Penn Relays masters records count, except when they don’t!

In the wake of the two masters WRs at Penn over the weekend, I had the pleasure of chatting via email with one of the record-setters. He noted, in passing, that Houston Elite’s M55 4×4 team had indeed set a world age-group record Saturday — but that the record it beat was its own. On April 25, 2008, the foursome of Bill Collins, George Haywood, Charles Allie and Horace Grant — all 55 or over — clocked 3:41.90 at Penn. You can look it up.  But when the same team (in different order) ran 3:41.07 at Penn over the weekend, the listed WR was 3:43.59 by a British team in 2007. OK. Things move slowly in the Alternate Reality World of  Masters Records. Then how do you explain this: In that same 2008 race won by Houston Elite, a W40 team of Charmaine Roberts, Renee Henderson, Jane Brooker and Olympian Jearl Miles-Clark set a world record themselves, going 3:56.27. You can look it up. So you got that?  One team gets a WR on the WMA records site. The other gets oblivion. Same exact race!


But wait!  There’s more!

Quick trivia question: What’s the American outdoor record in the M40 4×4? 
The answer: USATF lists two records — one for club, one for national team. The national team record is listed as 3:21.54 by Danny Thiel, Ken Brinker, John Tucker and Joe King at Eugene worlds in 1989.
Second trivia question: What’s the world outdoor record in the M40 4×4?
The answer: WMA lists one record. It is 3:20.83 by Sal Allah, Kevin Morning, Ed Gonera and Dr. Ray Blackwell at (where else?) the Penn Relays on April 28, 2001.
What’s up with that?  Is Dr. Blackwell not a U.S. citizen?  Well, according to USATF, he’s the listed American record holder in the M40 indoor 400 (49.62 in 2001).  Of course, what does USATF know?   On February 16, 2007, M40 Robert Thomas ran the 4 in 49.60 indoors in Bloomington, Indiana. You can look it up.

But I digress.
Even if it turns up that Sal is from Mars and Ed is from Jupiter, yet another M40 relay time at Penn would deserve American record recognition: Southwest Sprinters’ 3:21.12 from 2007, with Tony Echeandia, Khalid Mulazim, David Jones and Robert Thomas. You can look it up.
Masters records at the Penn Relays aren’t schizoid in just the 4x4s. In 2008, Sprint Force America fielded an M70 4×1 team of Gary Sims, Wayne Bennett, Larry Colbert and Bob Lida. They zipped around the track in 51.96 seconds. You can look it up. Yup, a world age-group record. Woohoooooo!
Uhm, not so fast, guys. USATF still lists the M70 record as 53.29 by Richard Rizzo, Richard Camp, Wayne Bennett
and Robert Lida at 2007 Orono nationals. The listed WMA world record, BTW, is 53.03 by a German team in 2005.
But who cares about geezers? 
Certainly not USATF when it comes to the M70 4×4 record either.
At the 2008 Penn Relays — in the same race as the aforementioned 4×4 — yet a third world record was set. The M70 team of Larry Colbert, Mack Stewart, Rich Rizzo and Bob Lida clocked 4:24.83 to beat the still-listed world record of 4:31.07 by a German squad in 2006 (as well as the listed American record of 4:31.23 in 2007.)
Am I dreaming?  Three WRs in the same race?
Well so was The Philadelphia Inquirer, which said this: 

The “Philadelphia Inquirer” Memorable Moment of the Day for the Friday session of the 2008 Penn Relays is Master’s 4×400 where three records were set in the same race (women’s 40+, men’s 55+, and men’s 70+).

So what can we surmise from all this? That the Penn Relays is radioactive when it comes to masters records? Well, not really. Besides the W40 4×4 WR, two men’s records from Penn are in the USATF record books (in 10-year age groups).

The bottom line is the same-old, same-old:  Athletes are burdened with the tedious process of  getting their own records paperwork signed, sealed and delivered. Many have simply given up on this ordeal (trust me, I have dozens of private email notes on the subject).
Shouldn’t meet directors do this grunt work?
Shouldn’t prestigious meets other than nationals and worlds be given a paperwork waiver when it comes to age-group records?
Shouldn’t our records administrators take a proactive stance on records set before 50,000 screaming Philadelphia tracknuts and shown as video clips on Flocast? 
You know my stance. You can look it up.

