Masters national chairman Snyder sets deadline for Albu answers
Several days ago, an Albuquerque nationals entrant sent me an eloquent plea for resolution to the indoor records morass. The athlete listed six events where records were set but never acknowledged. The note closed by saying: “I haven’t even been given the courtesy of an official time.  I feel like all of us … runners are being treated like something of very little consequence, like we should just shut up and go away instead of insisting we be credited with times and records.â€
The athlete continued:
I was bummed out about this and I still am, because a record-breaking performance doesn’t happen that often. I hope to be able to recreate it next year at a meet that is sanctioned, but age and injury are the wild cards. But now I’m getting mad as well, and I think all of us need to demand that this be made right, and quickly. I’m not a malcontent and I don’t wish to be labeled as such, but this has gone on long enough. The Albuquerque competitors deserve better than this.
I contacted Gary Snyder, USATF Masters national track and field chariman, and he replied:
I agree and have set a deadline of April 12th for a response. I understand everyone’s frustration and while my committee is responsible it does not control all aspects of the situation. I personally appreciate everyone’s patience and understanding. My response will include a proposal for future meets.
But the issue isn’t merely a broken timing system. It’s a train wreck of a record-keeping system.
At the very least, a shakeup in administration is long overdue. No single person should be judge, jury and executioner on what records are listed as pending on the USATF website and what records are ignored.
Yet that’s our situation today. I’ve done my best — with petition drives, smackdowns, interviews with masters swimming officials — but all to no avail. If you think the status quo is fine, then remain silent. But if you want change — real change — pipe in here and write your leadership. Gary Snyder can be reached at lyonssnyder@att.net.
14 Responses
Thank you, Ken. It does seem like a long time; the 60-m dashes were run on March 5; looks like we will get the answers 38 days later (April 12). I can’t wait, as the explanation will surely reflect a good deal of complexity. Otherwise, why 38 days?
In terms of records (one of my favorite subjects), some brief research revealed that the legendary Jeanne Daprano ran 1:20.57 in the 400 at Albuquerque. How good is that? Well, at age 74 Jeanne became the first 70+ woman in American history to break 1:22 in the 400 indoors !!! Wow.
Too bad that Jeanne’s record never even made “pending” status on the new list at http://www.usatf.org. The only other woman I could find who broke the American indoor mark in the 400 at Albuquerque was Latrica Dendy, who required just 56.46 seconds (an American record) to win W35.
It’s a shame that Latrica’s mark as well was not even given “pending” status. I know that mistakes can be made, but was this a mistake? Or are the races of Jeanne Daprano and Latrica Dendy under review? I have no idea.
Others, of course, set apparent records at Albuquerque that have not been recognized. It would be good to know why.
Thanks Ken. I’m sending my email to Gary today.
Thanks from me, too. I sent an e-mail to Gary.
Kathy
Just a thought, maybe this is what’s holding things up. Quoted from Wikipedia.
“Sprint athletes perform better at high altitudes because of the thinner air, which provides less air resistance. In theory, the thinner air would also make breathing slightly more difficult (due to the partial pressure of oxygen being lower), but this difference is negligible for sprint distances where all the oxygen needed for the short dash is already in the muscles and bloodstream when the race starts. While there are no limitations on altitude, performances made at altitudes greater than 1000 m above sea level are marked with an “A””
The altitude or elevation of Albuquerque New Mexico is 5312 feet or 1619.1 meters
The A on the USATF typewriter is stuck.
The shame of this record mess is that some of the athletes will not be able to try again for their records. Jeanne Deprano, for example , turns 75 in September – I am sure she will be setting records in her new age group but the opportunity to set a record in W 70 will be gone. On top of that – the conditions for records in the sprints were close to ideal in Albuquerque – with the altitude.
USATF Masters track loses credibility with such a screw-up. Steps must be taken to gain control over the timing at the national meets. This is two national masters indoor meets in what – 4 years with timing messes. Time to stop awarding meets to the nice people in nice locations with good intentions but no experience at running large masters meets. Running all-comers meets or NCAA meets does not confer expertise in running large masters meets. Hiring the local road race timing company to run a complex masters meet is a disaster waiting to happen.
This is a black eye for the Albuquerque LOC as well.
There were two obviously malfunctioned times in the 60m heats (M70?), but other than that, which particular times are under suspicion?.. Is it possible that all other 60 and 200 times were legit?.. great athletes, on a great track, at altitude, might yield some amazing (and not bogus) times. Was it the same crew (and equipment) used the previous weekend for USATF national? No snafus there.
I usually don’t post messages and keep my comments to myself. But truth be told, I have been a little upset as well with the lack of acknowledgement of records. I broke the M35 American record in the 200 and just as Mr. Taylor noted, very few records are in a “pending” status with only one men’s 200 record pending from Albu. My whole indoor season was focused on the 200 record, cut my 400 training and did no 60 training. I guess it is what it is…Live well and train hard!!!
BF,
I’ll go further to ask, if it was not the same timing crew as the previous week, why not? And how many cameras/independent timing systems were used for the USATF (Open) Nationals? How many were used on the Masters? If the circumstances were not identical, as I suspect, that Masters had inferior standards: Why are Masters athletes, who pay their own way to meets, treated as second class relative to the open athletes who have their way paid to the National Championships? The ramifications of that answer will reach much farther than two screwed-up major meets.
