Millrose relay ruckus: Will Shore AC get to run?
In late December, the word went out: The 100th Millrose Games would have two events for masters -â menâs and womenâs 4×400 relays. Clubs were urged to enter, and fast! Among the womenâs teams answering the call was Shore Athletic Club of New Jersey. Mary Rosado, coordinator of the Millrose masters events (with help from Jim Reilly) wrote to Shore team captain Wendi Glassman: âI have accepted your team provisionally — if I don’t get the proper documentation, you won’t be able to run.â Fine and good. Wendi supplied the info Mary requested: proof that the athletes were USATF members and that the club was a USATF member.
But then Mary wrote team captain Wendi: âI regret to inform you that in order to maintain the integrity of the meet, I must decline your application.â Say what? Soon a couple dozen people were in an email loop debating how to challenge Maryâs ruling. Today, Shore is in a race against time. Millrose is Friday.
After two long-distance calls and several dozen emails, I can say this: Some people have gone way overboard to micromanage this event. This isn’t a USATF championship. Points aren’t at stake. It’s meant to be fun.
This mess has a poignant human element as well. Louise Clark, one of the Shore relay team members, is making a comeback after surviving cancer. She’s a national class quarter-miler nearing 50, but she’s better known as the lady who sings the national anthem at masters indoor nationals. Louise, a semiprofessional entertainer, is unwillingly at the center of this storm.
Here is a chronology:
On January 16, Mary Rosado wrote the women’s team captains:
Dear coaches and team reps:
Again thanks for your efforts in trying to field teams. Many of you have injuries on your teams and are not able to participate. We will miss you but we look forward to seeing you again in 2008. Prepare as if we have the final okay now. Since USATF owns the rights to meet, I do not think they will eliminate event, except for some serious reason.
Anyway, congratulations to the teams that have healthy athletes and will be competing:
Athena Track Club (their first Millrose as team)
Bohemia Track Club
Central Park Track Club
Shore Athletic Club and
Long Island Road Runners Club (their first Millrose).
To teams selected, please make sure your athletes and club have registered with USATF.
I have accepted your team provisionally — if I don’t get the proper documentation, you won’t be able to run.
Wendi Glassman of Shore AC complied, sending Mary this note:
The following are the usatf numbers of our team members (with club 0101 affiliation):
wendi glassman 4719343207
louise clark 471719207
phyllis spencer 471172007
elizabeth ludwigson (2 year membership paid in 2006 so waiting for 2007 number and will forward) 9614879107
nancy king 4711600407
wendi glassman
shore ac women’s millrose team captain
But soon Mary replied:
Subject: Verification of Shore AC team (women)
Dear Wendy and others:
I am looking at your roster and I see two people whom I have not known to be members of Shore AC in the past– Lousie Clark and Phyllis Spencer. Please provide documentation that they are members of club for reasonable period of time. I realize you want to put team in but I turned away people who wanted to put in all star teams. If these women are only recent joiners, the audience will notice it and there may be a protest. It has happen in past (and I believe it involved Louise Clark’s team) plus you don’t want to get reputation for disobeying rules!
Wendi replied:
Mary–please refer me to the specific rule that is applicable. I understand that an unattached runner may join a club and run for that club without any waiting period. If you disagree, please refer me to the rule. I cannot locate one in the usatf rules. That should be the determining factor.
thank you, wendi glassman
Mary at some point sent this letter to Shore:
(Ken Stone note: I forgot to include this in the original posting.)
I regret to inform you that in order to maintain the integrity of the meet, I must decline your application. Your application is raising too many âred flagsâ despite my best efforts. I gave you an opportunity to provide proof that athletes Louise Clark and Phyllis Spencer were members of Shore AC at time of submission of application. A week later, you produced a statement from the membership chair that stated the contrary. I was NOT giving you time to allow them to become members. I would be circumventing the rules myself. Despite the fact that I gave you my cell number, I never heard from you until I received Mr. Bakerâs statement. In addition, I believe both athletes live in the New York metropolitan area and therefore, must request a transfer from the MAC Association pursuant to regulation 7, in order to compete for a club in another association. Accordingly, as of today, there is no such request with MAC on file for either athlete. This is my final decision.