Print Friendly

April 27, 2009

20 Responses

  1. Renee Henderson - April 27, 2009

    If it had not been for Pete Taylor, we would have only had a 4 X 4 World Record in our hearts. He was on the spot and made sure all the papers were properly signed.

  2. Mary Harada - April 27, 2009

    Same old Same old Ken – it is the paperwork – and at the Penn Relays – I cannot imagine being able to find the officials to sign the paperwork – perhaps Pete Taylor can set up a side-business of being the “manager” for paperwork at big meets – and small (Cornell!!) and hire himself out to take care of the paperwork. No guarantees of course – as who knows what will happen even if the eyes are dotted the the tees crossed properly – or not.
    As Renee Henderson mentioned in her comment – it was Pete who got it done.
    So Pete -what would be a fair price for your priceless service – travel expenses plus ???
    I am not really joking here folks – the paperwork issue can loom large at some meets – along with proper hytek and camera operations!

  3. Bob Lida - April 27, 2009

    I’m not sure if people need to be replaced — but there certainly should be a great deal more urgency. Of all the records metioned here, but not yet established as world or national records, there is no question as to their validity. It just can’t be up to individual athletes to push it through — it is why we have a national chair. Our organization needs to be more proactive in getting the documentation — and seeing that the the record book reflects reality.

  4. Joan Hunter - April 27, 2009

    I selfishly agree that some urgency would be nice. I have a (hopefully!) pending national record in the women’s 45-49 indoor 400. It would sure be nice if it got confirmed before Renee breaks it next indoor season (cuz I KNOW you will, Renee, despite hating the event!)

  5. peter taylor - April 27, 2009

    I can’t write anything without repeating myself, but because my name came up (above) I will give everyone some food for thought.
    Masters track does not have its own referee for the Penn Relays. Accordingly, in the last two years we have used the college referee, Herman Frazier (yes, Herman Frazier the Olympian). He has taken the responsibility very seriously. For example, when I asked him if he would sign my form before everything was completed, he politely told me he wanted it all on the form before he signed.
    This year, we had two world records, and Herman Frazier signed off on both. In addition, I had one of the FAT chiefs sign off on both marks. If the two world records are eventually rejected, that means that USATF Masters will have overruled the Penn Relays.
    Of course, this would be no surprise to me. In 2006, Alisa Harvey set American records in both the 1500 and the 1 mile at Penn for W40, and the Penn Relays signed off on both records. Soon, USATF Masters overruled the Penn Relays. This strikes some people as odd.
    As far as pay, yes, I would like a little bit. At this year’s event I helped out with registration and clerking, assisted the announcer (who knows virtually nothing about masters), and processed two world records (of course, they could both get thrown out for some technicality that no one has envisioned). My total pay: $0.00.

  6. David E. Ortman (M56) Seattle, WA - April 27, 2009

    I have not yet made it to the Penn Relays, but I would sure like to have Pete Taylor there to provide his expertize on masters track. Pete if you would be willing to post a mailing address, I would be delighted to send a modest check to help reimburse your expenses.
    And another thanks to Pete for helping to try and make sense of masters records. Yes, it would be better if marks made at our world/national/and perhaps specific open meets with masters events such as the Penn Relays would automatically qualify as records without further followup by the athletes. But that doesn’t help when the timing system goes wacky at one of these meets. Does USAT&F or WMA have a way of recognizing other means of timing (video for instance)?
    Perspiring minds want to know.

