Olympian Mulkey: Is there any intelligent life out there?

Rome Olympian Phil Mulkey is spittin’ mad. He’s the latest to ream USATF for its decision not to give his longtime friend Phil Raschker its Masters Athlete of the Year Award. Phil, who won the USATF Masters Male Athlete of the Year Award in 1993, once coached Raschker. Now he’s sent a note detailing his arguments on Phil’s behalf. After I first wrote on this insane decision, I learned that it was the doing of USATF President Bill Roe, Masters T&F Chair Gary Snyder and Masters LDR Chair Donald Lein. They alone chose a sympathetic but obscure distance runner for USATF’s top masters award. Mulkey’s reaction? “Hello! Is there any intelligent life out there? Are you just visiting!”


Here’s the rest of Phil’s screed:

The absurd reasoning(?) for justification for Philippa Raschker NOT receiving the award defies (credulity). Pray thee, just what criteria has to be obtained by any one individual to qualify for such? But wait! Perhaps there are NEGATIVE reasons that would enable the honorable & noble committee to DISQUALIFY her and thereby prevent “a miscarriage of justice” and allow some other worthy person to be declared the recipient of the award, which I believe declared to be “THE MOST OUTSTANDING MALE or FEMALE T&F ATHLETE IN THE USA, 2007”
Limited as I am with all the ramifications of the English language, it still appears to me (without further explanation) that the award is intended for just that. (BLoggers please correct me if I am in error here). But following my earlier premise of why she SHOULDN’T get it, I present the following, to wit:
1) It is a well known presumption that she is an extremely dedicated, hard-working, and somewhat indefatable trainer and competitor. You call this fair? What ever happened to “the level playing field?”
2) She hasn’t had to overcome enough injuries. If one were to put aside the three knee and two achillies operations, plus a few hamstring and quad pulls (do migraines count?) she has been almost totally injury free!
3) She isn’t old enough. And besides, I know for a fact that she beats most of the men her age in a given event.
4) And what about this percentage thing? Can we in our hearts really accept a mathematical system that has been derived and fully accepted by all the major track and field organizations? Come on – 90+% indeed. What would that have to do with arriving at any MVP?
5) And championships and gold medals? Give me a break! What’s so tough about that? A bunch of old people running around in colored

http://www.buyambienmed.com/buy-ambien-online/

underwear! And beside, you’ve seen one gold medal, you’ve seem ’em all. Ten gold medals, indeed. I know for a fact that was the second time she has pulled that hat trick. So you’re talking world championships. Just how many people were there anyway? Six thousand, eight thousand? (There were twelve thousand in Japan in ’93 and I won five. Not that big a deal.
6) Let us not get carried away just because of 10 gold medals (I got half that many myself-in 1993) The overriding logic is that if you enter 10 events, you proportionally increase your chances for winning TEN! Don’t you see —just how fair is it for this kind of hat-trick? Just how many people even wanted to try ten events, or were capable, or could afford it (those gold medal came at a dear financial price. Should the rest of us be penalized just because we couldn’t afford it.
7) It is a little know fact that by entering all these events (qualifying heats, preliminaries and finals, simply meant she didn’t have to warm-up all that much. Look, once she got into one event it only lead into another. No warm-up needed! Even you can see that.
8) I only wish we had such enlightened committees back in my heyday of competition. I had to try out for the U.S. Olympic team four different times and they only allowed me to make the trip once. One would think that trying to be as good as my other competitors would have been enough. But, oh no! They shoved some rule down my throat that said I had to qualify by being better than the other guys. Some nerve!
9) And here’s another thought. There have been a couple of Americans who have made FIVE OLYMPIC TEAMS (one woman in the world has made eight for her country and will be trying for another next year. For christ sake. You’d think the Olympic Committee would at least make an effort to “spread it around” a little bit!
10) I appreciate your taking the time to consider “the other side of excellence” and thereby fully understand that ancient axiom: “All that glitters is not gold.” And after all, isn’t excellence its own reward?

In recent days, I’ve learned that Roe and Snyder privately feel they did something really dumb and don’t want a repeat of this debacle. If that’s so, then this has just been a great lesson in how NOT to allocate awards. At least I hope so.

