Sacramento nationals to charge athletes for parking: $13 pass
Oshkosh masters nationals outraged athletes last summer by charging family members just to watch. They also had parking fees. I doubt Sacramento will charge admission, but now we know what parking will cost: $13 for a week’s pass or $6 a day. That’s the word from Bob Burns, one of the meet organizers. (He works for the Sacramento Sports Commission.) Bob also replied to some heat-related questions I put to him recently. See my quickie Q&A regarding the July 22-25 meet in Northern California.
Masterstrack.com: How are you going to meet the promise that all races of 1500 meters or longer will be run in the morning?
Will you do “exotic” things like running six 5000 races in the morning and then four 5000s that evening?
Bob Burns: It’s difficult to answer the first two questions until the national masters committee develops the final schedule and posts it on the USATF website on July 12. The committee will certainly take weather conditions and the size of the field into account.
How will they protect everyone from the sun?
There are a number of places to get away from the sun at the Sac State facility, and we plan to cover part of the west grandstand. Without minimizing the effect of heat, I think you’ll agree that many other national sites experienced hot weather.
What will the parking fees be for competitors?
Contestants can buy a weekly parking pass for $13 when they pick up their registration packets, or they can pay $6 per day.
Will the first event of the day be at 7:30 or 7 a.m. or even 6:30?
I can’t answer the last question definitively under the committee makes the final determination. Again, the weather conditions will be taken into account.
71 Responses
They are charging $5 round trip for the shuttle from the meet hotel to the track – with one round trip/hour as far as I can tell. Or- pay $25 for all you can ride trips for the duration of the meet. There is no shuttle for those staying at other motels/hotels. I hope this is NOT an example of what they plan to do for the WMA meet next summer with competitors and visitors staying at many different places around the city.
The university is in session and they charge for parking so I guess that they are just doing what they usually do for on campus parking. $13 for the meet for parking is not “that” expensive.
RE – other meets experienced hot weather – indeed – remember Charlotte – but that is NO excuse for not providing adequate shade and water in Sacramento where it is always hot in the summer. Many of the competitors do not live in areas that experience 90+ heat and telling us to just suck it up will not keep folks healthy.
Will they be charging for water as well? It is one thing to charge for drinks and food but if there are no drinking fountains and no coolers and cups for water -and electrolyte drinks and shades for the officials – that will send a really bad message to overseas athletes thinking about the WMA in Sac next July.
My personal experience with the folks who are in charge of acommodations at the dorms has been less than favorable. John Casey, the Director, passes the buck to a very young and unprofessional staff (Kylee Blatz being one of the people I have had to deal with)in handling simple requests that have uneccessarily resulted in conflict and complaints. He dodges phone calls, and emails. Mr. Casey’s staff will make excuses for him etc as to why he is not available. I get the sense, which seems to be the consensus from other athletes I have spoken to directly, that they don’t have any regard for Masters Athletes. The tone is often condescending in nature. This unprofessional behavior does not bode well for upcoming WMA championships. I certainly won’t be staying in the dorms for Worlds in 2011. I know I am not the only person who has had a negative experience with this personnel, and I feel that with World’s looming, if people don’t express their dissatisfaction, the same treatment will continue. Not good for athletes from other countries, who may have a language barrier to encounter negative behavior from the USA as the host nation. I don’t think the current staff is savvy, experienced in handling simple customer service for our Nationals. It is unlikely they will be able to handle the requests that will be challenging at times for sure. I do however believe the Nationals is a good test to see how the city of Sacramento will represent the USA, and so far I am not impressed.
By challenging in above; let me clarify….There will be even more challenges in preparation for Worlds, and this personnel will not succeed!
I got verification that there is no admission charge for the national meet. Weather so far is pretty good…today’s high forecast to be 94, humidity relatively low (35-40%) and at the current time of 8:00 a.m. it’s 58 degrees.
Are the details for pick up of the Registration packets published yet?