  7. peter taylor - April 27, 2009

    Dave Ortman:
    1. In response to your point about automatic qualification of records at the big meets. Yes, if the timing system goes crazy (as at Landover), that would put us in trouble. But the thing about the Penn Relays and similar meets is that they have both expertise and pride.
    In other words, if there is an error (which is uncommon), they are proud enough to investigate it if asked. In the scenario I envision, if someone such as an M55 hurdler who was a standout at Bethel College many years ago somehow managed to run 45.62 in the 400 because of a timing malfunction, that would be nipped in the bud.
    In my system I would have the director of the meet (in the case of the 2009 Penn Relays, that would be Dave Johnson) or his designate sign off on world or American records. He would be advised by me or by Phil Felton (i.e., we would inform him that records were set at Penn in the 4 x 100 and the 4 x 400). We would not even talk to the starter, as at Penn they have both starters and recall starters. What would a starter say, that both the starter and the recall starters failed?
    Also under my system, we would not go to the FAT people. Instead, we would examine the official results on the Penn Relays Web site. If they were reasonable, we would accept them. Last year I repeatedly bothered the “chief of chiefs” of FAT at the Penn Relays for photos. Do you think he really appreciated having someone bother him while he and others were automatically timing the world’s fastest track meet (a meet whose official results go up on the Internet almost immediately)?
    The most important point I can make is that the athlete should not be involved. It should be a two-way street between meet management and USATF Masters. I don’t even want to think about all the records that have been lost because we rely on the athlete to process things.
    2. Since you asked me my address, I will give you the less personal of my addresses (and thank you for your donation). I doubt that I will be inundated with checks, but if they exceed my actual expenses (hope they don’t) I will donate any excess to the American Cancer Society in memory of Timothy Dickens, a former Philadelphia Master who passed away from an ocular melanoma.
    I’m not looking for checks, but since you asked me, Dave, I will post my less personal address here.
    Peter Taylor
    Sr. Editor
    Palladian Partners
    8484 Georgia Ave., Suite 200
    Silver Spring MD 20910

  8. Anonymous - April 27, 2009

    To all the great masters whom competed,at the penn relays and broke records your records are incredible, and i have so much respect for those perfomances,and your records desreve to be in the history books as all time top performances.To mr ken stone please while we are on the subject of records and performances,as i have set my goals for the year and feel,this is a great start to preparing for findlands world championships ive had hurdlers as me why the m45 110 hurdles american record is still listed as t gillard 07-23-95,when at the tom moore invitational hurdles race your performance was 14.75 1.7 wind legal would be a new american record since k smiths wr is listed as jam and gillard usa ,for the american record and ashford ran under this mark at 45ys of age wind legal 14.75 vs 14.79 mr stone our mr taylor please help with this ,and do i need to file paper work to get this record ,on usatf list of age class masters records.thank you david ashford trying not to make it a big deal,but it would be an offical american record m45 11o hh,and very motivating to train harder for the m45 110wr thank you dave ashford in maui hawaii training hard.

  9. peter taylor - April 27, 2009

    Dave Ashford, I will leave this to Ken Stone. Or you could e-mail our chair, Gary Snyder, or our masters chair, Sandy Pashkin.
    P. Taylor

  10. Wayne Bennett - April 27, 2009

    the 4×100 world record we set at the 2008 Penn Relays is probably my only chance to get my name on a world record. I really hope that somehow this great run by we four guys (Sims, Bennett, Colbert & Lida) gets recognized. It should have been recognized and accepted simply because it was accomplished in such a prestigious meet as Penn where everything is don correctly. We need this record.

  11. Mike Fortunato - April 27, 2009

    Don’t bother to email the USATF Masters folks.
    They’re hopeless. Were it not for Ken, we’d all be in the dark.
    Athletes must assert their collective right to assemble official, formal masters records, set sane, sensible standards for verification and have competent well-intended people maintain those records and serve the masters community responsively.
    As far as I can tell, the folks “responsible” for masters records have their own, private desiderata — and they are undecipherable to the rest of us.

  12. clell - April 27, 2009

    Simply amazing. I agree that these athletes should get the recognition that has been earned!!
    My hat is off to all of you.
    There should be an easier way to record these races.

