthy” or maybe see you as an “overcompensating loser.” So you’re anonymous, afraid of being “mercilessly hazed” by peers who think they know you. But if you treat them like you’ve appeared here, maybe they’d haze you if given any chance.
So a few of the people here that don’t know you, see you as somewhat narcissistic, and don’t like the way you act or treat them. And yet, the people who think they know you wouldn’t like the way you actually are. So I can understand why you’d think maybe it’s better to remain anonymous here and hidden there. It just seems an interesting and lonely dilemma.
…..Thank You Doug and Larry. Beautifully said.
Larry..love you..you make ME proud to be a Masters athlete…I agree 100% with EVERY single word you wrote. personally I accept NOTHING from a person who cannot sign his name to his “opinions” “facts” “observations”..FOR ANY REASON….Steve..Peter and George are whats GOOD about Masters athletics…George has done MASSIVE work for US over the years….I BEG anyone without a name to NOT respond to my words..thanks
Larry–
Your criticism is noted.
“you’re doing the very thing you criticize”
I would be prepared to consider this as a real possibility if you provided any evidence supporting it–but thus far you haven’t.
“Nor do I understand how you qualify as an arbiter of what’s “substantive” or “a contribution to this discussion.””
It is the capacity of cognition that qualifies me, as well as anybody else who cognates. I even acknowledged that I wasn’t presuming to speak for all readers of these threads when I qualified my perception as only my belief, and did not extend it to anybody else: “The original point of this entire discussion was, I thought, to cast light on the current anti-doping regime, to discuss how it particularly affects “masters athletes”, to identify specific inequities that may accrue to said “masters athletes”, and to posit and evaluate solutions to said inequities.”
You falsely accuse me of ego-centrism when you wrongly interpret my having spoken solely on my own behalf, as having been the arbiter for all those on this board.
More to the point, you haven’t agreed or disagreed with any of the substantive statement, indicating that you in fact care more about a misdirected ad hominem than you do about the original issue, HOWEVER you wish to characterize it.
“…this is a blog for dialogue and discussions, for an exchange of ideas, not a debating society or a flame throwing contest”
First, “throwing flame” can be, once again, a legitimate tool in discourse and dialogue. Second, if I have “thrown flame”, I’m certainly not the only one to have done so, and the others who have done so include, now, yourself. Third, this has been in no way a structured, or even unstructured, “debate”. Not one of the 3 heroes has responded substantively to a single thing that I have posted, if I remember correctly–save for George’s initial response that he also favored an entirely separate governing body for masters T&F–and there has thus been no “debate” as such. Fourth, debate is a legitimate form of dialogue, discussion, and exchanging of ideas.
You said that I have “no generosity” and have not “given the benefit of the doubt” to others. The former is quite incorrect, but the second is quite correct. The posts to which I have responded have rather unequivocally stated positions which were quite amenable to analysis on their face, and which left little to no room for any “doubt”. As regards the motive or motives for those posts, I have suggested that I understand the motive and that I have no particular objection to it, but that, based on the proposals that it spawned, it derives from an overly-narrow conception of “the masters T&F athlete”. The proposals have been fine from the point of view of a particular community of interest, but that community of interest should not be treated as synonymous with “masters T&F”, as it clearly is not.
I don’t know any of the heroes personally. All I know about them is what they have written on this board, and that a few other people, yourself included, hold them in esteem. As I know nothing about you personally either, your endorsement therefore carries little weight for me in this regard.
I have not for one moment in any way denied them the opportunity to engage in dialogue, and have repeatedly invited their criticism of whatever I wrote. It is they, and they alone, who have decided to steer this discussion singularly toward personality and away from T&F–much as you now have done.
In my posts I generally talk about BOTH personality, as occasioned, AND T&F–although to be honest I’m much more interested in T&F. I have been generous to the extent that I have been genuinely interested in what posters have written and have responded thoughtfully and comprehensively to those writings–and to the extent that I repeatedly invite more substantive discussion.
“So it’s curious that single-handedly, you’ve been able to provoke seemingly nice guys, across the board, from the sprints, distance, and field events, with your pedantic stance and inflammatory style.”
Really? It’s curious? Whether or not they are “nice guys” has little to nothing to do with how they have comported themselves on this board, with respect to my posts. It’s not curious at all, when you consider the quality of their various posts, and the now-apparent fact that I am outside the community of interest of which they are all members.
As far as their athletic accomplishments are concerned, well, to somehow suggest that somebody who came in first place in a foot race has any more credibility discussing policy than does the person who came in second place, well, that is a suggestion that I cannot accept, given the evidence.
