Holy crap! Indiana legal fight could kill masters indoor nationals

This is crazy! Several dozen people were sent this court document filed Thursday asking a judge to hold a hearing on a possible order to block the USATF National Masters Indoor Championships in Bloomington, Indiana. I don’t yet know the issues involved, but this opens a Dumpster-full of worms. Apparently, this is the fallout from an earlier legal fight in which M50 distancer Charlie Mosbrucker sued the Indiana USATF association for the right to inspect its financial records. See the original lawsuit. A January 2012 legal action names our own Robert Thomas (vice chairman of the national Masters Track & Field Committee) as a defendant in the case. (See it here.) I have no idea why this fight has such wide potential collateral damage.

Click to see what might befall Bloomington indoor nationals in March.



I learned of this matter via email from Mosbrucker:

As a representative for the American Athletes League (AAL), I regret to inform you of a situation which has developed concerning the possibility of Indiana not hosting the upcoming Indoor National Track and Field meet in March. I have attached the legal Motion for Preliminary Injunction which the judge in Indianapolis is set to hear on March 9th to decide the fate of the meet. For more details concerning this ongoing situation please check here

Print Friendly

February 17, 2012

38 Responses

  1. Robert Thomas - February 17, 2012

    These allegations are totally untrue and I welcome our day in court to prove it. The 2012 Masters Indoor championships are not in danger of being cancelled. This matter is being handled by our attorney. We have a great meet planned and those of you who are planning on attending will have a great experience.

  2. Texas Tornado - February 17, 2012

    Ohhhhhh boy……..

  3. Bruce Mintz Edmonton Alberta - February 18, 2012

    I am flying in from Edmonton Alberta Canada to participate in the US Masters Indoor Championships. I was shocked to discover this state of affairs today.

    I am an attorney having practiced law in Alberta for over 40 years. It seems to me the court will have to decide, before granting an injunction of this sort, whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether irreparable harm will occur if an injunction will not be granted that cannot be compensated in damages and whether on a balance of convenience the injunction should be granted. It appears all of this is rooted in a request to review financial records and issues concerning the handling of funds. It seems that the meet organizers should be able to demonstrate that no funds will be misappropriated, that athletes have committed to come to the meet from near and far and that no irreparable harm will occur that cannot be compensated in damages and finally the balance of convenience does not favor the grant of an injunction.

    If this meet is cancelled then I will be out over $1,000 for travel expenses via air which I believe is non-refundable because travel insurance does not cover this.

    It is sad that Masters track is subject to these types of issues when our sport has loftier goals.

    I hope the Judge dismisses the application.

    Bruce Mintz
    President
    Edmonton Masters Athletics Association
    Edmonton,Alberta Canada

  4. tb - February 18, 2012

    Great. Bought my tickets on Thursday.

  5. Doug Spencer - February 18, 2012

    I agree with Bruce’s comments , this guy will not be popular with a bunch of people if the meet gets cancelled, there’s alot of $$ people will lose !

  6. A Master's Runner - February 18, 2012

    In answer to Ken’s question about Thomas and “collateral damage”, Thomas is named in the suit in his capacity not as a member of the national Masters T&F committee, but instead only in his capacity both as an individual and as the treasurer of INUSATF.

    I see this as good news, the legal process invoked for the singular purpose of compelling a state-sanctioned entity to disclose its records to not only its board members, but also to its general members.

    Not only is INUSATF denying access to their records to their general membership, they are denying it to at least 1 member of the INUSATF board. Although they have yet to offer evidence that their refusals were reasonable in the circumstances, this situation doesn’t pass the smell test.

    As I understand it from glancing at the filings, an initial request for access to records was made in late 2011 by Mosbrucker in his capacity as an INUSATF member, and which is alleged in the court papers to have been unreasonably denied by INUSATF.

    It appears that Mosbrucker then enlisted the cooperation of INUSATF board member Collesano to make a similar request, which he did in his capacity as an individual member of INUSATF and which he alleges was unreasonably denied (count 1); however, he also made the request in his capacity as a board member of INUSATF, which he alleges was unreasonably denied (count 2); and he also alleges that both the president Key and the treasurer Thomas of INUSATF exceeded their authority and were acting in their personal capacity when they mishandled funds to the detriment of INUSATF membership, and that they should thus be personally liable for any damages resulting from any such mishandling (count 3).