  13. Ken Stone - April 28, 2009

    USATF News & Notes today mentions the masters WRs at Penn:
    http://www.usatf.org/news/view.aspx?duid=USATF_2009_04_28_14_40_34

  14. Tony Echeandia - April 28, 2009

    Hey, Ken you suck out loud!!! Has anyone noticed that SouthWest Sprinters have DOMINATED the Penn Relays, Milrose, Nationals, and World Championships for the last four years as a team, yet we are NEVER MENTIONED! I am glad I run for Puerto Rico because if I ran for the United States I would feel ashamed that I didn’t get noticed by my own country for my accomplishments as a masters athlete. Thank you Ken, for nothing!!

  15. Andrew Hecker - April 30, 2009

    Here’s my rant:
    We had exactly the same situation with Monica Joyce’s W50 5,000m World Record at Mt. SAC. Another big meet, professionally run with lots of eyeballs watching it and a FloTrack video to boot. Did the paperwork get filed?
    Well after I noticed it was a record on Friday night, on Saturday I asked the starter from the night before and the meet referee, who I know personally, if they had signed the record paperwork–they hadn’t and were not aware it was a record. So Sunday, I fired off a mass e-mail to everybody involved–I know who they are (and Ken got a copy too).
    Almost two weeks later, the only responses have been unrelated to the task at hand–telling me how difficult it is to get this job done after the fact. OK, yes it is. It is also too difficult for an athlete to even GET to the proper people and places in a controlled environment such as a big meet–and that would be assuming (in this case an out of state athlete) they know WHO the right people are. If anybody in authority has lifted a finger to get this record process started, they certainly have not done me the courtesy of replying to my e-mail.
    Why didn’t I take this project on myself? Here’s my list of excuses: I didn’t have the paperwork with me, nor access to a printer, nor did I know the athlete, or where she might be a day after the race (to get the necessary birth and citizenship data) and most importantly, my job at the meet was to be a cameraman, not an official, not meet management.
    Something like this, we all defer responsibility off to somebody else because this is a pain in the ass to do. I have done the paperwork shuffle for other records–if you haven’t been through the process here are some of the things you need:
    The athlete needs to submit proof of their age and nationality. You’d think this would be submitted once and your birthdate would be valid for life. Apparently it is not.
    You need to get the certification of the measurement of the track. IF that facility paid for such a certification, it is a sheet of paper buried in a file drawer in some administrator’s office. It could also have been thrown out when the track coach who was there when the place was built, retired. Or (surprise) they might not have paid somebody to certify the measurement. The majority of our tracks (meaning most High Schools and some colleges) DO NOT MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
    Not that I can claim they are measured wrong, just that they didn’t pay to have somebody certify the measurement. I am still trying to get two records set in one of my meets (six years ago) certified, but I haven’t gotten that piece of paper–which reminds me, I need to make another phone call. Or they might not have a curb, or have it in place during the meet or . . . Again you would think that there would be a list of Certified tracks, that the records person could check (or a meet director might check before hosting a meet at that location). Apparently other than the highest level (IAAF Certification) which covers barely a handful of US tracks–you’d be surprised at the omissions http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/04/43/20/20090331052951_httppostedfile_Tracks_1Apr09_9685.pdf, there is no such list. Here’s another interesting link on the subject: http://measure.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/717106522/m/9451099762
    The timing company needs to print the race results and picture. When (IF you can) you step into the timing booth at a big meet, you could find a relaxed atmosphere with a cooperative, knowledgeable operator who can make a few mouse clicks and do the printout OR you can interrupt a stress filled environment and get your head bitten off until security drags you away.
    Let’s say you wait until after the meet to get the picture. “Sorry, computer’s been shut down.” Or contact them a day later. “Oh, we deleted that folder after we printed the results.” By the way, and this is another pet peeve of mine, how many of these FAT operators are certified by USATF or IAAF?
    All the other officials must go through annual training and a constantly updating certification process. The person operating and READING the timing system has the job because they are or know the people who own the timing system. In Southern California, USATF’s most populous association, there are currently NO USATF certified FAT owner/operators. I suspect it is a similar situation in most places. Were the folks who screwed up in Landover seasoned Certified professionals, or the lowest bidder for the job?
    You need to get signatures from all the officials involved–meaning you have to find the right people. Not only are they scattered around the track, but you have to know who did what during your event. They sometimes move and change jobs. The starting crew during 3 long days at Mt. SAC changed shifts several times. When they are off the clock, people go home. If they are not at a track meet, some of them could be hundreds or even thousands of miles away at home. Lets trust this paperwork to the US Postal Service.
    And then you have to trust that the meet director put all the elements in place and were proper procedures followed. Is there a steel tape, or a wind gauge? Did somebody do a lap score on the athlete in question? Or were there three hand watches on the finish line?
    Was the implement certified before or impounded and certified after the throw? Was EVERY attempt for EVERY other competitor measured? Was the bar measured before and after the attempt? In metric? The last official you need to find and get signed off is the Meet Referee who should be watching to see all these things happened correctly. By the way, every one of those situations above has happened wrongly to deny somebody from a record they deserve.
    When you are done, you might get a package of paper that you hope will have all the proper places filled out. And it will get the treatment of a piece of paper at the DMV, its either all filled out correctly with every “I” dotted and “T” crossed or it gets rejected. Next.

