M45 Tony Young superfit for Sacto nationals, but isn’t entered yet
Tony Young
About Ken Stone
Ken has followed track as an athlete, writer and web-master since the late 1960s, and saw most sessions of track and field at the 1984 Los Angeles and 1996 Atlanta Olympics. He also attended the 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 Trials, the last three as a blogger and Patch correspondent. [More...]
Ken Stone
-
54 Responses
Tony isn’t the only M45 who has not entered. Entries are pretty slim in the sprint and middle distance events for M45. Where is everybody?
Jeff: This is a classic “good news/bad news” situation. The good news is that even you, a fine middle distance runner but not known as a sprinter (albeit you are a good kicker), could go directly to the finals in the M45 100 at Sacramento. There are only 5 entrants. Thus, additional sprinters should be happy to enter, as a spot in the finals looks guaranteed right now.
In the M45 800 there are 4 entrants, and thus again anyone who enters (barring a flood of entrants in the last few hours) will make the final. In the M45 1500 there are 8 entrants.
As you know, the last masters outdoors with a good turnout was Charlotte (2006). In that year in M45 there were (exclusive of Canadians and others without a USATF no.) 39 entrants in the 100, compared to this year’s 5. In the M45 800 there were 28 entrants, versus 4 for this year. In the M45 1500 there were 34 entrants, against 8 for this year.
I do believe we will got a lot of entrants over the final 29 hours (regular entry closes tomorrow). How could people not enter Sacramento? It will be a great meet.
Nice to have a blog post where commenting on the entries for Sacto fits right in.
Does appear that entries are really starting to pick up. And, as we predicted, PT, a lot of entries coming in late from california clubs.
Will be a great meet (unless it’s 100 degrees and the steeple is run mid-day).
I’ll be there to toe the line with my M45 buds even if I am 3 days shy of M50. Count on me Jim. Registering today or tomorrow.
KP
Yes, Mellow Johnny, the Calif clubs are coming in now. (I think we have to give Mark Cleary some credit for that prediction.) Ironically, as I look at the entries I see quite a bit of strength in the middle distances; it is in the sprints where we are really lacking.
Lot of good throwers, including Neni Lewis, Carol Finsrud, and javelin artiste Monica Kendall among the women. Olympian Ed Burke will be one of the standouts among the men.
Mellow Johnny, based on what I have seen to date you will run the steeplechase about 1:55 PM on Friday. Hope that suits you.
Mail in entries might be on their way. I sent mine by snail mail. Most likely it will be there tomorrow. It really should go by the postmark date, NOT the date it was received, hopefully it will arrive tomorrow since I am local and many others may have mailed it from California as well.
Personally, I’d like to see the on-time entry deadline after the Hayward Classic meet. Worst case scenario, I’d sign up on Friday, rip a groin on Sunday and throw away $85. If the entry deadline was after Hayward, I could better determine which SAC events to sign up for…Do I have the endurance to sign up for the 400 or do I just keep it to the 100/200. Is an 800 a possibility for SAC based on my 400 Hayward race? Any others feel the deadline is too early? And, not to beat a dead horse on this one but is $50 too steep of a late entry fee? Actually, the money isn’t a big deal since I’ve already budgeted for it but I still hate to throw away the $85 when I don’t have to…Thoughts?
Fidel, Andy Hecker has been a critic of early entry for many years. Here’s an editorial on his site:
http://trackinfo.org/editorial.html
I agree. With a 4 week early entry fee, that is a bit extreme. 2 weeks maybe.
I help with the Hi-Tek and Finishlynx systems at the high school level, including large invitationals (1500+ athletes) and the state tournament. I agree that 4 weeks out is too early, and for comparison’s sake the entry deadline for Club Nationals is July 5 for a meet that starts July 9. Now that’s a much smaller meet, and I wouldn’t advocate that short of time for Masters Nats (sorry Andy), but 2 weeks should be reasonable.
However, the key is to have people who know what they’re doing, and have the time to do so. We don’t want a repeat of what happened in Wash DC.
Another item to note is that some folks wish to see heat sheets and/or a final schedule as soon as possible. Can’t really do that until after the final entry deadline and have it be realistic. Because as we see every year, most people will wait as long as possible before they enter.