Sincerely,
Mary V. Rosado
Event Coordinator
PS Please forward to your board members and Wendy as I am late to meeting and only know from memory your email address.
Although membership in a club for a “reasonable period of time” wasn’t part of Mary’s original rules, it became the sticking point. Wendi punted, writing Walter MacGowan, the president of Shore AC:
Walter–
Please reread the initial email from mary rosado that I am forwarding here–the eligibility rule she states is that each member of the team must be a usatf member. I understand the meet is conducted under usatf rules. USATF operating regulation 2 states that the athlete must be a usatf member prior to the date of competition. The women are. As for regulation 7, Pam Fales instructed us to submit the usatf applications directly to NJ. We can obtain the clearance still from MAC I think. I believe, to the extent there is any requirement properly left to satisfy, we can comply with all applicable rules prior to the meet date. I also believe we are being singled out and I am aware of at least one other team that will have a runner who is not a member of the club she will run for, is affiliated with another club and apparently has received clearance from mary this past week. At all times, I have pursued this with integrity and full disclosure. However, lacking the support of Shore AC, I will not pursue this any further.
wendi glassman
Walter replied to Mary on January 24:
Dear Mary, We regret that Shore AC will not be competing in this years Millrose games. Although our board voted against competing a week ago I left the matter open as it seemed we may have been able to work things out. This does not now seem to be the case. We have a long tradition as one of the great teams in the history of the sport in this country. As president of the club, and the coach of the women’s team, I will not allow us to become the a focus of any suspicion regarding athletes or our team. Our reputation and integrity have never been questioned and I will not let it start now for the sake of competing in one meet, no matter how big or important that meet may be. Thanks again for all the time you have spent on this matter and we look forward to seeing you next year. Yours Truly, Walter MacGowan, President, Shore AC
But the matter didn’t end there. Other members of Shore AC weighed in, starting with Gerard Pearlberg, Shore’s vice president:
Shore AC Board members and teammates,
My decision to stand for Shore AC Vice President was one with a vision of assisting in the development of young elite talent to insure that the club remains competitive for years to come and in so doing remaining true to the history and accomplishments of the club from years past.
I have come to realize that whilst that is still my goal, the role of a board member is not always one that toils in calm waters.
With that said, let me address the Millrose Games issue.
It is my vote that we MUST send the Masterâs Womenâs team to the Millrose games and being that the meet is only five days away we must act swiftly.
My reasons are thus:
First of all, we have no right (for the following reasons) not to send the team:
1) We have done nothing technically wrong.
2) Did we recruit new talent for the event? Yes we did. Is there an underlying ethical situation here? On a stand alone basis, probably so. BUTâ¦. It is not a stand alone basisâ¦â¦.this practice has been going on in road races and track and field for years. Furthermore, a meet such as Millrose and the fact that the Shore AC is invited to participate, is exactly the time when new recruits might be interested in joining the club. At that point it is up to us, our responsibility to welcome them and to insure that they are interested in remaining with the club.
3) We did not set the guidelines, USATF as the overall governing body does, and in this case, Millrose too. We are within those guidelines.
4) Walter Macgowan, tried to raise a Womenâs Masters team for the meet. He was unable to do so and at that point acquiesced to Wendi Glassman, who subsequently did raise a team, again within the guidelines. At the point that Walter acquiesced, he relinquished command of his post specifically for this event.
5) We have recruited in the past and it is completely wrong at this time to come across holier than though when we have dipped our ink in the same well as everyone else.
6) It is not sufficient in such an event to say, there is always next year. This is not a road race. There is not another Millrose games next week. Masterâs training and racing is tenuous at best. When one has trained for a specific event for six months and over the age of forty, there is no guarantee that one will be healthy and in the same shape to compete in twelve months time.
