Rita ‘Hamscom’ honored on WMA Web site, just 10 days late
News flash! World Masters Athletics reports that “Rita Hamscom” received world’s best masters athlete honors at the IAAF Gala in Monte Carlo. (See the account here.) No matter. At least the WMA site has a nice photo of Rita and Guido MĂĽller — posted a mere 10 days after the event. But the real revelations are on the USATF records site. For the first time, women’s decathlon records are denoted as “pending.”  (Better than being ignored!)  The site, updated last Sunday, shows Rita as holding the W50 decathlon record of 7327 points and the W55 best of 8899. And still incredible is Nadine O’Connor’s W65 score of 10,234 points from last August (mistakenly included in the W60 group). WMA doesn’t list women’s dec records (probably because it doesn’t contest the event at worlds). But it could happen someday.Â
Sad footnote: Among the dozens of 2009 records noted at the USATF site, none are for marks set at the National Senior Games in Palo Alto. This means national chair Gary Snyder failed to find “middle ground” that allows recognition of records set by Audrey Lary, Flo Meiler, Don Pellmann and others. Damn.
Might someone with a sense of justice please challenge this outrage in Indy?
According to protocol, the USATF Masters T&F Records “Committee” chair, Sandy Pashkin, submits a list of records accepted and rejected to the overall USATF Masters T&F Committee. That committee has the authority to override her recommendations.
As I told the Masters T&F Executive Committee at Oshkosh last summer, no single person should be judge, jury and executioner of masters records. Yet that is what we have.
At the very least, the Lary, Meiler and Pellmann marks should be listed as “pending” American records while the USATF sanction issue is fully explored. Despite what Gary said in late October about the National Senior Games Association not having “reciprocal sanction privilege,” masters delegates can do what they want.
They can vote to submit the Palo Alto marks as masters age-group records and challenge the overall USATF Records Committee to say, “Hell no.” I doubt it would.
No sane person argues that Flo didn’t vault 6-7 or that Don didn’t clear 5-1 3/4 — beating listed world records for the W75 and M90 age groups.
So why not just do the right thing?
Â
15 Responses
It’s not just the NSG. Don Islet cleared a M70 WR at 3.21m in the PV and I saw it, saw it measured for each jump, and saw him almost make 3.35m. In fact, nearly 100 perople saw it. He emailed me Monday that only one person there at the pit was a USATF official so his record won’t count. This was a USATF sanctioned event. That’s just crap.
At three meets last year I attempted the M55 AP in the PV and my attitude was great, they will find some reason for it not to count anyway so just make the jump, everybody know you made it, and move on.
We complain about lack of opportunities to compete and then we get one, that is sanctioned, and we still can’t get “legal” marks even thought there were nearly 100 witnesses.
NOW, how bad does that make marks not accepted from the NSG look? Foolish. Bubba
Yes,
and “why not just do the right thing”
and publish multiples marks also with the results in the events: time, wind, measures, weights and so on, because maybe the points changes sometimes nearby from year to year – (oh, why Yang Chuan-Kwang*, who did 9121 points in the decathlon in Walnut 1963, is not the world-record-man but some Roman Sebrle who did “only” 9026 points in Götzis in 2001).
*@ Bubba Sparks, YCK was a good pole vaulter, wasn’t it?
I love your last sentence, Ken: “So why not just do the right thing?” Unfortunately, doing the right thing counts for nothing in masters T&F. The idea of treating athletes fairly has been almost completely abandoned, although I must credit Gary Snyder for at least mentioning the idea of fairness a few months ago.
I’ve written about this many times; what more can I say? I simply don’t believe that the world as we know it will collapse if we accept absolutely legitimate marks, but some apparently believe otherwise. In addition, what do these policies say about our attitudes toward the athletes who have traveled hundreds or even thousands of miles to set these legitimate marks, only to have them trashed?
And what do you say to the officials and meet directors who have given countless hours of their time (for no compensation) in support of these meets where records are apparently set (and have shared in the athletes’ jubilation)? Sorry, we found a reason to reject the mark. Of course, we know that she or he broke the record, but we still won’t accept it.
This situation has become intolerable. Actually, it’s been intolerable for years.
I have said it before and will do so for the last time (hopefully) – who cares if the NSG track meet is not sanctioned when it has so many more quality competitors than the USATF National Masters meet? Those competitors who set records care. That is all folks – just the competitors and apparently they do not count for spit. It is a travesty wrapped up in an outrage that records set at track meets with USATF certified officials and produced under well recognized conditions are not accepted because the meet is not sanctioned.
If I were one of the competitors who set a record at the NSG and it was not accepted because the meet is not sanctioned – I would be b*&^ s**& out of my mind.
I am not a big NSG track meet fan – but come on folks – it is not being run by folks hired off the street and timed with sun dials. The officiating is good, the timing is good (cannot say that for the Indoors Nationals in Landover last spring) –
those folks who are in charge of records – both the Tsarina and the committee need to consider the damage they do to masters track and field when they act like petty tyrants.
