Invitational program pits age groups against each other
Happy new year! And welcome to the new world order of Mark Cleary’s Masters Invitational Program. These are races (never field events) conducted as exhibition events at the USATF open indoor and outdoor nationals (and a select few other meets, such as Millrose and the Drake Relays). After several years of being hammered for catering to younger age groups exclusively, Chairman Mark has devised a new system — if you call pitting age group against age group a system.
This new deal gets Mark off the hook for choosing the fields for the masters 200-meter exhibition events at the USATF indoor nationals in late February.
Instead of just letting the older geezers take their turn (which would be a first), he’s making M40s, M50s, M60s and M70s fight for the right to race at Boston. (Same for the women.) Let the most-organized age group win! It’s perfect! As CIA spooks would say: “Plausible deniability.”
Here’s how the system is described on the MIP Web entry page:
“Athletes interested in competing must submit an Application Form before the entry deadline. Completion of an Application Form does NOT mean an athlete is entered in the meet. USATF will take applications that meet the time standard in each 10-year age group. Based on the athletes who respond, USATF will age-grade the field for each 10-year age group and see which 10-year age group has the most competitive field.
“At least 8 entries per age group must be received for a specific age group to be considered. The field size will be 6, and 2 alternates will be designated. Athletes will be notified of their selection and will be expected to pay their entry fee at packet pick-up.”
Here are the qualifying standards:
To apply for entry into masters invitational events, you must have met the following standards during the 2005 or 2006 seasons.
Event Age Group
Standards Field Size
Masters Men 200m
40-49: 23.75
50-59: 25.50
60-69: 27.00
70-79: 30.50 6
Masters Women 200m
40-49: 28.50
50-59: 30.50
60-69: 34.75
70-79: 41.50 6
Application Deadline and Entry Fee
The application deadline is 2/2/2005 at 6:00 p.m. PT. If selected (see the “Process” below), you must pay the entry fee of $25, in cash or by check, at packet pick-up.
Application Process
There will be no travel money available to athletes for this event.
Me again.
I first saw this system described in January’s National Masters News (page 14), but it was so poorly worded I gave up and fled to the USATF site.
(The NMN story is headlined “2006 Masters Invitational Program Off to a Fast Start,” and opens with this clear-as-mud statement: “The fields for the 200m events for masters men and women in the USA Open Championships in Boston in February, will be determined by which ten-year age group age-grades out the fastest.” (No need for a comma after February, y’all.)
Commas are the least of my worries, though. I’m concerned this is an attempt by Mark to 1) Give himself an “out” for not having older folks (M60 and over) racing in Boston, and 2) Allow him to say, “Hahaha. See! I’ve been right all along to feature the 40s in masters exhibition races at nationals. There just aren’t enough M60s and M70s to make a credible race.”
Another problem: Under these rules, the WMA Age Graded Tables will be used to sort out which age group has the best entrants. But which Age Graded Tables? The 1994 edition or the 2002 redo that has yet to be published? The distinction is important, since the new tables may favor older age groups over younger, or vice versa.
On the surface, Mark is throwing a wide net– inviting sprinters 40 to 79 to apply for a chance to run in Boston. Fine. Every age group gets a “fair shot.”
But lets look closer at this rigged game.