No my friends, the horse has left the stable, we already opened the Pandoraâs Box of recruiting and it would be hypocritical to pull out right before a major event. Again, especially as a) everyone is doing the same thing and b) we are within the rules.
I am submitting in this e mail that the Board members re vote today. I am submitting that we do the right thing and elect to send the Womenâs Masters team to the Millrose games next weekend. At that point we should conduct a special board and open meeting to produce a clear and stated policy for the future.
Do not email me back saying that there is policy in place. It is clear that whatever the policy was it is cloudy at best, and even if not, no one adheres to it. We need to lay it out there, reach a majority agreement that stands as club policy for road, cross country and track and field and then move forward with it.
Coach GP
USA Track & Field Coach
Soon afterward, Shore AC member Tony Plaster weighed in:
To All,
The last person or group that passes on an opportunity to correct a wrongful situation assumes a large portion of the responsibility for it.
Tis fact is not lost on the originator of this situation who can now point to their attempt to rectify it.
If Shores purpose as stated in the withdrawal e-mail of 1-24 07 was ” To keep our reputation and integrity intact” How does a rufusal of an offer to correct this situation and allow the Womens team to run sustain that goal? It does not.
I would like to know if this is the decision of one man or the entire board.
I also believe that the story of this will not end with the running of Millrose but only by correcting it.
We have been given multiple chances to do the right thing , that in itself is rare and sould not be missed.
Plaster, an M55 runner says it all. Now is the time to do the right thing. The right thing is to let Shore’s women run at Millrose.
A few final notes:
Mary Rosado has declined to answer my questions. A New York lawyer, she says she’s busy at work. My main question wouldn’t have taken long, though: What harm would accrue if she let Louise Clark and Phyllis Spencer run with Shore?
Another issue left hanging: Mary Rosado’s club (in which she is a relay member) is the Nike Central Park TC. According to her association’s list of clubs, the CPTC is not a currently paid-up member USATF club.
And Jim Reilly — Mary’s helper with the men’s relay teams at Millrose? He tells me that he simply asked the team captains to make sure their runners are USATF members. No deep scrutiny. No big deal.
I received this note as well from someone involved:
I thought one of the last letters from Mary Rosato said women’s teams were allowed to recruit for Millrose. Something to the effect that she was making all teams aware of recruits on a certain team (never mentioned team name) , so there would be no complaints at Millrose. I interpreted her em to everyone to mean that teams could have nonmember people on the relay for Millrose. I believe that is how other teams also interpreted that email.
Finally, Mary wrote Walter, the Shore AC prez:
Walter
Ms. Glassman has gone to Ken Stone with information that I accepted another team who has a non member person. If that is the case please let me know the team and they will be subject to same procedures.
Can you request that your athletes not send any more information to Ken Stone as it reflects badly on masters athletes and programs?
For the record, Wendi Glassman sent me NONE of the above-quoted messages. In fact, she urged me not to write about this matter at all. I appreciate all those who did share their knowledge of this situation. Masters track needs to resolve such disputes in the open sunshine. Darkroom deals do our program no good.
This ain’t over yet. Stay tuned.
21 Responses
There is no “reasonable period of time” rule !!
USATF has a “90 day unattached” requirement for club-to-club transfers. There is no such requirement for unattached athletes joining a club before a certain race or championship. As long as the team declaration was approved by the Association before the event, it’s LEGIT !
THAT’S THE RULE !!
Pretty darn simple, really.
LET SHORE RUN !!