I look forward to challenging or hopefully breaking some records myself, as set by one of these gentlemen–but I don’t see how that informs the current situation.
And people who who don’t think well of masters T&F athletes are not my “friends”, as you have mis-stated; they are instead peers–and whether or not their opinions are worth much, they would be visited upon me as a representative of masters T&F–and therein lies the basic problem for me: even though I don’t personally associate myself with masters T&F–I don’t run masters meets, I don’t do masters championships, I don’t post performances to the rankings, I don’t train with other masters, and I don’t socialize with other masters–others DO associate me with masters T&F based solely upon my chronological age. My only association with other masters is to the extent that I may compete against them on occasion. So my interest in masters T&F is twofold: first, how I am associated with the most-visible manifestations of masters based on my age alone, and second, how other masters could affect me personally as race competitors.
The best and most efficient way for me to address the first concern is, in my judgment, anonymity and obscurity.
The best and most efficient way for me to address the second concern is, in my judgment, to advocate for the preservation of the existing regulatory regime and, by extension, arguing against proposed changes that affect me personally as a competitor in a race that contains other masters athletes.
I experience no dilemma whatsoever, as you wrongly suggest. I care not at all whether people who “think they know me” but who really do not, and who like me based on their misperceptions, would like the “real” me. It is their opinion that matters as a practical reality, not the quality of their opinion–obviously they’re complete idiots in their characterization of masters athletes. But their perception is my reality.
I support many things, and many people–especially those who are not as physically or developmentally fortunate as myself–which is why I constantly discuss diminished capacity, and why I asked for more information on Kathy Jager’s case. If somebody had come forward with more details, I may very well have taken the occasion to assist her in addressing any injustice or inequity that she experienced, to the extent that she proved deserving and in need of the type of assistance that I could offer.
To this point there has been absolutely nothing offered to move me to action, and that is a distinct discredit to the one who initially invited involvement.
Finally, I am not supportive of what appears to be a desire on the part of some masters athletes to avail themselves of the benefits of an administrative system, while avoiding or minimizing the responsibilities attendant that involvement.
Can’t we put this stuff behind us and return to the initial issues?
How about this: I stated what I believe them to be–if you disagree with that statement, say so, and say why, and offer something substantive within your own understanding. If not, offer something within the bounds that I have described.
And if you can’t do either, you might want to sit this one out.
I’d particularly like to hear from Bubba and anon and George, who presented thoughtful posts.
Well, I’m genuinely apologetic to those who have been irritated if my activity here has been perceived as nothing more than that of an antagonistic, uninvited interloper.
I may indeed be in a small minority in masters T&F. In time, I may come to adopt your values and attitudes–but for now, I’m going to keep focusing on my main athletic goals, the same as they ever used to be–always working to improve, and always competing to win, totally drug-free.
I bid you all farewell, and look forward to a kinder, gentler future should I desire to avail myself of the benefits of masters T&F that was created and maintained by those who have traveled the route before me.
If it’s one thing I DO know for sure, it is that you can never be certain what the future will bring…
Well done,Larry. I just caught up on this thread, and I could hardly believe the arrogance I saw posted here.
I thought the “Masters Runner” guy, the one so positive in his statements, but too terrified to post his own given name lest his associates (they read this?) criticize him, but so audacious as to parse everyone else’s words behind his cloak of anonymity, had promised not to post here anymore. That’s what I took from his responses to Steve Robbins’ post.
He appears to be so afraid of becoming a real masters runner, he still sticks to the college races like they will last forever. Time passes, and so will he. We have seen a lot of guys like him, and we will see more.
To “A Masters Runner”: Run as a pretender as long as you can. See you in 20 years, and you will be singing a much different tune, I promise you. The guys you are sparring with are more than likely much more talented, experienced, and have much more grace. You can learn from them. I suggest you do just that, but, of course, I doubt that you believe you can learn from anyone. BTW, are you married? Does some poor spouse have to live with your picking at her every word and verifiable proof of every expression of her opinion?