A possible solution, since computers make it relatively easy, is allow people to enter online but pay only the basic entry fee and 50% of per-event fees (paying a portion may prevent some from entering events they know they are not likely to actually compete). Give them until 2 weeks out to declare online and pay the rest of per-event fees then. Mail in entries pay everything up front.
Great ideas and solutions Jeff. I would like to comment on the pre-schedule-heat sheets topic. Even before the early registration deadline, it IS possible to at least post a pending schedule. We see this all the time with other meets including college, PA meets, club meets etc.
At least folks would have an idea of when the heats and finals would be held. They never change that drastically; like all of a sudden 30 more 45+ guys signing up for the 800 at the last second. So I vote for a pending schedule and heat sheet with time allowances that can always be altered a bit a few weeks out, it also helps alert family and friends who may want to come cheer us on.
Agree 100%, Matt. We’ve been told by Bob Burns via an e-mail to Ken that:
“You’re correct that all races 1,500 and (over) will be run in the morning. Generally speaking, all races 1500 or longer will be in the early morning and every effort will made to have oldest age groups run at the coolest times. Some distance races can be run Thursday night as well.”
So the question is when exactly will the distance events (specifically the steeplechase for me) be run? Morning or night? Makes a difference in terms of travel, etc.
Fidel I’m with you…
I sooo wanted to wait post Hayward to see how I was doing. I had to just bite the bullet and spring those $85 American from my custody. I thought Haywards’ on-time cut-off was early too. But what do I know, I just show up and run. Someone else (thank God for them) is handling the administration and logistics of these big meets.
Mellow Johnny, I don’t know any more than you do, but I interpret the sentence “Some distance races can be run Thursday night as well.” to be referring to the 5000 run. I can’t see, for example, running a race on Thursday that is scheduled for Friday (such as the 5000 racewalk or the 3000 or 2000 steeplechase).
In terms of the 5000 RUN, we now have 144 competitors. Still to come are entrants who come in in the next 20 hours (no penalty), late entrants, and Canadians, Europeans, etc., who are not listed at usatf.org. Let’s say 160 for a final number in the 5000, with 32 (20%) scratches to give us 128.
We could squeeze those 128 into eight races of 16. My prediction would be that six of those races would be run in the morning (last one finishing about 10:30 or so) and the other two in the evening. But remember, I know nothing. I am just trying to be logical and draw reasonable conclusions. And remember also that we could have nine 5000s, not just eight.
The main point is that a race of 160 entrants or so is not “a race” — it is a series of races and will take several hours to complete (in the case of the 5000, at least).
I would have to agree, PT. And several entrants are in the steeple and the 5K so wouldn’t be fair to them to have them held the same day.
That leaves the steeple in the “early morning.” Traditionally, it’s been mid-day in the heat. However, Bob Burns was clear in regards to “early morning” and I think we need him/them to that statement. I registered based on that info and hope they come through.
The problem comes down to planning and money. I think there should be an automatic qualifying. I can’t afford to fly out to Sacramento, pay for a hotel for four nights and get a rental car….If I knew I only had to run a final, I could maybe work that out. All this formality in running a “championship” meet is too much! We are different, we are masters. We don’t need to run rounds to eliminate a few guys. Wouldn’t it be great to assemble all the top guys in each event? This will probably not happen under this format. How about using some of this wasted drug testing money to cover some minor expenses?
Gary, I like your fifth, sixth, and seventh sentences:
All this formality in running a “championship” meet is too much!
We are different, we are masters.
We don’t need to run rounds to eliminate a few guys.
Commentary: Last year (Oshkosh) we had preliminaries listed in the 800 for five groups: M60, M55, M50, M45, and M40. All the races were to be run on Thursday, with the finals on Saturday afternoon. These are clearly “working-age” groups, and the men involved had to decide whether to take off work and whether to opt for an extended stay in Oshkosh (additional dollars, etc.).