Why is there still no time schedule for the meet?
http://www.usatf.org/events/2010/USAMastersOutdoorTFChampionships/schedule.asp
First off, thank you greatly Ken for addressing the promise of races 1500m and longer in the morning.
As a steepler who usually is stuck running at 2pm or so, it’s truly appreciated. I’ll wait until seeing the final schedule (should be by Friday according to when it was released last year) before ranting on this.
However, I will mention that the statement “Without minimizing the effect of heat, I think you’ll agree that many other national sites experienced hot weather” does at least appear to open the door for the potential of backtracking a bit on that promise. Certainly hoping that’s not the case.
Oops…skipped over it but in the Q&A says the schedule will be posted on July 12th. Seems a bit late for people making flight and other arrangements, particularly if races will be run early morning or evening.
Sacto certainly has a lot going on track-wise with the National Junior Olympic meet firing up just two days after we’re done and going through the 1st of August. Says it’s a different venue for them, though (Hughes Stadium at the City College) so don’t know if any of the same people are involved or not.
Mellow Johnny and Matt B, I will take a stab at this. At Oshkosh last year we had a tentative schedule, and after entries closed we eventually saw the final schedule posted exactly 2 weeks before the meet started, and then the schedule was updated the next day, or 13 days before the meet.
To take one example, Oshkosh had 136 entrants in the 5000 on Thursday (excluding foreign athletes), and the scheduler set forth 8 races in the 5000, or exactly 17 per race, with the first one to start at 7:30 AM, and the last one to end about noon. In fact, we did run 8 races in the 5000.
This year, for Sacramento, we have 193 in the 5000, excluding foreigners, and if the rule of 17 is followed (impossible to follow it exactly, of course), we will have 11 races in the 5000.
Given the large turnouts in the 5000 and most other events, you can see we will have two factors that did not affect Oshkosh:
1. The big numbers stretch the window for almost every track event, making it harder to fit all the longer races in and wreaking havoc to some degree with the scheduling of the shorter events.
2. There was an early note on the Web site (it is still there) about running the events of 1500 meters or longer in the morning, and this is a goal that Oshkosh (or Spokane, Orono, etc.) did not have and certainly did not try to meet.
Thus, I believe that scheduling the Sacramento track events will be much more difficult, more technically challenging, than it was for Oshkosh (2009), Spokane (2008), Orono (2007), etc. I believe that would be the source of delay in the final schedule. Clearly, certain things must be worked out to meet the goals that have been set forth.
The National Junior Olympics meet should not affect us at all, as masters T&F is making up the schedule for our nationals.
Good stuff as always, PT.
I didn’t give my comment on Nat’l Junior Olympics any context so my apologies. That was in reply to the concerns people had about not getting e-mails/calls back in regards to dorms, etc. Of course, WMA is a bigger deal than both meets combined anyways.
Thank you, Mellow Johnny, and now I will crow a little bit and try to educate you as well. Early on, I predicted a strong turnout for Sacramento, and I was vindicated. Yes, I lost confidence at a couple of points, but then a flood of entries came in and all was well.
My prediction was based mostly on the fact that the meet is in California. As a high school teacher, you know that California has by far the highest population of any state in the US, and as a masters T&F enthusiast, you know that hundreds of masters standouts reside in California.
Also as a masters enthusiast, you know that in the history of our nationals, only one state that does not rank in the current top 10 of US states (per 2009 population estimates) has ever had a nationals that drew well (1300 or more entrants). That state would be your own, Mellow Johnny, and all of those meets were in Eugene. That is the one exception.
Turn things around, Mellow Johnny, and schedule a meet at North Dakota State University in Fargo, for example, and the meet will not draw well. That’s just the way it is. Keep that for future reference.
Seems that that’s (population) by far the driving factor, PT, no question. We can talk all we want about the heat, facility, etc. but those are minor when compared to simply where people are.
In addition, a lot of sprinters and jumpers love the heat and can’t wait for that aspect of nationals (particularly after the cold spring we had up here in Oregon). And, most competitors are sprinters and jumpers at nationals with distance runners comprising a small % of the competitors (even though our events take up the bulk of the time).
