Doug Logan parries queries on masters doping, records, budget.

Doug Logan, the spunky new CEO of USA Track & Field, has been making news of late with his commentary on doping and other issues. Last week, he announced on his blog he would create an “Operating Audit Panel” to review USATF’s elite operations, since the U.S. performance at Beijing was “mixed” and only a fraction of Americans had season bests at the Games. And our 4×1 relays stunk. But what really caught my eye was Logan noting that USATF’s “first purpose and duty” is: “Developing interest in and participation in Athletics in the United States at all levels and developing the highest possible performance level for the United States in international competition.” Wow! Does that include masters track? So I sent Doug a questionnaire (as I promised two months ago), and today he responded.

Five days after being sent this questionnaire, Doug replied. This appears to be the first time since his July 17 start that he’s publicly addressed masters issues. (He doesn’t even use the word “masters” in his first seven blog posts.) And the transcript of his first teleconference doesn’t include the word “masters” either.)
But now he’s uttered the M-word close to 20 times! Progress!
Jill Geer, USATF’s press chief, emailed Doug’s responses to me this morning. Here’s our Q&A:

Masterstrack.com: Your Sept. 11 blog quotes USATF bylaws, including one that states as a goal: “Developing interest in and participation in Athletics in the United States at all levels.” What is USATF’s role in growing masters track and field?
Doug Logan: That is one of the questions I am working to have answered as I fully evaluate all of USATF’s programs. NGBs are not charged with overseeing masters competition by the Amateur Sports Act, but clearly there is an important place in our sport for athletes over 40 – even for a shuffler like me.
You also cite Section A.3, which states a USATF mission: “Fielding the most competent United States individuals and teams for international competition in Athletics and providing support and conditions for athletes at all levels of the sport which ensure optimal performance.” Does this include fielding teams for world masters competitions? If so, how can USATF help?
My answer to question 1 applies here as well. In my first few months I’m gathering as much information, feedback and input as I can about all levels of our sport and organization.
Despite masters being a large share of USATF, the budget of USATF Masters Track & Field is a relative pittance — $85,000 this year. (Note: USATF’s contribution to this figure is just $39,500) Does this figure do justice to the revenues masters pay in membership fees? If not, how much should USATF Masters T&F get?
It is far too soon for me to answer this question, as reflected in my answers above. Trust that I am going over our entire budget with a keen eye to uncover where and how we spend our money, and how we can do that more effectively.
You have been aggressive in vowing to fight doping in track and field. But masters track has had a longstanding policy against drug-testing, due to its expense. Do you agree with this policy of no drug-testing at USATF masters nationals? If not, who would pay for such testing?
I have focused to date on anti-doping efforts on the elite level, but my gut tells me that the issue is far different in masters track. I am not familiar enough with the masters anti-doping issue to speak definitively, but I don’t think expense would be the only issue, even though each test costs about $500.
Every American over a certain age understands that for most people, medications become part of everyday life. Given how comprehensive the current testing menu is, it seems there are potential issues of resolving medical necessity and drug-testing realities.
Having a spate of highly publicized “positives” for, for instance, an athlete using an anti-balding medication wouldn’t do any good for the sport of track or masters in particular. But of course you don’t want performances achieved through cheating, either.
The USATF Foundation has made many grants to elite athletes and clubs and youth clubs, but not one to a masters athlete or group. In fact, the Foundation’s Web site includes applications for elite and youth. But none for masters. Is this fair? What can be done to encourage the USATF Foundation to help masters as well?
The USATF Foundation is its own organization, separate from USA Track & Field, which has been instrumental in developing some of our elite athletes. Stephanie Brown Trafton spoke openly about how the grant she received from the Foundation was important for her preparations for the Olympics and helped her become our first women’s discus gold medalist since 1932.
As described on its website (http://www.usatffoundation.org/) , the Foundation puts “an emphasis on providing opportunities for youth athletes, emerging athletes and anti-doping education.” That is a choice they have made as they focus on development of the sport on the elite level. I cannot speak to their priorities and why and how they developed them, but they are an open-minded group who care passionately about the sport. I’m sure they would welcome input on the topic.
Recent presidents of USATF have attended masters nationals. But CEO Craig Masback did not. Will you commit to attending a USATF Masters outdoor or indoor national track and field championship early in your tenure?