Shore A.C. missed the entry deadline( they submitted an entry form with only the club name, but no athlete names on it)–then were given a grace period to get the names in–the names submitted were not all members of Shore A.C. until after the entry deadline–they did not therefore have an entry that was in order. They also formally withdrew even if they had not–the problem with the entry still exists. Clubs should have there teams together prior to entry deadlines and submit complete entries complete with at least 4 names of members that were on their team prior to the entry deadline. I am just trying to bring the attention to the issue that caused the problem–we have all the other he said she said extrainious variables that confuse the situation.It never was an issue of the ninety day rule–everybody wants to give there two cents without having all the information–which is quite typical of this blog in general.Mary Rosado is on the USATF Law and Legislation committee is extremely fair and well respected –she is also a Masters Athlete–she has the authority to make the call on this issue, if there were a call to make at this point.Shore A.C’s president formally withdrew their team so there is nothing for Mary to act on at this time.I have noticed that everyone wants to make this an administrative problem–the problem is that many athletes do not want to take responsibility for doing things properly and on time–we are all adults here and it’s time to take responsibility for not taking care of business.
Mark thanks for clearing the confusion involving Shore AC’c entry. I have read this blog and it seems to have hidden secret messages intertwined amongst all parties.
Could you also explain how non-registered USATF were accepted to compete when it is the first criteria listed. It was posted on Jan 1st 2007—– just my two cents —-correct me if I am wrong
Okay, over the years my running has slowed down and so maybe has my thought processes. See, I’m not sure why all the fuss over who runs where and with whom. We’re adults; it’s hard enough to get four healthy people of the same age group, belonging to the same club, to be ready at the same time. So maybe someone gets a chance to run in the Milrose games. Hey go for it. Now it seems that Shore AC has followed the rules, more or less, close enough, and isn’t allowed to run. No one on the relay seems to be trying to harm or ridicule this sport. I’m assuming that they’re serious about their training and if they’re willing to run 400m in front of screaming crowd, way to go.
Maybe Mary Rosado had the authority to make the call but it seems she lacked the knowledge to do so. It seems arbitrary; there’s no reasonable period of time rule; she appears to have misinformed Shore AC of the rules and they were turned away and/or withdrew. So I’m not sure why ya wanna be such a stickler at this time. Let um run to showcase the sport
I’m a little suspicious of any official who tries to censor athletes from venting or giving Ken information. Okay, sure Ken goes a little overboard at times; he may not have all the facts but wants to get them; yet he also provides a valuable forum where we get a chance to learn a little about what’s going on in Masters track. So if something’s gonna reflect badly on masters athletes and programs then change the offense, not silence the messenger.
Please note the added letter from Mary Rosado to Shore AC. I neglected to include this originally. My bad. It’s the letter that begins: “I regret to inform you that in order to maintain the integrity of the meet, I must decline your application.”
It is a wonder to me that anyone is willing to coordinate the effort to line up teams for the Millrose Games masters women’s relay race. Does the men’s coordinator have such problems with the wannabe mens teams? Who needs this grief? Mary Rosado has enough to do running her law practice without taking on this task and perhaps she will not be willing to do so again. I would not blame her if she says enough is enough and next year there are no womens teams at the Millrose games. Folks ought to take into consideration that those who offer their services to coordinate such opportunities are not compensated for their time and energy spent. Shore AC womens team may or may not be following the rules. What is at stake here? A chance to run at the Millrose Games in an exhibition relay. No big bucks, no Wheaties Box endorsements, no free trip to a Disney Theme Park. It is not suppose to be a group of all stars rounded up for the occasion but rather of club teams. Apparently there seems to be a problem with the spirit of that if not the letter of the “law”.
This is a reponse to Larry in regard to Mary’s reponse.This stuff is very time consuming for the volunteers that take on the organizing rolls-Mary is an attorney that must work for a living.When a situation like this arises and Ken get’s involved there is a lot of time spent outside of their job and the time consuming event itself–Mary is the last person that anyone here needs to be suspicious of–she just doesn’t need the added aggravation that comes when Ken is added into it. Again a proper entry that is complete and on time would have avoided all of this time wasted trying to make a case for a team that didn’t have a team together before the deadline.This race happened to be structured as a USATF club race–so ad hoc or pick up teams were not invited.Again the resonsibilty rests on the shoulders of the athletes to have their team together and submitted on time for entry–everyone had the same opportunity to get that done.