So, did anyone get the final count on entries?
Is the meet sanctioned yet???
Mellow Johnny: Yes, the importance of population was established many years ago for nationals, in part because the meets are in some ways not national championships — they rely heavily on drawing from people who live within 300 miles of the event. By no means will they make up even a third for outdoors (they might have made up 30% or more for selected indoors), but you need that big population to give you a jump.
By the way, the exception going the other way (a state with a big population that will not draw) is Florida. Too many bad memories of Orlando (1999).
Matt B: The meet has well over 1400 entrants, and that is a fact, not an estimate.
No-Sho-Bro: Would be nice for Indianapolis to put up the “dot” if it has not done so already.
BTW, I hope that others will follow in the footsteps of Mary Harada and Shemayne ___ and tell us about their experiences, what they hope for the meet, etc. This will be an event for the ages at a first-class facility.
Thoughts so far on nationals:
POSITIVES
Venue- top notch facility that has hosted the biggest of national events (Oly Trials, NCAAs). Can’t wait to see it and compete on the track.
Location- 6-7 hour drive for us so not bad at all. Also, my best friend growing up lives there so saves a ton on housing.
Meet management- as Rod Jett pointed out, they have experience running meets there so expect good things based on that.
CONCERNS
Heat/Schedule- the former concern can be eliminated if the schedule takes care of the distance runners as they’ve indicated (all in the morning) or even go at night even though they stated the morning
Parking, etc.- last year, we avoided the parking fee at Oshkosh by parking across the street from the lot where they were charging. I’m not a big fan of being “nickel and dimed” so another $13 for that is a concern. Hopefully we can find a place to park nearby for free like last year 🙂
One problem with moving some 5000s to Thursday evening: quite a few 5000 meter runners are also participating in the 800. While it is reasonable for a 5000 runner to run a final in the long race and then return with a qualifying effort in the 8, it would be race suicide for a potential medalist in the 5000 to run an 800 qualifying race earlier in the day – especially in the heat. Luckily, there are only 10 entrants for the 800 in my age group, so I’m not affected. But other age groups surely would be. Just a thought.
Good point, Pete. I’ve never done that double and never will but I’m also wondering how difficult it would be to run a final in the 5K in the hot part of the day at say 1 then come back and run an 800 heat afterwards.
Seems pretty brutal no matter which way it goes.
I know they’ve had morning and night sessions at Sacto in the past for the Oly Trials and NCAA. Seems like that would really be the best solution to all of this. Gives people time to recover and no one is competing in the hottest part of the day.
If you want to avoid the parking fee and don’t mind a 10-15 minute walk there is an option. From Hwy 50 take Howe Ave, north. Take a left onto University, if you hit Fair Oaks you’ve gone to far. University will curve around past offices. Just about where the road develops a median there will be a pedestrain bridge over the River on the right side that drops you onto the campus. Try to park on the right side of the road as the trees will provide shade for your car in the afternoon. Google earth or mapquest it and you’ll see the bridge. It worked for many a NCAA meet and two Olympic Trials.
I call that an excellent point by Pete Magill. Apparently I have too much time on my hands (won’t start working for a living again until Monday, July 12), and I feel compelled to comment again. I am looking for trials (on Thursday) in the following groups (this is the 800 run):
M40
M50
W50 (17 entrants, when has this group ever had trials?)
M55
M60
M65
Quite a few runners in these groups are doubling in the 5000, and thus this is a new variable. Consider:
1. We don’t want them to run their qualifying 800 before they run their 5000.
2. We want all the 5000 races to be conducted outside of the heat of the day.
3. It looks like we will have about 11 5000s (193 American entrants plus, let us guess, 7 foreigners, for a round number of 200). Obviously, some will scratch, but I don’t think that will be reflected in the schedule that is drawn up.
4. The 5000s will take quite a few hours to complete, taking away track time from the many trials in the 800 as well as trials in the 400.