Here are M40-49 folks who met Mark’s 200 standard (23.75) in 2005:
21.49 WILLIE GAULT (404)
22.01 KETTRELL BERRY (384)
22.17 AARON THIGPEN (404)
22.70 COURTNEY MUHAMMAD (163)
22.83 PAUL BROWN (033)
22.91 ORLANDO MATTHEWS (271)
23.23 ROBERT HARDING (444)
23.27 TRENT HAGLER (357)
23.49 DAVID JONES (162*)
23.56 TOMMY BAKER (404)
23.56 DON FIELDS (011)
23.56 MICHAEL LABAY (093)
23.72 WILLIAM MARSHALL (442)
22.47 KEVIN MORNING (180)
22.63 ALLAN TISSENBAUM (492)
23.16 VAL BARNWELL (492)
23.32 JAMES CHINN (037*)
23.33 MARLON SAWYERS (022)
23.43 WILLIAM AUSTIN (012)
23.68 MARTIN KRULEE (378)
(20 under the standard outdoors)
Here are the 50-59 folks who met the standard (25.50) in 2005:
23.24 OSCAR PEYTON (122)
23.36 BILL COLLINS (442)
23.56 THOMAS JONES (033)
23.94 ROBERT BOWEN (135)
24.44 CHRISTOPHER OSORIO (022)
24.57 DAVID ORTMAN (513*)
24.66 GREG PIZZA (037*)
24.75 EDWARD GONERA (415)
24.93 THOMAS SMITH (265*)
25.02 RICHARD DOUGLAS (355*)
25.02 STEVE WORLEY (355*)
25.03 ROB DUNCANSON (404)
25.09 GARRY CRAWFORD (033)
25.14 CHARLES WILLIAMS (404)
25.28 RICHARD RIDDLE (425)
25.32 FRANCIS SCHIRO (404)
25.38 TRIP REYNOLDS (444)
25.40 CHARLIE POWELL (404)
24.25 CHARLES ALLIE (492)
24.70 RALPH PETTERSON (378)
25.09 MARION MCCOY (492)
25.15 MARK LESNIAK (355*)
25.43 BILL THARPE (492)
(23 under the standard outdoors)
But here are the M60-69 men who met their standard (27.00) in 2005:
24.87 STEPHEN ROBBINS (492)
24.99 ROGER PIERCE (415)
25.08 PAUL EDENS (355*)
25.24 DONALD NEIDIG (464)
26.28 MELVIN FIELDS (413)
26.36 TED KALAIDI (160*)
26.65 LARRY BARNUM (159)
26.65 ROBERT KOONTZ (122)
26.83 SAMUEL HALL (492)
26.85 SAI CHING (442)
26.53 BOB LIDA (265*)
26.80 DOUG SMITH (404)
26.80 ALBY WILLIAMS (255)
(13 under the standard outdoors)
And here are the M70-79 men who met their standard (30.50) in 2005:
27.28 BOBBY WHILDEN (265*)
28.97 PAUL JOHNSON (151*)
29.09 DENNIS MELANSON (265*)
29.26 LLOYD WILLIAMS (265*)
29.43 ROBERT CONZEMIUS (462)
29.81 JAMES LEGGITT (437)
30.03 ALAN BREVIK (265*)
30.06 ROBERT REID (265*)
30.26 BOB GOLLY (280)
30.27 JOE HOFFMAN (280)
30.40 JAMES WARE (265*)
30.44 WALTER PALMER (265*)
29.66 JAMES STOOKEY (265*)
29.94 DON CHEEK (492)
(14 under the standard outdoors)
So the odds favor the younger groups — who have appreciably more candidates for the races.
Secretly, I hope athletes don’t buy into this stacked system, which lets Mark shirk responsibility for showcasing the older age groups. I’d like to see the Willie Gaults and Bill Collinses tell Cleary to take a hike, and refuse to play this M40s vs. M70s game.
Boycott nationals.
4 Responses
and for the eligible women???? – not that I am a sprinter – and 41.50.6 for women 70-79 – huh – how many meet that?
And how about that male only Drake Relay masters mile – as usual women are just chopped liver –
No money, a stacked system – will anyone other than locals who manage to make it under this rather weird system turn up in Boston?
As for the masters (men only need apply ) Drake Relay -why am I surprised? After all women should not run that far, every one “knows” that that women are just too weak, lame brained, and slow so why bother with a showcase for them.
Indeed – no show case for master who do field events and no show case for women who are not sprinters.