Written: “Now it seems that Shore AC has followed the rules, more or less, close enough, and isn’t allowed to run.”
Well, masters/masters clubs can’t have it both ways.
It’s great that much of masters competition is about “fun” and “participation”, but that has to be balanced against the integrity of clubs. An athlete joining a club as a free agent – or a club recruiting for a specific meet – with no intent by the athlete to continue with the club, or transferring from an existing club and back, doesn’t help the existing club structure that many masters bemoan.
If you subscribe to the “rules, more or less” concept, then go ahead and extend that philosophy to all levels; at the top, you then might as well eliminate team scoring at the national meets because it won’t mean anything.
A lot of this stems, I think, from the idea of the Unattached/”ad hoc” relay teams at National meets. If there aren’t enough people for a club, or the club doesn’t participate, or send out enough for a relay, then that’s the facts. One can build a club or join a club via the operating rule procedures, both of which will enhance clubs as a whole. But don’t allow pickup teams in a _championship_ just because it’s easy and the path of least resistance, even if it’s all about “fun”. If you can’t put a full team together for Millrose – or Penn? – then start working now to build your club for the next edition.
Steve Vaitones
To Mark Cleary?¢Ç¨ÄùYou are quick to accuse others of wanting ?¢Ç¨?ìto give their two cents without having all the information?¢Ç¨¬ù. I wish you had complete information before you so adamantly set your characterization of the occurrences. And how quickly others immediately come to judgement, relying on these statements, without any independent knowledge of the facts.
The assertions are incorrect. First, I submitted Shore?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s entry on time. The club name and seed time submission was done on Jan 12 with a note stating I was working on the final team roster. Several emails and conversations had occurred between me and mary since early january commiserating on how few entries there were and efforts being made to put in teams. On Jan 15th I emailed mary the 5 names of shore?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s relay team, writing that usatf numbers would follow. (In fact, Mary had written me that names could be submitted on the 16th). The single requirement in her initial email to all team representatives, and what jim reilly observed, is that the team members must be usatf members. This rule was observed?¢Ç¨Äùthe athletes are usatf registered athletes. They also are members of Shore AC, a registered club. Their numbers had to follow the submission because it was impossible to register on the electronic usatf website the NY residents with a NJ club. Because of problems with the usatf electronic entry system and the holiday weekend, several emails and mailings were required to actually receive the numbers. I sent them to mary on the 22nd upon my receipt of them. This should have ended the issue but it did not.
In the interim, on Jan 16 mary imposed her own ?¢Ç¨?ìreasonable time?¢Ç¨¬ù requirement of club membership for eligibility. Remember, they were unattached athletes. I telephoned her and wrote her, asking for the rule. She produced nothing. She questioned their club membership and demanded documentation?¢Ç¨Äùjust because she didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t recognize the names as associated with Shore. And in several emails, in response to mary’s unwarranted allegations that we were building an “all star team” (not quite), we explained that these were new members committed to run for Shore.Don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know that any other team was scrutinized the same way. Once challenged on this time requirement, two days later she backed off that. On Jan 18 she wrote that she never said new recruits could not compete! Her emails belie that. We wasted 2 days on that effort alone. She then accepts the team provisionally but she continues to pursue the club membership issue. These women joined Shore prior to the entry submission. On the 18th she also sent an email to all women?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s representatives opening the field up to teams ?¢Ç¨?ì(with a new recruit)?¢Ç¨¬ù asking for entries by 2pm Friday jan 19. I suppose at that point other teams would have been allowed new members as of the 19th without questioning motivation, future commitment or anything? So the rules change again. Shore reaffirms its original entry on the 19th and mary reports to all reps on the 19th that no other team submitted an entry other than shore and now lists the teams entered?¢Ç¨Äùincluding Shore.