My travel schedule is a continuously evolving animal. I am in the process of meeting with as many groups as I can. Whether I make it to a masters championship earlier or later in my tenure will be something that will reveal itself as this amazing ride continues.
USATF Masters T&F is losing a voice on the USATF Board of Directors as a result of USOC-mandated restructuring. Without a seat on the board, how will masters T&F be assured fair treatment within the organization?
This topic is a concern to many, if not all, constituencies within USATF. It is not unique to masters. Everyone who cares about our sport should be excited to know that the new board will be composed of highly principled, professional and passionate people whose #1 concern is doing the right thing for the sport. This organization has suffered from a balkanization of interest groups. We need to work together as a whole. What is good for the whole is good for our constituencies.
In recent weeks, many athletes have complained that the site of the 2009 masters outdoor T&F nationals in Florida is not up to standards. An online petition protests its selection:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/noclermont2009/ ; In fact, a contract still hasn’t been signed between the LOC and USATF. Would you support USATF looking for a new 2009 host?
Again, it is too early for me to comment about a topic I’m simply not familiar enough with at this point. I am told it is not unusual to be without a signed contract this far out. There has been precedent in the last 5 years for a championship site to move even the year that it is scheduled to be held, but I have no idea if this would be the case for the 2009 masters championships.
USATF’s press operation and Web site do a great job publicizing elite and youth accomplishments. But the “News & Notes” distributions have overlooked many masters track accomplishments, even after being notified expeditiously of such feats. What can you do to improve Indy’s coverage of masters track and field?
Every year, our Communications Department submits a report that breaks down coverage of our three main competitive groups: elite, junior/youth and masters. In recent years, masters have been covered in roughly 10 percent of our Athlete of the Week press releases, as well as other releases as News & Notes items promoting masters.
Masters also have pages devoted to them in each issue of Fast Forward. I’m sure there are some people who would say that’s not enough and others who would say it’s too much. It all depends on your perspective.
USATF officials have their own, independent Web site at http://www.usatfofficials.com/ ; Do you support the USATF Masters T&F Committee’s pursuit of its own separate Web site, which like the officials’ would not be based at usatf.org? If not, why not?
I am not the arbiter of website policies for USATF — that’s way above my pay grade. Not to sound like a broken record, but these are the kinds of conflicts and political battles that I am learning about.
In recent years, many voices in U.S. masters track, including former national chair George Mathews, have called for a divorce from USATF. Would you be willing to let USATF Masters T&F split off and become its own governing body? If not, why not?
Here I will definitely be a broken record when I say these are the kinds of conflicts and political battles that I am learning about.
U.S. masters T&F records are a shambles, and my blog has documented many omissions and mistakes in USATF masters indoor and outdoor age-group records. What can your office do to correct this?
I’ve been told that keeping masters records has always been a struggle on the local, national and international levels. I’m told it’s about submitting paperwork, verifying marks and trying to make sense of millions of people competing all over the globe on any given weekend within the masters age group.
I understand that Masters Track & Field and the Masters Long Distance Running groups have their own record-keeping practices and I would encourage everyone to work together, rather than against each other, to resolve omissions or mistakes.
And a final question: What role does masters track play in USATF?
Masters athletes are a vibrant part of what our sport is. Even though I don’t compete, I’m an example of that. One of the great things about track and field is that there is a place for everyone. Where masters, youth, elites, as well as coaches, officials, volunteers and everyone else fits in with our governance and strategic goals will take much clearer shape as our restructuring continues.

Obviously, Doug isn’t ready to answer lots of questions definitively. But I give him credit for honesty. When he doesn’t know the answer, or have enough information to make an informed reply, he says so.
At some point, however, he’ll have to take a stand on masters-related issues that are under his authority. Not sure when that will be. But I’ll keep reminding him.
At the very least, my questions form a brief tutorial in masters track concerns. Although he promised to be a “huge sponge” in his early months at CEO, there’s no guarantee that he’d become aware of some of these issues.
Now he’s on record as having noted them.
On July 20, I posted a poll that asked: Will new USATF CEO Doug Logan be good for masters track? So far, 14 of 16 respondents answered: “Who knows?”
We still don’t know. But now he knows us.