5. No race of 1500 or more should be run at any time other than in the morning, per the specification that was posted months ago.
Wow, what a lot of variables. I hope some readers will have some answers here. Intriguing.
One thing to keep in mind is that Sacto had morning and evening sessions for meets (Oly Trials and NCAAs) that had SEVERAL LESS races than what we’ll have.
Oly Trials is over twice the time period and has 4 5000’s instead of 11. Even though my mind is on summer break, as a math teacher I can tell you this will be an issue of fitting all of these races into a smaller time frame.
No wonder they need more time to put the final schedule out.
Great advice there, Michael. Somehow I missed your post earlier. Thanks. I’ll be doing that for sure.
Let’s not forget about the extra track traffic with all those 200’s, 800’s and 1500’s for the multi-eventers on Thursday. So how does the “no 1500s other than the morning” rule apply to the pentathlons?
Pete, here’s a request for the pole vault venue: enough shade that participants can be out of the direct sun. It is not uncommon for the competition to last 2 hours. Add 45 minutes to warm up before hand and you can be drained of energy by the end, just by sun exposure. Usually there isn’t enough shade for more than a few who are waiting their turns. So, shade, water, and a surface other than the track or asphalt to sit on. Thanks to all that are preparing for this event.
I’m concerned about the 10K. I understand that with 35 entries there will be 2 heats of the women. With a closely matched race 35 is managable, but with the range of competitors the lapping makes 35 a problem. The trick is where to split it. In order to keep age groups together, it needs to be 23/12.
There are 92 entries for the men. I was hoping for 3 heats so the last heat (mine) isn’t too late in the day. But it looks like 5 or even 6 heats is a possibility.
With men and women, that makes as many as 8 heats of the 10K a possibility, which would take 2 full mornings, not one as scheduled. I would expect a lot of scratches, so perhaps it can be squeezed into half that.
Just have to wait until Monday to see…
Regarding parking: another option is southwest of the track, in an older residential area near Elvas Ave & 64th Street. There’s a pedestrian tunnel there which goes under the RR tracks and comes out right behind the practice track. It’s a bit closer than University Ave, but not as nice. I parked there several times during the 2004 trials with no problems.
Good luck w/ that 800/5000 double for those so inclined. I thought about it (briefly) when it became clear that I’d likely not have to do an 800 prelim.
I ran on that track many times from 1998-2004, but not since. There used to be a large grass field outside turn 1 with lots of mature trees, but current imagery shows a new building there (south side of track) as well as construction on the north side.
I would contact Liz Palmer with all your concerns about nationals since she seems informed.
I have no idea about the 10k, but when they split the 5000m in Spokane (the last track meet i ran), they had 21 women in the 2nd (younger) heat and only 8 in the first (55+ heat), so I don’t think they do it mathematically. So I think it’s possible that there would be bigger heats in the men’s 10k if the times were reasonably close together. (With 52 women, I am sure there will be 3 heats, just not sure where the 50s, with 14 women, will end up).
I assume that they will again permit a water stop in the 5k and 10k.
A friend mentioned heats in the 1500m — how would they do that? There are some fast guys with NT, would they be in a “slow” heat? There’s no requirement that you *have* to submit a qualifier. I haven’t noticed that they’ve ever had more than one heat (a final) in the 1500m and certainly only one is on the schedule.
Kelly, if we don’t have two sections (prefer that word to “heats,” which suggests a qualifying race) in the M50 1500 I think we are in big trouble. BEFORE adding Canadians we have 29 in M50. Yikes. The runners with NT would almost certainly go in the slower section, even if they are stars.
We have at least 253 in the 1500, and I think the person who draws up the races is going to be very busy indeed, not just for this race but for all the others. As she rushes through the names in the M50 1500 I can’t believe she will do anything other than put NT in the slower section (no time to think, and she may not know that some of the NT runners are fast).
Can anything be done by the “NT stars”? Only thing I can think of is changing the entry information that appears on the Web at usatf.org. Don’t know whether it is too late.