Not surprisingly, four of the five races rolled to a final. Yes, the qualifying races were not even run (except for M50), and the athletes who did show up on Thursday accomplished only one thing: they preserved their places in the final on Saturday afternoon. Those who elected not to show up forfeited their right to run in Saturday’s final.
And don’t forget the third group, the men who months earlier had looked at the schedule, figured they would probably be listed as having to run an 800 trial on Thursday (although not necessarily to run it), and simply opted out of that event or even the meet altogether, reducing the quality of the championship and the total intake of revenues.
BTW, when trials are indeed run, in some cases they eliminate just one runner (here I am talking primarily about the indoors and not our outdoor nationals).
Masters athletes are very much different from open athletes, and thus they should have markedly different rules. But I realize I have said this numerous times before and thus risk the scorn of readers who will say, “Why can’t that guy stop repeating himself?” The problem, of course, is that masters T&F is very resistant to change and simply maintains the course. Things stay the same, and thus one must say the same thing over and over (and get blamed for saying it).
In terms of Sacramento: Latest estimate (7 AM Friday EDT) is that we have 1075 athletes signed up. With some more regular entries today, with late entries in the next few days (including $50 penalty), and with entries from Canada and other countries generally not included at this point, we should have little trouble breaking 1200.
This may be a dim view of how registration for Nationals could be formatted but why can’t it follow the same format as the local college meets? Sign up on a Tuesday(via direct athletics) and run on Saturday? In this case, sign up the week before and run on the following Thursday. Does 1200 athletes justify a one month entry deadline? The Portland Track Festival had hundreds of athletes in many age-groups and they used direct athletics. Aside from multiple heats and some delays, the meet went smoothly. Just my 2 cents.
Sadly, fellas, I think we’re preaching to the choir in regards to the early entry issue. Sacto will only be my third masters Nats meet yet all three times were precluded by these exact discussions and nothing has changed. My guess is that nothing will.
So the early registration deadline came and went…how are we looking for #’s PT? Looks like some people got in at the very last minute.
I knew you would be on this, Mellow Johnny. The entries are now in, at least those that made it in before the deadline. Now we enter the penalty phase, and I just cannot see too many people paying the penalty. Why?
Because for months people have been hearing about this meet — it’s in the same location as next year’s worlds, it’s in a hotbed of masters T&F, etc. Why would someone not enter and then say, “Wait a second; now that I have to fork over $50 more I think I will enter.”
Anyway, on May 25 I abandoned an actual full count and went to counting entries and then dividing by 2.3, which is my trusted formula. On that day there were 271 event entries — dividing by 2.3 would give 117.8 entrants. And just how many actual entrants were there at that point? Answer: 118. This is a very good formula.
I thought about doing a real count today after the deadline but found it just too time-consuming. There is such a danger of seeing a “John Williams,” for example, and then 250 names later seeing a “John Williamson” and wondering whether the first name was indeed Williams or Williamson. And so I went back to my trusted shortcut.
Right now we have 2832 event entries: divided by 2.3 gives 1231 estimated entrants, which based on my experience is very close to the true number. It looks like we will end up with 1300 or so, a symbolic number. Why? If we reach 1300 we will do so after 9 years (2001-2009) in which we hit that number only once (and we have hit it only 5 times in our history, I believe). Where was that recent good turnout? Charlotte 2006, of course, with 1367.
Re your steeplechase, Mellow Johnny, you caught a break, as there are only 72 in the 5000 racewalk (should be 4 races). Right now, with a 7:30 start on Friday (could be a different time — what do I know?) I see you running your 3000 steeplechase at about 12:50 PM. Again, with only 4 racewalks in a meet with a good turnout you have caught a huge break, but what do I know? Could be 5 racewalks.
So Pete. If there are only 9 in the M45 800 does an 800/1500 guy still have to fly to SAC Wed pm only to clerk-in for Thur semis only to be waived to the final Sat only to waste 3 days of time & $ because he HAS to be present for that clerk-in? I know the answer from experience but wanted to see if I’m missing something.
Thanks.
KP,
I’m guessing that we won’t even be scheduled for a semi on Thursday, unless there’s more than 3 mail-ins or late entries to put us over 12. We’ll just have to wait until the final schedule is posted to see for sure, whenever that will be.