I’m going to come to Mark’s defense here. There seem to be two competing schools of thought when it comes to staging these masters exhibition events: 1) They should showcase masters and serve as a recruiting tool for future generations of masters 2) They should be a reward shared equally by all masters.
Fine. Except that school of thought #2 only works if meet directors see these events as intrinsic parts of their meet, not subject to cancellation. They don’t.
Take the Drake masters mile. The event was cancelled by the meet director this year. The reason: last year’s race didn’t rise to the competitive level of the meet’s other races (jeez, John Hinton only ran a 4:18 mile to win). Though it didn’t fit into a lot of our schedules (the last place I want to be in April this year is on a track), many of us top masters 40+ milers agreed to run simply to give Mark enough clout to reopen discussions on including the race. With myself, Tony Young, Hinton, Peter Hegelbach, Nolan Shaheed, etc. agreeing to run, Mark was able to approach the meet director and get the race reinstated. Other masters athletes might not like that it’s a male-only, younger masters (except Nolan!) race, but the reality is that there would be NO race if Mark went any other way.
The same holds true for these USATF indoor and outdoor championship events. If anyone believes USATF is just begging Mark to put together these masters events, then they’re nuts. Mark goes through hell and high water to keep these events included in the meets. And that means presenting fields that please meet directors (even USATF meet directors); he simply can’t work to please all age divisions and event competitors in masters and keep these exhibitions happening. Wanting it to be different doesn’t make it different. And I’d hope we masters athletes are mature enough to accept that, that we’re mature enough not to kill the messenger (Mark) for being the bearer of that “bad” news.
Finally, I think it’s important that we keep races like Drake and the USATF exhibitions alive. When I was 21, I ran an indoor meet in Portland that featured a masters mile. The winner ran 4:35, and I was absolutely shell-shocked. It had never occurred to me that anyone 40 or over could run that fast. That day, 19 years before I turned 40, convinced me that I would run masters one day. Hopefully, every time one of these events takes place, there are other young athletes in the stands or in the meet thinking the same thing.
Do I value an age 75 javelin thrower as much as I do an age 40 male 1500 runner? Absolutely! I’ve never had more fun in my life than at masters cross-country and track championships! I intend to keep attending them – and cheering for each and every competitor – until I can’t compete anymore (hopefully never!).
But the reality is that sprints and the mile/1500 are the “glamour” events in track and field. These are the events Open meet directors are most interested in including in their meets (Mark’s done a great job edging outside that envelope). And the “younger” athletes tend to provide the kind of fields (and times) that keep meet directors happy – and keep masters events included in the next year’s meet.
So the question is: Do we refuse to participate in these events because the deck is “stacked” against older athletes and non-glamour events? Or do we support events that serve as human billboards for the masters movement?
There’s a phrase for the first possibility: cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Pete Magill and Dave Clingan definitely understand the complex issues of the program, which Ken seems unable to accept. I told Ken that there are parameters given to me by USATF which I have to follow( for example they will only allow 100m thru the Mile-Period) Please don’t confuse the Drake Relays with the Open In and Outdoor Champs–Drake wanted a Mile and we gave them a Mile which by the way made history 3 out of the past 4 years. I pushed for a Masters Women’s event at Drake for the past few years and their Board of Directors had no interest. We are currently working on a women’s 800m for the Outdoor meet at Arkansas. We will try to get this event in the
2006 meet, but it may not happen until 2007. Ken likes to make it sound like I create the rules and that the sky is the limit if I only wanted to see things his way–that’s not the truth and that’s not reality. Ken you might want to ask me about the program before you go off yet another time making assumptions as you do without the knowledge to make them. This just creates more ill will in the masters community.–Mark
Go Mark Go!
Get as much exposure for Masters Athletes as possible. Whether 40 or 90! I have been asked to do several of these events over the years and always train to be in great shape and put a little something special into the mix whatever the distance! Maybe an age graded, distance handicap race would appease all age categories? Not sure. Happy to race as an Official Master whenever possible.
peace
Leave a Reply