On the 23rd, however, she changes her position again and rejects Shore?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s entry, citing ?¢Ç¨?ìtoo many red flags?¢Ç¨¬ù and for the first time claims Shore?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s athlete?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s did not comply with operating regulation 7. (This regulation requires an athlete from one association to get clearance from her home residence association to register with a different association). She never leveled this objection before. Seemed to us a frantic effort to find any reason that might keep the team off the track. The athletes promptly arranged for the clearance from MAC the same day. She apparently never let go of the other objections, since she still uses the plural (too many red flags).
On the 23rd, the Shore board withdrew its entry, because of the misinformation mary gave to the Shore board, as one other writer here pointed out, and her other mischaracterizations of facts and events.
None of the objections were well-founded. They were unsustainable and petty claims. Mary did not act fairly or responsibly here. And as an athlete competing in the event, she should have recused herself from the issue.
Mary’s own behavior–including asserting rules that dont exist– cost her her time. She just didnt expect us to challenge them. I have little sympathy–her actions cost me and others hours and hours of time to respond to her–to research rules, convene meetings and determine how to appropriately respond. We all have jobs and responsibilities. For us, it was a matter of principle–we did not violate any rules, we didnt like the innuendo and insult–and we believed the club had earned a spot in this event.
As late as Friday, mary had another opportunity to do the right thing. She declined.
Reg 7 is always an issue for members of a club that live outside the Association where the club is based.A request of transfer must be requested in writing–my understanding is that this had not been done for the two athletes in question, that were new to shore A.C. It’s not enough just to join the club–to represent the club the transfer has to be requested in writing and approved by the Association that your leaving and the new Association an athlete wishes to. That’s why teams that are formed in the eleventh hour before an event commonly have problems.
Wendi, you may have submitted the entry form with the Club name and a seed time–that by the way without the names is not an on time entry. The question I have for you is were the two women in question members of Shore A.C on January 12 when you submitted your entry without the names ? Remember they would have had to request the transfers and be released and accepted as of the date you first submitted your entry–the grace period was given to supply the 4 names–which means these ladies to be able to represent Shore A.C. would have had to have been members complete with Association transfer by the original deadline to qualify for your relay.
Mark–I will not continue to engage in the debate you frame here. I stand by my position that Shore submitted a complete entry on the 15th and meets the usatf rules in advance of the event. If you’d like to reframe the debate and when rules must be satisfied, how about central park’s 2007 club status? Or shall we just say it is a mere technical issue easily cleared in advance of the event? It’s time to be done with this.
Super discussion. Mark I did not receive an answer concerning the status of LEGIT clubs entering Millrose.
Four of the six clubs accepted to run in the mens race were not registered with USATF for 2007 as per the deadlines —-Mass Velocity and SW Sprinters are legit —that includes Mr Reilly and Ms Rodados squads. Is that puzzling to you —– or does it matter???? The woman also had only two LEGIT clubs– Athena and Bohemia Track clubs.
Shore AC for your info was not legit at the time so this trasfer issue should be secondary. Why are those teams allowed to compete??????
So WHO DROPPED THE BALL—– you see with such a short window and lack of entries—– Jim, Mary or both or outside influences have chosen to ignore their own criteria for the race and create RULES ON THE FLY
INTEGRITY is a word that has been thrown around blog after blog—— use it wisely
If what Ed says is true, that numerous teams have not renewed for 2007 with USATF, it seems the only prudent thing to do at this late point is to let Shore AC run and not single them out.
Lesson learned for next year.
Ed, sorry I ment to address your question earlier.The issue with the Club renewal is treated differently because there are more variables with the club renewal–the individual athlete renewal is easy on line in seconds–the Club renewal is quite a different animal altogether.All coaches now are required to be screened by a screening agent–which can hold up clubs official renewal status–I have checked and Cental Park has there’s in and as I understand it others have paid and have not been put in the computer yet–All the teams that run Friday at Milrose will have to have their clubs renewed and cleard by USATF or they will either be scratched or be D Q ed.