I’m going to drive over on Thu anyway to watch a lot of my buds run the 5000 and their 800 semis. Fortunately, I can drive back home and don’t have to come back until Sat morning.
Jeff
Well, Kevin, the answer is that the schedule will be posted around July 7 or so (don’t know exact date), and it will indicate that there is no 800 trial for M45. Thus, that race will not exist and you don’t have to clerk in for a race that doesn’t exist.
Interestingly, however, I dimly recall a nationals of about 3 years ago in which there was a rumor that you had to check in at preliminary time even if you did not have a prelim. I think that was eventually quashed.
Are you and I in agreement that you will not have to be present on Thursday?
BTW, Kevin, when I lived in Philadelphia I used to go the IC4A championships a lot (at either Franklin Field [Penn] or Villanova). I always found the qualifying day more exciting than the finals, as people went absolutely all out to try to make the finals the next day (Saturday). In contrast, I find that trials in masters are quite uninteresting, for 3 reasons:
(1) No one is really certain who is qualifying and who isn’t, even the announcer. Is Joe far enough up to qualify, or is he not?
(2) Many of the runners do not go at full speed, as a runner like Nolan Shaheed, Charles Allie, or Bill Collins is so far above the qualifying minimum that he can run 70% and still make the final.
(3) Often, especially indoors, only 1 or 2 runners in the trials don’t make the finals. BION,* in the indoors I have sometimes seen EVERYONE make the finals.
In general, I think we have way too many trials.
* Believe it or not.
(2) (really?) You used the word “many”,. More than a few perhaps, but not many. 70% of a 11 second 100 will not get you into any finals, nor will 70% effort from a 2:10 800 runner.
Mens 800:
So 24 runners or so, minus a few scratches in the men’s 800. Will there be trials Thursday?
Well, Matt, I have seen Bill Collins run only about 35 meters in a 60-meter qualifier and still qualify (and he finished FIRST). He stopped driving about 35 meters and simply let his momentum carry him to the finish. I would have called that about a 55% effort. I distinguish that from running at 55% speed.
In terms of the M40 800, you will have a trial on Thursday. I don’t know what the cutoff has been –I think about 13, and it has varied a bit. Theoretically, on a 9-lane track when faced with a 13-man field (13 who had declared) they could easily say: “Let’s roll this to a final on Saturday.”
Anything at 14 or 15 (declared, that is), I think they will say: “Run a trial on Thursday.”
Yes, 70% effort is different than 70% speed. sorry about that.
Hopefully my inflamed achilles will hold up until then. The 800 heats are after the 5000, that will be a bit tough for those entered in both.
run as easily as possible to make top 4 I guess. Or is it top 2 from each heat and then the next fastest 4 or 5 runners?
Thanks Pete and Jeff. will wait for the final schedule to change my glight or not. I too prefer to run prelims as that’s what its all about. Nat Champs are about competing against others vs the stopwatch. It’s too bad we struggle to fill the fields. Thought for sure the Californians locale would ramp up to the days of Hayward Field.
See you Thursday or Saturday.
No problem, Matt. I wasn’t clear — I meant 70% effort, as I indicate in post no. 26. Kevin, you are the runner, not me; I haven’t run a race since 2001 or 2002, when I ran a 15,000, and thus I appreciate your preference for running prelims.
If up to me, I would have had a split final. Had there been 18 runners instead of 9 I would have put you, Pete Magill, Kevin Forde, Jeff Mann, David Jones, Jim Watts, and possibly Mr. Blackmore in the seeded section (as well as 2 unknown others). Would have had you run in the second race so that you could see what the unseeded winner did. But I see that you prefer going at it twice.
BTW: On another post (Neni Lewis) I reported the fact that Robert Thomas won the exhibition 100 at the open nationals. Eric Merriweather was second and Ron Potocnik was third. Lyndon Herzberg did not show, but neither did Lonnie Hooker or Reggie Pendland.
I’ve been complaining about this crazy registration deadline for 23 years, starting with my first National Championships in 1987. At that point I had only been involved in organizing and officiating track meets for 17 years (so now I’ve been doing this for over 40 years), but it seemed like an absurd policy.