Craig Godwin: That 10,000 will be something. The slowest entrant I could find (after a quick check, and he has NT rather than a time listed) ran 1:23 last month (that’s 1 hr and 23 minutes).
Those 10,000 races are going to take a long, long, long time to complete.
I use the word “long” 3 times because you are not going to believe how long it will be between the time the gun is fired for the first 10,000 and the time the last finisher in the final 10,000 crosses the finish line.
On the other hand, massive scratches would make a large difference in that prediction. But why would someone enter the 10,000 in a national championship and then not run it? I guess the realization that they might not finish could be the reason (we will see).
I sure hope they don’t run 35 together in the women’s 10,000. This is a national championship, and it would be a disservice to the women to do that. Sure hope they have plenty of water stops. Mary Harada, please chime in.
John Altendorf: Yes, shade, water, etc. are paramount for the pole vaulters, high jumpers, and others.
Pentathlete: Cannot believe the requirement for running in the morning will be extended to the pentathlon 1500.
Pete, there are also 28 men entered in the M40 1500m, so that’s probably another one they should consider splitting into sections. In most of the USATF distance races I’ve run, those who do not submit a seed time are placed behind the slowest runner who submitted a time. Maybe they can allow the NT runners to update their entries, but I really think the onus is on them to do that when they register. I would be surprised if a “star” would have no clue what time he or she can at least potentially run.
Lap counting – ah – “let me count the ways to screw it up”. But …..they could be smart and use the chip – and a display board as was done in Lahti last summer. Although I could not focus on my number and splits on the board – those in the stands could do so and we would shout out to the competitors we knew as they went past the finish line.
IF I were running the meet- I would use the chip in the 5k and 10k runs and walks. Without a display board they would still need lap counters – so the potential for screw-ups is there. My bet is that the SAC LOC will not use the chip – well maybe for the 10k road walk – but not on the track.
In the 5k and 10k on the track – run and walk – there should be a reasonable cut-off time and then move the competitors who are still out there to the outer lanes – as the rule book says. They should not wait for the slowest competitors in the race to finish if the start time for the next race has been reached and then slow the entire schedule to a crawl.
Hopefully they will not be cramming 20+ into the 5k and 10k races. – I looked at the numbers for women in the 5k and I am guessing that there will be 3 groups 55-79 with 18,45-54 with 18, and 30-44 with 20. There will be serous issues with lap counting in the older group for sure and as usual the older group – and esp the older women will be the test case for the lap counters. If they split the women in the 5k into two groups – chaos will reign.
My usual tactic for lap counting is to have a friend in the stands keeping my splits and laps – but I have no idea if anyone will be around to do that. (but I will have a lap sheet in my track bag and a pen if someone is willing to do that for me) However I am experienced enough that usually I can keep track by time – not expecting any miracles nor a WR by being told to finish too soon. And being given my splits by my lap counter -ha ha – have not had that happen since the National Masters was in Eugene.
Perhaps they will get the bugs ironed out by the !0k on the track. That will indeed be the race that is the most challenging. And that is the race where they really need to move the slower runners to the outside lane if the time has come to start the next race.
As an “NT” runner, let me just say that there’s little mystery as to why I didn’t list a time (800, 1500, 5000). I haven’t raced on the track in over a year – over 2 years for the 1500 and about 4 for the 800 – and the USATF site won’t let me enter a time without filling out fields for where and when I ran my seed time. While I’ve just made this up in the past when I was race-fit, the fact is that I’ve been coming off a nasty injury that had me out months (during which I gained 20 pounds), haven’t raced at all since the beginning of December, and couldn’t peg within a minute what my 5K time will be – or within an equally large range for the other two races. Since I don’t like lying about seed times anyway, I definitely wouldn’t feel right making up a time that probably has little bearing on what I’ll actually run. Mostly though, I just don’t like lying about seed times – it’s a pet peeve.