    Collesano applied for a TRO restraining the championships, a motion in support of his initial demand to compel production. Based on nothing other than what I’ve read, I don’t think it will be granted, as the request fails in equity, unless it can somehow be shown in support of the TRO that there is no effective record-keeping, and that unidentifiable commingling of funds will occur, thereby forever obscuring any evidence of possible historical malfeasance–or that there is a substantial likelihood that a very specific occurrence of malfeasance will take place around the time of nationals.

    It’s about time people made an honest attempt to look into these organizations. The hearing is set for March 9.

    Maybe this type of inquiry will be made of the USATF at some point, by somebody who on honestly-held information and belief, suspects some sort of mishandling of funds to the detriment of USATF members, or other malfeasance. Maybe some individuals will be named in their individual capacities, as having exceeded their authority.

    Very interesting.

  7. A Master's Runner - February 18, 2012

    In reply to Bruce Mintz–

    Bruce, I hope that the judge does what is appropriate and lawful in the interests of justice, and so should you, having identified yourself as an attorney.

    If you hope the judge dismisses the application, I would hope that you do so on the basis of legal considerations, and not personal pecuniary considerations.

  8. Milan Jamrich - February 18, 2012

    This meet will happen. What is the point of creating a panic?

  9. AJ, Lone Tree, CO - February 18, 2012

    Hopefully the event will happen. The indoor facility at The University of Indiana looks really great in the pic on the USATF website. This will be my first ever indoor meet and I’m really looking forward to it. In the Men’s age 50-54 division I’ve entered the 60m, 200m, 400m, 800m and Mile, and will run in the 4×100 and 4×200 if someone needs a runner for their relay team.

  10. Ken Stone - February 18, 2012

    Got this note early today:

    Mr. Stone; My client, Charles Mosbrucker, forwarded your e-mail request for information to me for response. I am representing Mr. Mosbrucker in his litigation against USATF for the turnover of corporate records. Mr. Mosbrucker has not filed suit against IN USATF and did not file the instant motion related to the national meet. Stan Collesano filed the instant motion and the lawsuit against the state organization. This firm does not represent Mr. Collesano.

    I am aware that the public record documents related to both Mr. Mosbrucker’s suit and the instant motion can be found at http://americanathletesleague.com/news.html

    If you have any questions regarding the allegations set forth therein, I recommend you review those documents. Further, if you have questions regarding the motion or the status of Stan’s case against the state organization that you contact Mr. Collesano. His contact information is available on his appearance filed in his lawsuit.

    If you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to contact me.

    Regards,
    Christopher C.T. Stephen, Esq.
    cstephen@alerdingcastor.com

  11. Bruce Mintz Edmonton Alberta - February 19, 2012

    In reponse to the comments made by the Master Runner I was merely pointing out what I thought were the legal principles concerning the grant of a court injunction that would have the effect of cancelling US Masters Indoor Championships.

    I have been involved in a number of court injunction applications and I know that this is a rather extraordinary remedy granted only in limited circumstances. It is rooted in equity. Delay in bringing the application is a factor which weigh against the grant.

    The unidentified Master Runner’s comments about how I should think as an “attorney” and that I should not be driven by pecuniary circumstances needs a brief response. Yes, as an Attorney I believe that justice must be done and seen to be done. I am sure the Judge who will be hearing this application is highly competent and will do an excellent job. So his comment in that regard was unnecessary.

    As for the comment concerning pecuniary circumstances, I can state that if the court hears evidence of people spending thousands of dollars to come to this meet and substantial expenditures have been incurred to stage the event besides the fact these may very well be circumstances that might support refusal of the injunction if it would have the effect of cancelling the meet.

    I stand behind my comment that pecuniary losses to participants should not be ignored.

  12. Robert O'Higgins - February 19, 2012

    If there is nothing to hide, why don’t they open the books? Typical USATF BS.. We as paying members to our state USATF org. have the right to see the financial records.

  13. bob - February 19, 2012

    I agree wholeheartedly with post #7
    maybe our views are clouded by our own self interests vs what is right/wrong
    Kind of like the doping issue.
    Bubba Sparks is a prime example of someone who puts right/wrong ahead of his own self interest.
    We need more Bubba’s and less justice be damned i laid my money on the line for airfare….

  14. bob - February 19, 2012

    Bruce i find the masters comments to be based on how in your original post you seemed to be more concerned about your own money vs justice. Now you throw out the idea that simply because you are an attorney it goes without saying that justice is your top priority. Surely as an attorney you must have come in to contact with an attorney with whom their primary objective was in fact their own self interest and their client? Thus the fact that your perspective was called into question is not unusual at all.
    Your defense flies in the face of our legal system, otherwise we would not have parties recuse themselves in cases where they hold a potential conflict of interest.
    You have a financial interest in this case which might affect your perspective.Simple.