Obviously other people had the same opinion. Two years later, at the National Championships in San Diego, I registered in person at the meet and took away three medals. I also met the founder of Masters Track, David Pain who organized the meet.
Our founder must have had some really bad ideas, or San Diego must have been a terribly organized meet (neither of which I think are true) because since then our administrators have made the entry procedures more oppressive.
I tried to join them. I’ve been on the Executive Committee, I’ve been on the local committees, I’ve been to 8 national conventions, I’ve given technical lectures and I’ve organized meets for over a decade, ALL with day of meet registration to give these folks a positive example. I’ve volunteered to do the same thing for the National Championships–same day, computer registration, instant results, the works–just to show them it is possible. As the world’s technological capabilities have increased exponentially, the results from USATF are: not a bit of progress. In fact, they’ve dug in their heels and have made the registration deadlines less friendly. I don’t speak the company line, so I’m a pariah. I have been deliberately kept away from the most recent Southern California bid to host the National Championships. One administrator even tried to sabotage my meet organization system.
Year after year, these people act out of fear: What if too many people show up, what if not enough show up? What are they going to do, cancel the meet? Add a day to the schedule? If you’ve ever been to a track meet, what do we do? We adjust. If everything went to form, lets just mail in our times and be done with it.
The short answer is, I can’t do anything more against this wall of ignorance put up by the people in charge of this meet and our masters meets in general. Its going to take more voices than mine. Please speak up to the people who control our sport. I can’t pull their fingers out of their ears alone.
Andrew: I think we would benefit from having a clear statement made by USATF Masters on why, just in this particular case (2010), the regular entries had to be received at least 27 days before the meet began. Once we see the rationale we could formulate a response. Clearly, it cannot be the size of the meet, as only once in its history did this meet exceed 1500 entrants.
That would have been in the year 2000, when we had 1503. We have a general schedule laid out — if we get a few more racewalkers than we anticipate, for example, we can go from 4 racewalks to 5 or whatever the numbers and ages dictate. This does not seem to justify a 27-day requirement.
Perhaps the issue is with Indianapolis — maybe the main office wants 27 days for our particular meet; I certainly do not know. That is why we need a clear, unambiguous statement as to why there must be a 27-day lead time.
If I go to the hospital emergency room with signs of a stroke I don’t want to wait 27 days to be seen, and there is every reason for the ER not to wait 27 days. Is there a reason in the case of masters T&F and its annual championship to have this 27-day period?
PT, this is not a decision from the National Office. This is idea is led by key administrators on the National USATF Masters Committee. These are the people who are sent there (or at least the only one who have volunteered) to make these decisions. The leadership has changed several times over but the mindset remains the same. And the only argument any of them has ever presented is their unchangeable statement that “It can’t be done.”
Since this early deadline yesterday, I went to a local All Comers meet where I spoke with three other people who have not registered for the National Championships because they either didn’t know about it or had other last minute decisions that had to take priority over attending a track meet. How many other possible attendees are these policies discouraging from coming? You want more participation–here they are.
For those anticipating seeding, Sacramento is an 8 lane track, with the 9th lane only available for races under 200 meters.
Rule 332 2 (a) reads: In order to complete the National Track and Field Championships within the schedule, the Masters Track and Field Committee may adopt and publish a table for advancement to replace that of Rule 166.1(h), as long as the principles for advancement are maintained: advancement is primarily by
place; and at least two, and preferably three or more, competitors will advance on place from any heat to the subsequent round.
The rules also call for timed finals for events 1500 and over, with a maximum of 24 per heat. So that really leaves just 400 and 800 meter races in question. And the necessary interpretation of whether 8 or 9 field event competitors go to the final.
I have not seen them publish what their procedures will be yet.
Thanks, Andrew. Ruling out Indianapolis as a source of this requirement (for an early deadline) indeed tells me something. Yes, we should be following policies that are fair and encourage participation.
Ironically, we are going to have a good turnout this year, but next year (Berea) and 2012 (Lisle) will give us some challenges. We need to be constantly vigilant in this area. Getting a nice turnout is always a tough assignment for masters, as is getting records accepted. Well, we will see what happens.