  16. peter taylor - May 1, 2009

    You’re the man, Andy. I’m here at 6:20 in the morning at my hotel in Raleigh as I get ready for the Southeastern Masters. I stopped by the hotel computer to check on a few records, will read your complete rant later. Of course, the records I find at usatf.org may not be the true records.
    Notice that you mention Monica Joyce, the 1984 Olympian from Ireland. Right after she set that 5000 mark I went on this site and said I would be following this record. From your rant, I see that I already have my answer: it will not be ratified.
    No sport on this earth has been less receptive to records over the last six to eight years than U.S. masters track and field has been. And I want to underscore one of your points with some elaboration of my own.
    Not only is it totally unrealistic for an athlete such as Monica Joyce to walk around a major meet with a piece of paper in hand, begging people to sign it and bothering the busy FAT people for a photo — in many venues it would be illegal. At Penn Relays, for example, she would ultimately be subject to arrest by the Philadelphia police (who are out in force at Penn) for trespassing on the track or in a section of the stands that was off-limits to athletes.
    So, there you have it, as my father would have said. Another brilliant performance bites the dust, another record shredded. Oh, well. BTW,I hope that Mary Harada will comment on this.

  17. Nadine O'Connor - May 1, 2009

    I feel for Monica and the others. Setting a record is a great achievement. I know how frustrating it is to train hard, do a record performance and not have it recognized for various reasons. But, I personally found the process relatively easy at Mt. Sac. Everyone was helpful, responsive and eager to see that all of the paperwork was completed.