  15. chuckxc - February 19, 2012

    to be continued…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHqebO8aAc4

  16. Ace Bond - February 19, 2012

    @Post #9 – AJ
    I’m in the same boat as you, first time entry and really looking forward to it. I will be competing in the LJ, TJ, HJ, Shot Put, and 60m hurdles (M40) division. We will have to compare notes sometime and maybe get some training in together. I live in Aurora, CO and currently train @ Lifetime Fitness in Parker, CO. Shoot me a message sometime at fullnelson2000@aol.com – would love to compare notes.

  17. Jerry Smartt - February 19, 2012

    Midwest(Missouri)guys and dolls. I need a ride to Bloomington…share expenses…meet you in Springfield, Columbia or St. Louis. Smartty j9s1131@centurylink.net

  18. Texas Tornado - February 19, 2012

    I agree with #12. Why didn’t they allow access to the records when the request was made, instead of allowing this snafu to brew? It seems that Robert and Lateshia could have avoided this whole mess.

  19. A Master's Runner - February 20, 2012

    Bruce–

    The equitable factors governing injunctions are well-known.

    The “balance of hardships” factor is a balance of hardships TO THE PARTIES. You are not a party, and the fact that you may incur a loss is not by itself relevant to the “balance of hardships” factor.

    It might, however, conceivably be included in the “public interest” factor–however, the personal pecuniary interests of a handful of individuals such as yourself must be weighed against the obvious public interest inherent in the lawful disclosure of information by entities formed and continuing under the Indiana statutory scheme.

    What you actually said was that you “…hope the Judge dismisses the application.”, which is an expression of opinion concerning the outcome of the hearing. Your opinion that “it seems to you that the meet organizers should be able to demonstrate that no funds will be misappropriated” is entirely without evidentiary support, and is therefore conclusory.

    If you have any such evidence, you can come forward with it–if not, then the basis for your opinion is likely exclusively your personal pecuniary considerations.

    My sense is that if you back-pedal any harder, you’ll hurt yourself.

    My comment was anything but unnecessary, as your ex post facto statements of general principle as a means of damage control are insufficient to overcome your initial express statement of personal loss.

    I also don’t agree that it is sad that masters T&F is subjected to these types of issues.

    The initial allegations of impropriety or irregularity are just that–unproved allegations. Although for me the actions of INUSATF do not initially pass the smell test, that’s neither here nor there, because I’m not in possession of the facts necessary to make a reasoned decision.

    So what are you sad about? That the INUSATF was subjected to allegations? As an attorney, you know that it cannot be assumed that there was any impropriety, illegality, or malfeasance. The making of an allegation in a court of law is the socially acceptable method of resolving an honest dispute–as a lawyer, you could hardly be sad about the filing of a complaint, or with the TRO application.

    There is no cause for a dispassionate attorney to be “saddened” by events as so far reported. Through this mechanism, some resolution will be achieved, and the public will have access to the information, barring court approval of a confidential out-of-court settlement or the labeling of certain court records as confidential.

    As an attorney, you could not be sad unless you assumed that something “bad” had happened; and the one “bad” thing you know has happened is that you may have to find something else to do in Indiana, or that you may have to negotiate refund or transfer options for your ticket. Neither of these, of course, have yet actually happened.

    Stop feeling sorry for yourself, Bruce. This is an important event for anybody who cares about the institutions that govern their individual participation in masters T&F. How many times do we have to listen to athletes complaining about these same institutions until somebody does something?

    Congratulations to the plaintiffs in the complaints–they are carrying the torch for all Indiana T&F athletes.

    Rather than being sad for yourself, you should be glad that somebody has the guts to stand up for the interests of what amounts to all members of INUSATF; more than that, as an attorney you should be neither sad nor glad that complaints were filed and that motions are being made in a court of law, nor should you be sad that there was malfeasance because no such thing has yet been proven.

    So why identify your capacity as an “attorney”? To lend credibility to your basic recitation of the equitable factors governing the grant of a TRO, which information is readily available on the web and elsewhere? To lend credibility to any opinions that you offer, for none of which you appear to have offered any evidentiary basis whatsoever? Why do it, Bruce?