Question, What is the latest date that a foreign competitor can enter and do they show up on the status of entry page?
Don’t know the answer to the first, Tony, but with the exception of one Canadian athlete (whose name I will not divulge, although she probably doesn’t care — OK, her initials are RT), they will NEVER be listed. You will go to the meet and find them there, and this year I expect a lot of Canadians.
In terms of their entry deadline I can’t believe it is anything other than the deadline for people from the US (do not know for sure, of course).
I agree, PT. Probably a lot of Canadiens entering in preparation for Worlds.
Lot of discussion amongst the small steeple group at Hayward yesterday about the time for the steeple. Lot of concern that “early morning” for all races 1500m and longer apparently won’t apply to the steeple.
And “early morning” doesn’t apply to the other races either, Mellow Johnny. As you know, the 10,000 run goes as the first event on Saturday. As you probably do not know, there are 116 entrants in the 10,000 before the late, late entries and the Canadians. Let’s say they end up with a total of 122. If the first race goes off at 7:30 AM and they run 7 races, 1 each hour, that means the last one goes off at 1:30 PM, does it not, Mellow Johnny (and ends after 2:00 PM)?
You’re right, I didn’t know there were 116 in the 10K. Wow. And, as usual, you’re right again that the 10K won’t end in the early morning at all (does it always take that long?).
I guess the difference (minor) is they can at least say “the 10K started in the early morning” whereas the steeple likely will not without rearranging the schedule which is what I’m hoping they’ll do.
Mellow Johnny: The average time of the last-place finisher in the 10,000s at Oshkosh was 1 hr, 1 minute, I believe. Just think how long it will take to run 7 10,000-m races at Sacramento.
7 hrs 7 mins + transition time…awhile for sure…
How do you see them splitting up steeple heats?
As it stands now:
30-34 = 2 entrants
35-39 = 1 entrant
40-44 = 7 entrants
45-49 = 7 entrants
50-54 = 5 entrants
55-59 = 9 entrants
17 & 14 seems like a lot for the first heat if they split it at 50….
Mellow Johnny, I have forgotten more about masters T&F than you will ever know, and so I will give you my predictions:
1. This meet will be characterized by a lot of “stacking.” Faced with fitting many hours of trials into the 4-day schedule, the meet will have a lot of sections in the FINALS that will look too large at first glance.
2. There will be a lot of scratching in this meet, in part because people entered so early (some who entered in May or June will be injured by the time the meet comes around and not even show up). This will blunt the effects of the “stacking” in no. 1. A race that was stacked with 22 runners, for example, may scratch to 14.
3. As noted above, there will be a ton of trials. Concerning Friday, right now, I believe, we need trials in the M40, M50, and M55 110/100 hurdles. Setting up the hurdles for two different race distances, different heights, and different spacings, plus running the events, will take about 40 to 45 minutes. Thus, you can add about 40-45 minutes to the point at which you start steeplechasing.
4. You are correct: In the 3000 steeple they will most likely go with M50 and M55 combined, then M30, M35, M40, and M45 combined. I think I now have you running your specific race (the last 3000 steeple) about 1:35 PM. That depends a lot, of course, on 3 things, as yet unknown: (a) Will the first race of the day be at 7:00 or 7:30? (b) Will there be 4 racewalks or 5? (c) Will the number of age groups with trials in the hurdles drop from 3 to 2?
We will see.
I think if they just adjust the order of events around it shouldn’t be a problem. For example flip-flop the hurdle/100 trials with the steeple so that the longer races would be in the morning. Also plan on having 2 session per day. Continuing with the Friday events, begin the evening session at 5:30 or 6:00, yes it’s still hot but the sun is lower and there will be shade at the stadium by then, with the hurdle finals and end with the 400’s under the lights. As a sprinter I can tell you most of us don’t mind running for 10-15 seconds in the heat. I live in Sacramento and it’s going to be 104 today so I know what I’m talking about.