Steve, I appreciate what you do for the National indoor meet at Boston. Thanks for your dedication. Yet we see things so differently. When I used “more or less,” I was somewhat facetious, possibly ironic. I could’a just said that maybe Rosado blew it, but I didn’t have all the facts. You and Mark seem more willing to make pronouncements and judgments. I didn’t know if Shore had followed the initial guidelines but it did seem that Mary arbitrarily suggested an additional requirement. So hence my “more or less” comment. Though maybe I didn’t make it clear enough. I didn’t intend for you to extrapolate that I don’t think we need rules. We do. But we also need a sense of perspective, and hopefully wisdom (and who knows, Steve, maybe even a sense of humor.) for after all, what does Master’s track gain by not letting Shore run? And what do we lose by keeping a good team off the track?
We already have rules that prevent runners from just transferring from one club to another; they gotta wait the 90 days; so how is the integrity of clubs threatened in this instance?
Steve ya can’t legislate loyalty. Clubs need more than rules to keep them going. They have to offer athletes some incentive in exchange for their commitment. Successful clubs provide camaraderie, experience, training, competition, or tradition, etc. Something. See, not all runners bemoan the fate of the clubs; some runners actually train and run, for, with, and by themselves. Maybe out of choice, or necessity, limited opportunities, geographical or chronological difficulties, or even previous poor club experiences. Yes, we need clubs and administrators, all the wonderful officials and volunteers, but ultimately the meets must serve the athletes most.
I’ve been with two clubs but right now I’m running unattached. Very few clubs in my M60 age group actually have more than one or two competitive 400m or 800m runners healthy at any given time. Rarely enough for both relays. So if I’m healthy at Nationals I’ll probably run unattached. Yet I’d really like to get together with some good fast friends and/or healthy competitors there and form a relay team. It’s the only chance we may get. But I don’t wanna form a new club or threaten the existence of other clubs. I wanna have a good time yet run a good time, and, no Steve, “not just for fun”, under the right conditions maybe even break an American or World Record. How exciting is that? We’ve paid our money, are USATF members in good standing; and I don’t see that as bad for this sport.
Noting Mark Cleary’s response to Ed Gonera–Oh good–now the selective timing in the application and enforcement of rules! Some rules apply at the entry date and some when the gun goes off? The rationale is amenic.
There is a confusion of issues here – Club renewal is one thing – as a club president and general do it all – it is my responsibility to fill out the form and mail it in to renew the club’s membership. I did all but the “mail it in” and recently received notice that if one of our athletes wants to be considered for an invitational meet I need to get the check in the mail. It is no deep dark secret that clubs need to renew membership in USATF annually. The membership runs from Jan 1 to Dec 31, someone needs to be awake to this issue and get the check in the mail in a timely fashion if they want their athletes to participate in invitational events or championship teams.
The more important issue is the membership of individual athletes and the recruiting of “all stars” for a team. This is a matter of considerable controversy especially for sprinters who want to be on award winning – record breaking relay teams or just have a team for a big meet – Millrose/Penn Relays, national championships. There are rules about this – and then there are those who want to wiggle around the rules. Frankly I would love to have 4 national class W 40-49 age groups sprinters in my club who could qualify for Millrose Games/ Penn Relays/ National Masters indoor/outdoor relays – and make a big splash for the club. However we do not have such members – maybe I could recruit some from area clubs- find a few unattached athletes who would join the club for the purpose of running a relay. I am not going there. My job is to keep my club going,provide the coaching that we have for the runners who usually run with us, in general see that we provide the advertised services for our ongoing members. I am not about to start recruiting stars for a special event – people who will not otherwise take advantage of our coaching and who are mainly looking to place another notch in the “wow look how great I am” belt.
Perhaps sprinters are in a special class in that almost all relays are for sprinters – 4 x 100, 4 x 400 – and one needs 4 sharp sprinters within the age group to make up a team. Making up a world class team is even harder -this is a problem for the 40-49 age group, and nearly impossible for 50-59, and after that – just about not going to happen for a club.