I’m all for legal TUE’s, I’m all against PED’s. TUE’s allow athletes with health issues to compete. This is legal and I embrace anybody with a TUE. In my book, you are not a second class citizen. If TUE’s need to be changed for reasons, use the appropriate channels to do it. Creating yet another category of Masters athletes is the wrong approach, at least in my opinion. TUE’s should never legalize doping, never allow anybody to gain an unfair advantage over his/her peers. I take PED’s personal, even as an average athlete. A few years after I arrived in track& field from long and ultra long distances, I decided to become a stronger sprinter, jumper and, most of all, a better thrower. I did extensive research, made a plan and followed the plan. Multi-joint whole body lifts, super squats, box squats with box jumps, trap bar dead lifts, over head presses… I worked hard, very hard. My neighbors never got used to seeing me laying in roadside ditches in the hills surrounding my house. Too much weight on a sled, too much iron on my farmer’s walks, the large punching bags too heavy and bulky in my bear hug walks, the 100 lbs sand bags thrown and picked up too often, Turkish get-ups with large kettle bells on uphill walks… the ditches became rest areas, if only for a minute or two. Did it work? Of course it did. How in the world could it not? Did I use drugs? Never even entered my mind. Did I have fun, did I take pride in my changed appearance, in my added strength? Of course I did. I did something too many idiots think impossible when you close in on 60, re-engineering my body without illegal drugs. Taking my ‘new’ old body to the first meet in April, my friend Sam Hall said: “Man, look at that dude. Is it really you? What did…” and his eyes started to shift and HE KNEW. No other way about it, it had to be doping. I almost walked away from this sport, almost. Next, I decided to become knowledgeable, well educated and speak out against PED’s. Forget all these high flying philosophical discussions, the excuses, the accusations, the search for a way out. This is personal, I take it personal.
To A Master’s Runner:
You’ve mischaracterized a number of my points, but one stands out, when you wrote:
“And people who don’t think well of masters T&F athletes are not my “friends”, as you have mis-stated; they are instead peers–“
Ah, actually, I never mentioned your “friends.” I intentionally talked about my “friends” in contradistinction to the way you mentioned “your peers.” And I only referred to others in your life as “the people who think they know you.”
It even seemed striking that you never talked about friends, and I thought your position was a “lonely” one.
In no way would I assume you had friends or that friendship was a value you sought out, particularly in masters track. To have implied otherwise, I apologize.
I think you stated it clearly, “I don’t personally associate myself with masters T&F.”
Yeah, I’d agree. You seem more impersonal,even disdainful, competitive without also being collegial and supportive. And to me, that seems like you’re missing a lot of what Masters has to offer.
Larry–
Well, your post requires a response, and it is this:
You are absolutely correct about the single mischaracterization that you described, and I was in error.
Thank-you for doing me the honor of apparently reading at least some of my post.
Your contradistinction was, however, inapposite. Comparing friends to peers is to compare apples to oranges, and lacks utility. Necessarily implying, as you did, that the feelings of your “friends” are somehow more informative of some “reality” of masters T&F than are the feelings of my peers is unsupportable. The only content it reveals is an exposure of your bias.
My error was in fact based on my incorrect assumption that you had more of substance to say, and my construction of your argument gave you the benefit of the doubt in that respect. I will not make that error again.
How about another illustration of a mischaracterization that you allege I made?
Your descent into ad hominem was actually unexpected, but not unwelcome. Friendship can have many bases. I do not “seek out” friendship per se in masters T&F. I do make amiable acquaintances in T&F, and even have some actual friends who also happen to be masters T&F athletes–but our friendship is in no way based on our mutual participation in T&F.
That appears to reveal the essential difference here–goals.
And as I’ve said many times before on multiple threads, there is nothing wrong with the goal of friendship and collegiality–as long as it neither directly nor indirectly adversely affects other legitimate interests. Feeling that your personal friend was done an injustice, and advocating to address that perceived injustice, runs headlong into some legitimate interests of that person’s competitors, who happen to not be their personal friends–indeed, when interaction is sought on a personal level, the result may be just as likely to proceed in an unfavorable direction.
What about people who happen to think that your friend is a tool and a douchebag? When it comes to relations on a personal level, this could easily be the case.
The ethos of collegiality is not the same as that of friendship. I’m all about collegiality.
So Larry, how about another one of those “mischaracterizations”?
Larry IF you have LOTS of time on your hands how about volnteering at the local animal shelter? Use your precious time WISELY..best to you and carmel.. Francis A Schiro
Fran,
You’re right. Thanks for being a friend in so many ways, and for here, reminding me to get back on track. Step away from the computer! What was I thinkin’? Yeah, I could spend my time more wisely.
Larry–
What were you thinking?
Apparently that you had a unilateral platform for expression, and that you could have only your own views published, without having to endure the terrible inconvenience of a response.