Completely agree with those ideas, Rod. Thanks for being understanding of distance runner issues as a sprinter (not all that common unfortunately)
104 degrees today?!?!?! It would be absurd to run a steeple in that heat. Wouldn’t be fun to run 100m either but, as you pointed out, 10-15 sec is better than 10-15 minutes!
Thanks as always for your wisdom, PT. With scratches, my heat (no pun intended) could be down to 12-14 by the time it’s all said and done.
Now, Mellow Johnny, with Rod Jett introducing some new ideas, this could be very interesting. In Oshkosh, of course, we simply plowed through the events one by one and had no special adjustments. I like the idea of innovation, with the steeple contested earlier, the use of an evening session, etc.
I think I was misled by looking at the preliminary schedule, which is pretty straightforward. Thus, the key will be the appearance of the final schedule at some point next week. Let me check now to see when the final schedule for Oshkosh was put up. OK, it was posted on June 25 and then reposted as the final, final schedule on June 26.
Because Oshkosh started on July 9, we can see that the final schedule was posted exactly 2 weeks before the first day of the meet, then adjusted 1 day later. For us, that would mean a final schedule will be posted on July 8, or a week from this Thursday. Normally, the posting of the final schedule is not considered a big event in and of itself, but this year it will be for sure.
Big meets hosted in Sacramento in the past, NCAA’s, USATF Champs, and Olympic Trials, have always had evening sessions so I would be shocked if that were not the case this year (and next). FYI today’s temperature is a worst case scenario. It was 90 degrees at noon. Normally on a 93-95 degree day it would probably be more like 80 degrees at noon.
I find myself very encouraged by what you’ve posted, Rod (thank you!).
You’ve nailed it on the head, PT, that the final schedule is what is vital here.
The initial schedule posted on usatf.org was posted February 19th and I have no doubt it was just copied off of the common order of events and that is all.
I find myself encouraged that the steeple and other distance events will truly be in the early morning or possibly evening due to the the following:
1) the usatf.org site says all races 1500m and longer will be run in the early morning
2) Bob Burns has said via Ken they will be
3) Rod’s comments
Yes, Mellow Johnny, I think you should be moderately encouraged. Now, the question is whether the original schedule (Feb. 19) was just put up to “get something out there” (not a bad idea, actually, because it shows newcomers that we run 100 through 10,000; do the 2000 and 3000 steeplechase; run the standard hurdle events; do the regular throws, etc.), or did it mean something more?
If it was just a general notice that would tell people your 400 trial is on Thursday, your steeplechase is on Friday, etc., that is one thing. If it was supposed to be specific, that is another. Can’t wait until July 8 to find out.
Right with you, PT. July 8th is a big day all of a sudden.
I’m with you that I think it was listed simply to tell people the day(s) their event will be contested. While, in my third year, I’m already well aware that the steeple is always held on Friday, I remember Spokane (my first year) and not having a clue about anything: do I have to qualify? when is the qualifying round if there is one? what day do I compete? etc., etc.
Sacramento is right up there with Eugene in that they know how to run a track meet. Rod makes an excellent point about that. They’ve held races in the evening sessions at all those meets as he said. If they’ve done it for the youngsters, they obviously “get” that they need to do it for us old folks.
Well, Mellow Johnny, I may know a lot about masters T&F, but I think I have made an error. The only way to make sense of everything from the local committee, from Rod Jett, from the posted schedule, etc., etc. is that we will indeed run most of the longer races in either the morning or the evening.
I went for the bait, Mellow Johnny, thinking that the order of events in the preliminary schedule was the actual order. Now I think it will NOT be the order. I think you should be encouraged, Mellow Johnny. I now think you will run about 9:30 AM as the last of the steeplechases. How is that?
9:30am? Music to my ears, PT…music to my ears
Either 9:30 AM or 8:00 PM, Mellow Johnny. If the racewalk goes to the evening then I think you will get your 9:30 slot. Otherwise, I think you go to the evening. This is pure speculation, however.
I’ll take either of those, PT.
Now that entries have officially closed (and are listed with the hourly “refresh,” what are the #’s looking like for Sacramento, PT?
Over 1400, Mellow Johnny.
PT
Jeff was correct. No semi for 45-49 800 meters, just a final on Saturday.
Leave a Reply