    Why should anybody care that you’re an attorney? We understand that you want to run, and that you might get the shaft if the court awards a TRO, and that that would suck for your personally–but what does the fact that you’re an attorney have to do with it? Absolutely nothing.

    Ultimately, I have no idea what will happen with the TRO application–but I’m glad that the initial complaints were filed. If we can dispense with the emotional dimension of this situation, hopefully we can shed more light than heat on the particular actions of INUSATF under review, and on its operation in general.

    Enjoy the heritage fund, Bruce.

  20. Bill Newsham - February 20, 2012

    There should be a separate relay event at the meet for attorneys where they run 400m then argue for 60 secs X 8. Lucky for them Ken doesn’t charge by the character for his blog.

  21. Bruce Mintz Edmonton Alberta - February 20, 2012

    The master runner has struck again – but this time he has struck out. His response to my comments are ill-phrased, reeks of personal attack and deserve no further response.

    My original comments and follow up were made strictly out of respect for the hard work being put in to stage a fantastic event that I have enjoyed attending ( 3 outdoor USA Master Championships to date).

    I fully understand the legal issues and concerns about accountability and transparency.

    I disclosed my name as I have nothing about my identity to hide.

    Bruce Mintz

  22. Stephen Robbins - February 20, 2012

    Well said Bruce. It’s time for Ken Stone to bar comments from anonymous individuals. “A Master’s Runner” should not be able to hide his or her ignorance, arrogance, and rudeness behind a pseudonym.

  23. A Master's Runner - February 21, 2012

    Bruce–

    How surprising it is that your own style of discourse should appeal to no other than Stephen Robbins.

    I have a response that you may wish to read personally, involving 4.06 (1)

    I will proceed based upon your response to this post.

    Other than that, suffice it to say that masters athletes should aspire to a higher standard of conduct than other athletes, exhibiting the benefit of their longer experience and potentially greater wisdom. Attorneys, in particular, should endeavor to conform both their “personal and professional conduct” to “the highest standards”.

  24. Pete Magill - February 21, 2012

    Hiding behind a pseudonym while insulting other posters hardly exhibits the “highest standards,” and doing so while presuming to lecture on the law is truly ironic.

  25. Stephen Robbins - February 21, 2012

    A Master’s Runner–On behalf of all those with the courage to put their names with their remarks, I say it’s time for you to reveal your identity and your “intellectual credentials” or shut up!

  26. A Master's Runner - February 21, 2012

    Pete–If I communicate with Bruce personally, if even only unilaterally, it will be for professional reasons, and out of consideration for him personally.

    His comment touched a nerve–he appears to be, in his self-identified capacity as an attorney, more concerned about his thousand dollars than about the lawful investigation of legal allegations of unlawful activity by a governing organization. Law is a profession. A lawyer does not stop being a lawyer, only to wear another hat and act in any way that would be in non-conformity with the rules of conduct; this concept is articulated in all such rules, expressly in those of Alberta.

    But nobody’s perfect, of course, including Bruce. I was merely attempting to bring to his attention a dimension of his conduct different from the dimension of understanding the legal issues and concerns about accountability and transparency, but which may in any case be relevant to his self-described identity as an attorney.

    It’s not a big deal, in any event.

    Stephen–Yes, let’s move the discussion from the realm of substance, to an entirely different and irrelevant realm, where you hope to have an increased chance of success.

    ONE WORD from Ken, and I will disappear. Until such time, it appears that you are denied the tyranny of framing the limits of the debate.

    Admittedly, this is wearisome, and perhaps largely pointless.

    I welcome all good faith attempts to increase accountability and transparency in the affairs of governing bodies that operate as parts of a state-sanctioned paradigm.

    UP with justice, DOWN with banned substances.

  27. Marek Wensel - February 21, 2012

    I almost forgot what this post was originally concerning…seems like we got a bit off track. First, for the sake of full disclosure, I am not currently entered in the Indoor Championship Meet. It appears that some out there have approached this recent lawsuit with a great deal of suspicion with regards to USATF-IN as well as the individuals involved. With all of this discussion of high standards and lawfulness, I’m surprised that someone didn’t raise the principle of “presumption of innocence”. While the lawsuit MAY BE founded, it is at least as likely to be a frivilous lawsuit which may have far-reaching effects on hundreds of people. I’m all for justice, but let’s stay consistent. I for one will stand behind the individuals involved until I learn of evidence to the contrary.

  28. A Master's Runner - February 21, 2012

    Marek: “With all of this discussion of high standards and lawfulness, I’m surprised that someone didn’t raise the principle of “presumption of innocence””.