Re WMA website – oh well -who cares about a spelling error of a name – it took them “only 10 days” to post it – and probably will take them 10 years to correct the spelling error. Patience Patience Patience.
Meanwhile – congratulations again to Rita and Guido – they are the read deal.
As for the WMA website – it is “a piece of work”>
Hi Mary! After reading your comments I realized just how much I missed those breakfast conversations in Finland!! Hoping to see you again!
YCK – GREAT vaulter!!
Yes, well said, Mary. And Linda Cohn, as Audrey Lary and many others will attest, you have been a great addition to masters T&F.
Did not realize, Ken, that the records have been updated to Nov 29. Took a look. Kay Glynn’s mark in the pole vault (W55), which was set at a USATF championship (Pacific Assoc) and authenticated by those in charge, never reached pending status. The W40 1500 time of Joan Nesbit (4:32.73) ranks about no. 14 all-time but has no pending marks listed below it. Many, many other outrages, some of which I have detailed before.
When there is a chance that I can improve a record (national or up) I in advance ask the organisers if everything will be OK. Especially when I still did triple jump the check was necessary, sometimes they took the effort to add wind measuring to their equipment. And then I could have an off day…
If you come from a mentality in which you can “bend a rule, break a record”, then we shall all accept any record, no matter if the meet is sanctioned, not sanctioned, wind gauge, no wind gauge, Certified USATF official or not, minimum number of events or not, sloped field or not, etc, etc.
But if you ever ran as an elite athlete before, you know flat out that any infraction of the rule in place as in “read the rule in its entirety” IS the justification for the record to be thrown out. End of story. There is no whining. There is no complaining. What there IS though is a new understanding and responsibility of the athlete who is attempting to break a record to make sure ALL IS IN PLACE AHEAD OF TIME.
I have seen athletes go to meets and talk to the officials ahead of time. To nip any problem in the bud. Get the wind gauge out, etc.
But here we have a lot of newbies who don’t get it. The rules are the rules. End of story. Debate the rule then, folks! Stop your whining.
On the flip side, I was witness to a record being set and verified in Landover with two huge discrepancies/falsifications. I seriously question after witnessing this whether I want to compete again in the U.S. Nationals.
You are totally wrong, Anonymous. This has nothing to do with breaking any rules (or bending them) as far as the conduct of the event. And Bill Collins (All-American at Texas Christian Univ), Frank Condon (Villanova), Alisa Harvey (All-American at Univ of Tennessee), Aaron Thigpen (San Diego State, member of 11 national teams) etc., etc., are not “newbies.” And they are most assuredly not whiners. They ran record times and had nothing to show for them even years later.
When I went to the chief of FAT at the Penn Relays he told me that masters are the ONLY ONES who ask for a photo (for record confirmation). He also told me that he had never had to send in a photo for either an American or world record. In short, Anonymous, you run the race according to the rules (governing the start, not impeding other runners, etc.), and then you try to get it recognized. Flexibility should be allowed not in how you run the event but in how you go about ratifying records.
Athletes are not in charge of the Penn Relays, Mt. SAC Relays, and all of these other meets. You are wrong, Anonymous. Please apologize to Kay Glynn, Aaron Thigpen, Alisa Harvey, and the countless others who did what they could and couldn’t get records accepted. And the next time you see Kay, Aaron, Alisa, or someone else in their shoes, apologize to them.
WMA has corrected the spelling of Hamscom to Hanscom. Took less than 10 hours! What service!
If you want to debate what a person said, don’t twist their words. None of the persons you mentioned “whined” as you say. So why did you associate their good names with whining? And then you ask for an apology when YOU are the one who brought them into it. This behavior is a bit crazy, my man.
The purpose of this discussion is to find solutions to old problems. One: is to strictly follow all rules. Two: We form a board that has authority to require any entity that currently is rejecting legitimate records to prove why. And that we can reject any reason that doesn’t follow the rules. You see…as long as you follow the rules, I follow the rules and people rejecting/accepting records follow the rules, all we have left to debate is to change a rule we don’t like. We seem to be arguing GREY AREAS.
To me, a solution such as forming a board of review on those records that seem legitimate and which are rejected makes total sense. And as a group of thousands of masters here, we have the authority to do that. WE are why the powers that be exist.
Unfortunately for you, Anonymous, I can see what you said by looking up just a few inches. Let’s see: “There is no whining. There is no complaining.” “But here we have a lot of newbies who don’t get it.” “The rules are the rules.” “Stop your whining.”
You’re out of line, Anonymous. Please don’t say “don’t twist their words” to me, Anonymous. You’re wrong, end of story.
Where did we lose track of the fact that USATF officials ran the NSG track meet at Stanford. If you were there and know any of these PAUSATF offcials you would have recongized them from countless Olympic trials, National USATF Open Championships meets and Olympics. Because there was no sanctioning, they didn’t apply the rules correctly? We need to use some common sense.
I think the idea presented about putting a board in place so there is recourse on a denial of a World or National Record is a great idea. Why not argue that point?
Leave a Reply