  18. Andrew Hecker - May 1, 2009

    I will agree with Nadine. The people at Mt. SAC, I would go so far as to say all the officials I know, LOVE to have their signature included on a record form. If you come prepared with the form and initiate the process on the scene, you should get most of the steps completed. Somebody in Officialdom will very likely jump at the opportunity to help get things moving in areas you will not be allowed. Getting the picture interrupts the people in the timing booth, but at Mt. SAC I’ve never seen the the pressure-cooker chaos that happens at other meets. Because of my video obligations, I have bothered the guys in the timing booth for a power outlet for most of the last decade. They are cool. All the things fall into place when you are ready and follow through yourself.
    The exception to that is the Track Certification issue I focused on above. Getting somebody to find that in a file drawer is a pain. World Records have been set at Mt. SAC since I was a kid, it should certainly be on a list certified as a proper facility. Same thing goes for Penn. I really would like to see a list of Certified facilities posted for public view–we could then forego the necessity of getting somebody to find that piece of paper. I’ll even add the notation to my catalogue of California/Nevada All Weather Tracks.
    Turn that on its side. If the athlete didn’t show up with the forms, didn’t initiate the process themselves and most likely has caught a plane and gone home . . . NOBODY ELSE WILL JUMP IN.
    Initiating this process a day late, ends up a dollar short. Without the timely initiation by the athlete, nothing gets done. Most officials don’t know IF a record is a record. They won’t start the process until they are told its a record, and without the form they wouldn’t know what to do or what is required. Even many athletes are confused as to what the record is–I’ve wasted my time going through the process at a meet, only to get home and look up the posted record that turns out to be far superior to the mark at today’s meet. And, since most stadiums have poor internet access, we are unable to see this marvelous information source that is available on the WWW while on scene. You’d like meet management to start jumping through hoops, but the crew of hundreds of volunteers on meet day, after the meet is a just few people who meet at the track office every few months. Sure they would like the feather in their hat–that a record was set in their meet. But after getting everything put away after the meet, they are going to decompress. When everybody is no longer on the scene, they have changed hats and are no longer focused on that historical Track Meet. They have scattered to the wind, likely to return next year. Tracking each one of them down takes time, effort and postage. Time is your enemy. As I mentioned, some people clear their computers far too quickly. For others, the memory might not be what it used to be.
    This is our dilemma. We have great performances that show up in results, under completely normal circumstances–that are not recognized. Maybe the athlete didn’t come prepared, maybe the athlete’s ego shys away from recognition and records, if they were once world class, they would expect it taken care of FOR them, or maybe they just don’t know how to do it . . .
    Whether or not the athlete made the effort to go through the paperwork hassle doesn’t mean the result didn’t happen, that the mark wasn’t valid. It is like the difference between what the government might see via its paperwork and the reality that a human being might see (some parties excepted).
    The lesson to be learned here is, currently, if you are a World Class potential record setter as Nadine is any time she sets foot on a track, you have to come prepared to initiate the paperwork immediately afterward. You will then get enthusiastic help. I’ve personally done that for some of Nadine and Bud’s records. I even tried to provide competition for Nadine in a record attempt, but she’s too fast for me (a man, a dozen years her junior).
    We need to have a proactive records system that will look at a superior mark, look at the circumstances it was set under and validate the mark (or invalidate the mark for cause) WITHOUT the paperwork hassle.
    I like to think of technological solutions. Perhaps knowledgeable people like Ken, Pete and I (I’m sure none of us really needs more work on our plates) or other interested individuals can scan the internet for candidates to suggest. Ken’s attempt at a wiki site was a start that only failed because it had no support,. Tied to an official process it would be a direct way for the membership at large to nominate candidates (and quickly filter out the unnecessary inferior applications). An official committee can then look into the circumstances of the mark. E-mails can be exchanged with the key figures involved to make sure everything is correct. The committee’s findings can be posted publicly on an official website (where they can be disputed by anybody who has evidence to the contrary). The Committee itself should be able to discuss and vote amongst themselves via e-mail. Records can be updated year round, rather than once every December. A mark set in a World Class meet should pass easily. In lesser meets, pictures, videos and a preponderance of evidence (there is a lot of that stuff out there and it will only increase) can do a better job than just a sheet of paper.

  19. peter taylor - May 1, 2009

    Thanks for your input, Nadine. Of course, I am heavily influenced by my experience at a much larger meet (Penn Relays, where, if you are an athlete, you can’t do anything at all about processing a record, especially on a Saturday at Penn). That is probably the best example I can cite where having the athlete carry a form around is a complete anachronism.
    In addition, I must point out that we have to have a system (or systems) that will work for ALL meets EVERY time a record is set.
    I like a lot of what I am hearing from Andy Hecker, specifically the emphasis on what actually happened as opposed to what is produced after going through a system. For example, we all know that John Hinton ran 4:20.18 FAT at the Hartshorne Mile on January 19, 2008, but the process produced a verdict of “reject this record.” This, of course, feels very odd when one focuses solely on what happened and forgets the part about a record application. I announced the race — he ran 4:20.18.
    To use a medical example: Every year, many thousands of Americans are diagnosed with colon cancer, and a good percentage can be cured. The medical equivalent of what we have in masters T&F would be having a substantial % of the people who are correctly diagnosed with colon cancer being reclassified as NOT HAVING colon cancer, and thus not being offered any treatment.
    In masters, we have people who are diagnosed correctly as having set an American or world record, but our system subsequently misclassifies them as “did not set a record.” This is hard to accept, but it happens over and over again.

  20. Arch Supports - December 5, 2009

    excellent post!! if any of your readers are interested in quality ARCH SUPPORTS just click the highlighted links.

Leave a Reply