But because it is difficult to find 4 quality sprinters in a club in a single age group – it does not mean that a club has a license to go fishing for such folks for a one shot race – and that appears to be the issue with the Shore AC women’s team.
Until the rules permit all-star teams – clubs should not try to work around the edges of the rules to create such teams.
If you do not like the rules, work to change them, do not work to find a crack in the rules and exploit it and then blame someone who calls you on it.
I usually disregard these pro and con “all-star” team posts because most of the times they are just plain silly. But I find the previous post particularly bothersome, especially this part below:
“But because it is difficult to find 4 quality sprinters in a club in a single age group – it does not mean that a club has a license to go fishing for such folks for a one shot race – and that appears to be the issue with the Shore AC women’s team.
Until the rules permit all-star teams – clubs should not try to work around the edges of the rules to create such teams.
If you do not like the rules, work to change them, do not work to find a crack in the rules and exploit it and then blame someone who calls you on it.”
Me again –
Now, does this person know for a fact that Shore AC is “bending” the rules ?
Do they know that these new Shore recruits are only running Millrose and are not permanent members ?
Why does this person assume Shore is only after ringers and not just recruiting permanent talented members ?
Shore AC has been around a long time and has a great reputation. And , yes , they do know talent when they see it and go after it. That’s how they got to be National T&F Club Champs a few years ago.
They go after talent and follow the rules doing it. If they dropped the ball in applying for Millrose (I don’t think they did !), it was unintentional.
The above comments show that you don’t know this club, don’t know the rules, and did not read wendi’s detailed explanation posted earlier.
And, no , I am not a member of Shore AC.
Well I have just gone thru my screening agent and I feel squeeky clean for 2007. Before I get to Mr Cleary’s explanation—-ummm. Ms Harada has brought up the term ” all-star”. What is an all-star in Masters Track. It is amazing to me how this term is thrown around. The Athena Track Club on their website states that they are ” NATIONWIDE ELITE WOMEN MASTERS RUNNERS” —– WOW —- but no all- star teams are accepted to run at Millrose —- paperwork was certainly in order as per Ms Rosado. To be honest Ms Harada its hard enough to find 4 women to run —- let alone quality sprinters. You see marathoners running a 400 on a kitchen size track.
Steve Vaitones — who does a great job up in NE mentions “ad-hoc”. That is a French word with the literal translation $40.00. In the Nationals the bodies are their so why lose the money. Before and after any National Championship its synonym ILLEGAL comes into play.Mr Vaitones also has a Masters Team in his association that has stated on their website and on numerous blogs on masterstrack.com that they will seek out ANY runner from ANYWHERE onthe planet earth to win the NATIONAL TEAM TITLE. They also want to have fun, team participation and integrity. All power to em
Now to Mr Cleary—– a new word has appeared in Masters glossary— variables—- it took you 2 days to come up with good one. How about DEADLINE, ACCOUNTABILTY, PUNCTUAL. Those are words you should have told Mary Rosado. I know you have not been tardy with your own club application . Why give a pass??? Easy answer — no race and egg on the face. So the question comes down to “bending the rules” set by Mary Rosado on the behalf of clubs, or a past tension between Ms Rosado and Ms Clark —- or did Mary think Shores new recruit was Joetta Clark??? Oh I have to go now —- must prepare for my next screening agent—-JAN 1st 2008
This is all very sad. It’s still not clear whether Shore fully satisfied the USATF rules for this event. However, given that it is an exhibition perhaps they could have been allowed to compete.
The discussion of ‘all-star’ is irrelevant. Either a team complies with USATF rules (or whatever is applicable for the event), or they don’t. If they comply with the rules then they can run. If not, they should get their paperwork in order in time for the next meet, unless the organizers waive the rules.
Anyway, I wonder what kind of performance Shore might have put up, with or without their newcomers. It appears from the results that Athena lacked competition.
Let’s hope we have a masters relay at Millroes next year.
Leave a Reply