Unlike you, I don’t run away when somebody disagrees with me. When you pointed out a mischaracterization I made, I admitted to the error–and more than that, I took a serious look at it and found an explanation.
You, on the other hand, appear content to “drop bombs”, as Stephen said, and then run away.
I’m starting to believe that a certain cadre of masters T&F athletes are pretty high on themselves and yet are thin-skinned, and perceive any threat to their cultural dominance, or even questioning of or disagreement with some of their beliefs, as unjustifiable effrontery.
Hence the focus on style to the almost complete exclusion of substance.
My earlier apology applies, apparently, also to you. I’m genuinely sorry that my contributions to this board have perturbed your emotional state to such an extent. All I can do is try to convey to you that I am not attempting to be merely vexatious, argumentative, or confrontational.
How about this: are these discussions further evidence of a baby-boomer entitlement mentality? That it is somehow the “right” of masters athletes to be able to participate under the banner of the USATF/USOC? That what passes for baby-boomer “wisdom” shouldn’t be questioned?
After all, my point is that your values, goals, beliefs and attitudes are FINE–but that USATF/USOC rules shouldn’t be changed to reflect them at the net expense of their overall, different values and goals.
I haven’t heard any good disagreement about this yet. All I’ve heard is arrogant statements of position that some people expect to go unchallenged. Other posters keep their disagreement and challenge brief. I don’t. I’m the lightning rod.
If I were to tally up the “score”, I bet there are at least as many posters, even on this board, who agree with my position as who agree with yours.
Nobody’s stopping you from doing what you want–just don’t do it in sanctioned races, running alongside us, because you then make US a part of YOUR paradigm.
And we don’t want to live in your world just yet.
Courtland–
Are your own disparagements of my domestic relations, and Larry’s disparagements of my friendship relations, and Pete’s disparagements of my posting bona fides, examples of the “grace” to which you referred?
Grace, indeed.
Dude,
I have no clue of your domestic relations, and that’s just half the story. The other half is that I couldn’t care less. I just think I would feel sorry for him or her if there was a domestic relation if you parse his or her communications like you do here. Useless drivel and total waste of time for us all.
Anyway, I thought you promised not to post anymore. We are tired of you. Go away. You are a waste of our time as we are of yours. The SPCA looks better every minute. Get a life.
Courtland …… OUT
I’m not tired of “A Master’s Runner”. Though, I’ll admit not having the patience to read every single sentence of every single post he makes (I mainly visit this blog as a diversion from my high-stress job), he has brought up several valid points for discussion.
Though, I wish he would post in a manner that would not drive off or discourage other highly valued contributors. Maybe shorter comments/responses that would keep others responding as well….but I certainly don’t want to tell him, or anyone else, how to post on a blog. It’s merely a suggestion.
Greg
Courtland–
I’m no pretender. I am an actual competitor. I train and compete under the same conditions as I have since I was 6, and under the same conditions that all the other competitors compete and train under.
I’m not pretending to belong–by these measures, I DO belong. No matter that I might run 11’s instead of 10s–there are people in the world who run 12’s, and people who run 9’s, and 14’s, and whatever. We all belong, and none of us is pretending–we are all competing. Tell a guy running 10.3 that he is a pretender because he doesn’t run 9.8
He’s not pretending, I’m not pretending to anything. I have no delusions of grandeur, I know I’m not going to make the national team. I’m not pretending to anything–I am who I am, no more, no less.
People did tell me 20 years ago that I would be “singing a different tune”, as you put it, in 20 years.
They were wrong, and you are wrong. I AM 20 years down the road from anywhere near elite. Your empty “promises” mean absolutely nothing in the face of my commitment.
And there’s that ugly arrogance again, where you guys presume to speak for all masters athletes:
“He appears to be so afraid of becoming a real masters runner…”
Clearly you have defined for us all what a “real masters runner” is. How arrogant. It sounds to me more like a justification for your own shortcomings, to suggest that anybody different than you is somehow inauthentic, a “pretender”.
We are here–we still do not embarrass ourselves in faster races, we don’t take drugs, we train hard and compete when we can, we don’t make excuses.
We are masters.
Hey Courtland, I guess that by your criteria, Ed Whitlock isn’t a “real masters runner”.
He has stated unequivocally that he takes neither prescription medication nor supplements, save for glucosamine, Vitamin C, and the occasional Tylenol.
And Courtland, he’s probably twice as old as you, and twice as fast as you in the marathon.
But of course he’s not a “real masters runner”–he’s a pretender.
Leave a Reply