Although that does bring up an interesting story. An acquaintance of mine always makes up faster seed times for these things than he’s run – then scours the entry list to see where his made-up time ranks him among the entrants. “Wow,” he’ll say, “looks like I have a good shot at a medal!” Yeah, over the rainbow and in a fantasy world far, far away.
Scott Bickham: With 28 in your M40 1500 it would be a crying shame to run just one section. You have some major league speed in that event, including superstar Jim Sorensen. Masters need room to run. Make it two sections.
Your point about placing the NT runners behind the slowest runner with a time is consistent with my recollection of how things are done.
Mary Harada: You and I know more about lap counting than most, I would guess. A lot of it has to do with interest — at Decatur (2004), as you recall, some of the lap counters had no interest in their assignment. The result was sad, as you remember so well.
Actually, Mary (and others), Rule 131 (Lap Scorers) mandates that every runner in the 5,000 and 10,000 events have a time recorded for every lap. The lap scoring cards will ultimately be turned over to the referee.
Beyond that, there is a moral obligation to count the laps correctly for people who have traveled so far and invested so much both physically and emotionally in these longer races (not to mention air fare and hotel).
Thus, there is no choice, the laps must be counted and timed for EVERY runner, regardless of speed. To do this, I would like to see a limit of 20 runners in the 5,000 and 10,000, but even that is stretching it a bit (so easy to miss one runner, one time). Perhaps the chip should be used instead.
Going to be very interesting what the final schedule looks like when they release it on July 12th.
I know the USATF website said that distance races would be run in the morning, but do they HAVE to be?
Sac is known for the heat in the day but unlike many other parts of the country it does cool off at night. On a mid to low 90’s(typical) it is often 75-80 degrees by 8 p.m. Thats not bad when you consider there will be no sun by then and no humidity.
I would much rather run at night myself. If they run us under the lights, I’ll be thrilled.
I’ll take morning over mid-day but it’s going to have to be awfully early to be cool.
Advantages of night over morning:
1) as races drag on, it only gets COOLER for the later competitors rather than hotter like it will for those running in the 11th 5K of the day
2) having distance races running long at night (see PT’s post on the over 1 hour 10K runners) won’t backlog the entire schedule, it just goes further into the night so the next mornings’ races can still be on time
Peter – I know that the rule says – write down a time – but …I also know that it does not always happen. I do not know if there is such a rule for international masters meets but in Linz – the lap counters put a check next to each competitor’s lap – a check – no time – and miscounted the laps – stopping the front runners too soon – and ruined the possiblity of a really good 3k WR for the W 70 German athlete.
And indeed I remember listening to the lap counters (USATF Officials) discussing the lunch menu instead of lap counting during the 5k.
I am with Mellow Johnny – running in the evening would be great. In Puerto Rico at the WMA – the 5k was at night – no sun – cooler (I do not run the 10k so I do not know about that)- will that happen at SAC in July – I doubt it – will it happen next year for the WMA – do not hold your breath. It would just make too much sense.
The only thing that gives me hope, Mary, is that, as Rod pointed out, Sacramento has had evening sessions for the other meets they’ve hosted so why not for us?
I know about the concern for long days for officials but I’m an official myself and would much prefer to have a big break in the heat of the day and do mornings and evenings rather than suffering through the heat.
Rod Jett: That was a promise that was made, but some promises must be broken for the greater good. I simply cannot see how the distance races can all be run in the morning, which I interpret to mean the following:
The final runner in the final race crosses the finish line no later than 11:59 and 59 seconds AM (local time). Don’t see how that can happen. Like the idea of running at night.
Mary Harada: Ah, Linz, the memories (for you, not me). Was the food good over there? Putting a check down rather than a time for the leader running a world record pace in the championship of the world (ultimately miscounting her laps) is not good.
It would be like my nephew charging out onto the field at this fall’s World Series (baseball, I mean) and taking over the home plate umpire’s duties of calling balls and strikes. He’s pretty strong (ex-football player and ex-pitcher) and could do this, but it would not be good.
We must do what is good.
Breaking that promise if it means allowing us to run in even better conditions is something most of us can live with.