Print Friendly

December 14, 2007

10 Responses

  1. Mary Harada - December 14, 2007

    So much for my early New Years resolution to stop commenting on this blog – or limiting myself to once a month. But enough about me.
    The awarding of the female Athlete of the Year award has demonstrated clearly that there needs to be some clear cut standards for awarding any of these awards. It has been suggested in other places on this blog that age grading might be an appropriate standard. In that case it would be obvious that Phil Raschker’s numerous world records and gold medals trumps anyone else. Personally I was amazed to see that awardee had set a couple of American records – as in – oh American records trump world records. Hum – really!
    I feel badly for the woman who was given the award with all the complaints about “how the heck”. It is not her fault – it is the doing apparently of three people who seem to have had some impairment of judgment.
    And I was not aware that spreading it around was a criteria – gee- Phil has so many awards – we need to give someone else a break.
    The change of the award system to limit the numbers and avoid giving age -group athlete of the year to someone just because they are still standing up and doing something seems to have deteriorated into – well lets spread it around.
    There is something just a little screwy about all this.

  2. Liz Palmer - December 14, 2007

    I agree with Mary when she says that she feels bad for Lois Gilmore, the lady who won this award. She did run 35 road races this year that were age-graded above 90%. She had an outstanding season as well. We can debate this all we want, but I would hate to see her award tainted through no fault of hers. Stick a fork in this situation because it’s done! Let’s look forward to a more accurate selection in 2008.

  3. Phyllis Provost - December 14, 2007

    I do not know much about the giving of awards for top female or male athlete
    as discussed on this blog.But,I would like to stand up for Lois Gilmore.
    I don’t know the lady or ever heard of her but it sure is disconcerting of how things are turning out
    in her behalf.
    Phyllis Provost
    Dallas,Tx.

  4. Gary Grobman - December 14, 2007

    And another reason; Lois ran on the roads, where you have to think about what you’re doing so you don’t get run over by a car. Being a track athlete doesn’t really take any skill, compared to road racing. Phil didn’t have to worry about being lost on the course, or having a dog chase her. Most of us can even take a nap during a long distance track race, without worrying about hitting a pothole or tripping on a tree log. T&F doesn’t really require any athleticism!
    And medals, shmedles! I got a fourth place ribbon in the 10,000 in Orono (M50), and I am still in heaven. Had I won a medal (or 10), I would have been like that ESPN commercial with that kicker trying to get through the medal (oops, I mean metal) detector. They take up too much space, are dangerous when handled by children under five, and probably contribute more to global warming than ribbons–so think of all the pollution and other degradation of the planet Phil was personally responsible for by winning all of these medals–and we were thinking of honoring for that? SHAME!

  5. John Stilbert - December 14, 2007

    If I were in Ms.Raschker’s shoes (which, I could not even begin to fill) I would say, “If the winner of the award isn’t determined by a stop watch or a tape measure, then I don’t want it. I prefer to earn my awards rather than have them given to me.”
    But that’s just me.

  6. Rod Jett - December 15, 2007

    Well I guess all of those people complaining about having standards at championship meets need to shut their traps! Judging by all this fuss over an award, I guess all that stuff about running for the joy of the sport and including everybody was a bunch of crap. It’s a subjective award, get over it! At least Ms. Raschker has the class to stay out of it.

  7. George Mathews - December 15, 2007

    I think they should have the award for Phil every year (she deserves it ) and then one for other mortals. Some people might become discouraged.
    George

  8. Tony Plaster - December 16, 2007

    This is the same Don Lein responsible for dumbing down the road all american standards to the point that my cat qualifies??

  9. Phyllis Provost - December 18, 2007

    Shame on Phil Mulkey.So nice of him to defend his friend Phil but to say that Lois Gilmore is a sympathetic and obscure runner really shows a lot of class on his part.Have you read her resume? Not exactly as you described her.

  10. Bayberry Lanning Shah - July 20, 2009

    Hello, I am the daughter of a former Master’s athlete, Adam Lanning III (96 marathons – 94 triathlons) and I’m trying to get in touch with Phil Mulkey who was his friend. bayberryls@yahoo.com

Leave a Reply