    Because this is a civil matter and not a criminal matter, there is no “presumption of innocence”, as such–but the burden of persuasion belongs initially to the plaintiffs Mosbrucker and Collesano, which is why I wrote:

    “The initial allegations of impropriety or irregularity are just that–unproved allegations. Although for me the actions of INUSATF do not initially pass the smell test, that’s neither here nor there, because I’m not in possession of the facts necessary to make a reasoned decision.”

    From my comment on Feb. 20

    You are quite correct, Marek, that nothing has yet been proven. Both Mosbrucker and Collesano are asking the court for orders to permit them to examine INUSATF records; Collesano is also asking that Key and Thomas be removed by the court from their respective positions as president and board member, and treasurer and board member, of INUSATF.

    I find your attitude temperate and most admirable in view of the tone of this thread.

  29. Cory - February 21, 2012

    I think that people who want their day in court should get it. I also believe that both Americans and Canadians NEED events that foster physical fitness. Currently obesity and chronic illness are winning and we should have more events that offer a solution, not less!

  30. troy dietz - February 22, 2012

    Awesome!you didn’t let me dowm! After a disappointingly well written post #6 you rallied hard and returned to form imitating a 2nd tier law school professor with a chip on his shoulder. I did have to wait for the 2nd to last sentence in post #26 to get my “paradigm” fix, but better late than never. I’m going to borrow your “without evidentiary support, and is therefore conclusory.” line tonight at the bar when I’m arguing about the game. Like you, I won’t credit the source either.
    BTW, what was this thread about? high standards of conduct for lawyers or something? or the possibility of a big meet being cancelled?

  31. A Master's Runner - February 23, 2012

    Thanks, Troy!

    I will happily take a bashing from someone with character.

  32. troy dietz - February 23, 2012

    To quote Cal Naughton jr. from ‘Talladega Nights’..”I’ll tell you the truth, I’m a little confused by your tactics……yeah, so I’m gonna keep acting tough until I figure it out….See ya on the track.”

  33. A Master's Runner - February 23, 2012

    My bad–Mosbrucker’s suit is against the USATF, not the INUSATF, as I incorrectly suggested in an earlier post. Only upon reading Mosbrucker’s attorney’s post did I take a closer look at the filings and realize the error.

  34. A Master's Runner - February 23, 2012

    The source of my confusion was that Mosbrucker first made a request for INUSATF records on November 10, and only later, on December 16, made the request of USATF.

    The INUSATF request is available in the link provided by Mosbrucker’s attorney, but the USATF request is not–it is an appendix to Mosbrucker’s court filing, that does not appear in the links provided.

    Although I haven’t seen it, I am guessing that it requests USATF records insofar as they relate to USATF’s dealings with INUSATF.

    It would be interesting to hear BOTH USATF’s and INUSATF’s reasons for denying the respective requests made by Mosbrucker and Collesano.

    It would be less interesting if they came forward with the records before the court has a chance to act, for no reason other than incompetence, or that they were dragging their feet…in which case, they should be liable for attorney’s fees. What a waste of money that would represent, if sloth was the reason.

  35. Anthony Treacher - February 24, 2012

    From my experience, athletics officers refuse information mainly because:

    1. They are inefficient.

    2. They see you as an inferior being.

    3. They have something to hide.

  36. Dude - February 27, 2012

    I know Mosbrucker. He’s a complete narcissistic psychopath.

  37. mark williamson - February 27, 2012

    Hey, he should see the records and that should be the end of it. If there is something that comes from it, the members, or athletes should know what the details if a valid question is raised as a result. Get it out in the open. Lets clear the air. Take it to the track. What ever it takes. We do need to maintain a healthy organization promoting sports, exercise, lifestyle change, and we dont need it being torn apart. We will find out soon enough. If its just a matter of seeing it then perhaps its time the records were put on the net for all to see.

  38. Anthony Treacher - February 29, 2012

    Calling somebody a “Complete narcissistic psychopath” is so cute. It falls under my category:

    2. They see you as an inferior being.

    I would then guess that what your athletics bodies also did – as the British Masters Athletics Federation (BMAF) did in my case – is to rule in secret that there is to be no contact with Mr. M., and probably without informing him – as in my case. Ha, ha, ha.

    That would have the desired effect of further provoking Mr. M. thus proving that the athletics bodies were right in their treatment of him from the start. QED. All conjecture mind you…..

Leave a Reply