Thank you, Antwon, for your comment. Yes, we (some masters sprinters and I) were talking about how you tore up your M35 200 at Albuquerque (21.67). This was before the masters meet at the Univ of Delaware on March 27 got started.
In comments about our masters championships at Albuquerque, some people (including Andrew Hecker above) have made comparisons to the open nationals held a week earlier. Antwon, I will give you a comparison that illuminates your situation (and that of other masters athletes versus open athletes).
As you know, Kerron Clement holds the open world and American indoor mark for the 400 at an amazing 44.57 seconds (ran that in Fayetteville, Arkansas, in 2005). Do you think that if some “new Kerron Clement” had run 44.56 at the open nationals in February he would not have been recognized as the new record holder? I think not.
You were a full 0.35 sec under the existing record for M35 (22.02 by Sean Maye, also in 2005), but when I go to http://www.usatf.org to look at the 200 marks I don’t even see your name as pending. Is the message that you did not really run 21.67? If that is the case, why has no one said that, at least publicly?
Maybe we will find out on April 12.
I should not to drag up this issue again – but I should have a pending WR for the indoor mile – set in Boston in early January- but I do not see it posted as yet. I have long since given up on getting credit for an AR set in the 3k outdoors in Maine last August. But come on – it is April 9th – I set the mile indoor record in early January of this year – should I write that one off too?
RE AR/WR – I am now too injured and too slow to hope to set any more records for W75 – but it sure as heck would be nice to get credit for the ones that I set before I slide down the slippery slope of age.
Given the screw-up of the timing in Albuquerque – those who set records there should buy themselves megamillions lottery tickets as well – better chance of winning millions than getting those records acknowledged.
Congratulations once again, Mary, on your record-setting 8:21.50 in the mile (W75) that you ran at the Reggie Lewis Center in January. I remember it very well because it was heavily reported on this site (Ken Stone even did a Q & A with you about it).
I did check, Mary, and yes, you did not get credit for either an American or world mark, even though you were 5 seconds under both records (they were/are 8:26.79).
Don’t worry about “dragging up this issue again” –as long as it is not resolved you should periodically remind the world. Until we get to a point at which the records issue has been addressed fully for you and other masters athletes there will be a need for commentary.
My calendar, as does yours up in Massachusetts, says that today is April 9. A cursory examination of what appear to be records in the 60, 200, and 400 five weeks ago (Albuquerque masters nationals) revealed to me the following:
60 0% were accepted.*
200 25% were accepted.
400 60% were accepted.
* By “accepted” I mean designation as a pending American record, declaration that it is a world record, or both.
Thus, there is still more to discuss.
While I am waiting for my laundry to dry I will pose a question to Andrew Hecker (post no. 8). Given the problems at Landover (2009) and Albuquerque (2011), the apparent “answer” is to have a higher-grade FAT system. Would that be so prohibitively expensive as to rule out annual championships?
In other words, would the indoors become such a financial burden that they could be held only every other year?
We are talking about, possibly, a few thousand dollars. Three long days (as opposed to a 5 hour track meet) of an additional timing set-up with duplicate personnel. The cost of your timing crew may vary.
One really good operator could be arming and saving on two independent systems side by side, just for the cost of renting the extra system. That would get down to maybe a grand. And there are usually enough bodies around the finish/results area at a national championships that this isn’t a one person job.
That money is what the LOC (or was it our games committee? I doubt they would do that) decided to put in their pocket, or some other place other than to take care of issue #1–to put on a National Championship quality track meet.
I understand everyone’s frustration. I don’t think you can blame Sandy for not posting any pending records she doesn’t have completed paperwork for. You keep trashing her and see how easy it is to replace her. She does a lot more than just deal with all the paperwork. She is a key person in making these meets work.
Fix the meet problems and change the record process if you must. Honor your volunteers.
George, I know very well that Sandy makes an invaluable contribution to our nationals (3 long days at indoors, 4 days at outdoors). In fact, I don’t know whether we could conduct the meets without her. The problem is with the records.
You mention “not posting any pending records she doesn’t have completed paperwork for.” This is a mystery to me.
In post no. 1 (above) I mentioned Jeanne Daprano (W70) and Latrica Dendy (W35). At Albuquerque, both women broke the national indoor records for their age groups in the 400. Both are world champions, both have other records, Jeanne Daprano is in the Hall of Fame, etc. Thus, their records can’t be being held up because of questions about their age.
As for any other paperwork, this was the nationals. Getting the signatures of the FAT chief and the starter, etc. should have been done on the spot by meet management.
Thus, I am at a loss to understand what paperwork remains to be completed. Surely there is none.
Staying with the women, in the 200 at Albuquerque two of our stars broke the world and American records in their age group. One was Joy Upshaw (W50) and the other was Barbara Jordan (W75). One is in the Hall of Fame (Barbara) and the other will be in the future (Joy).
Between the two of them they must have given proof of age at least 100 times, both have other records, etc. Thus, it can’t be a question of age. As for the other paperwork, what could there be?
I just checked this morning: Joy and Barbara have received no credit, and the same is true for Jeanne and Latrica. If we could just be told what could possibly be the reason for not recognizing their records, that would help a lot. Otherwise, it just looks like error.
Leave a Reply