The only issue I see is the issues of travel plans but since there isn’t a time schedule yet, people shouldn’t be assuming anything about when their race is run.
I interpret the promise of races 1500m and longer being the in morning the exact same way you do, PT. Any race that drags into “after noon” doesn’t live up to that promise.
Question for PT, Mary, Rod, and everyone else who has been at this a lot longer than I have.
I’ve always followed the mantra “plan for the worst, hope for the best.”
So, going with that, what is our recourse (if any) should the schedule be the worst possible situation, particularly for us distance runners?
Races at 2pm and 3pm for example. What has been done in the past? Anything? Sounds like several athletes essentially boycotted future championships after Charlotte. Is there another alternative that works on solving the problem or does one just not exist?
Thanks as always for your wisdom.
The best recourse or alternate for solving the problem is for you to get with your local association and bid for a future masters meet that way you can have it arranged the way you want it. This would be much more productive than boycotting future championships. I look forward to seeing a bid from Eugene.
Well, Mellow Johnny, I have been posting too much, but as noted earlier I will not start working again (for a living, I mean) until July 12, so here goes:
Let us say that the 3000-m steeplechase for M30, M35, and M40 is ultimately scheduled for 2:45 PM on Friday and, indeed, is run at that time. At the stadium you will have absolutely no recourse, and I wouldn’t even bother arguing the point that it was supposed to be in the morning. Accept it or don’t run.
Later, if you want to make a point, you could write a letter to USATF and say you want your money back (it would strengthen your case, I think, if you scratched from the race). In my opinion you will not get your money back.
If you boycott the nationals in Berea (2011) or Lisle (2012) it will mean nothing, and no one will be impressed or care.
A lot of this has to do with consumer choice vs. monopoly. I live in Fairfax (Virginia), and we have several grocery stores. I always go to “store G,” however, because the prices are good, the fruits and vegetables are fresh, and the bakery is excellent.
I could go to other grocery stores, but I don’t. With masters track, however, you are involved with a monopoly. Masters T&F makes the rules, tells you when the steeplechase will be run, tells you the age groups for which there will be trials in the 800, etc. That is not up to you as a consumer.
If you want to change what USATF does, you can join it and work on some committees. Maybe things will change, maybe they won’t.
(sigh)…that’s what I thought. As you’d expect, PT, I have no interest in scratching a race or boycotting anything.
Guess I just have to go with “hoping for the best” and that the steeple is listed for 8pm on Friday!
With sufficient lap scorers, we could do more than 24 on the track. At Mt. SAC, we have had in the high 40’s on the track. Rule 166.1 C iv if applied to Masters might preclude this, though even with a cap of 24, it could be accomplished in 4-5 heats. Rule 232.2 E both allows for the breakup of age division into timed finals (which I would advise against) and only specifically addresses field size in 1500 or racewalk.
Would love to see Eugene bid as well. Seems that they’ve got their hands full with US Champs, Trials, and NCAA Meets the next few years, however.
Next year open for masters is 2013 although Spokane and Orono are rumored to be bidding. No Oly trials in 2013. NCAAs are in June. US Champs in North Carolina in 2011, haven’t been awarded past then.
It doesn’t have to be Hayward field.
Start working on that bid!
Well Mellow Johnny: my plan for the 5k (or 3k) is always the same -count my own laps. I go in with a plan to run (hopefully) certain splits – so I can tell where I am by the clock. If they turn off the clock after the first finisher in an multi-age group race (yes that happens more often than you can imagine) then I am hard up to keep track – but if that happens hopefully I have not been lapped so often that I have lost track of how many laps I have left. And as I mentioned earlier – I print out a lap sheet for the 5k and take it along hoping to see someone I can recruit to keep my splits and laps.
I have been running around a track long enough that I have seen just about everything – and at my age I often do not have anyone running near my time to chase so knowing where I am each 400 m (or indoors 200m) is crucial. But I have been at meets where the finish line clock is not working and the officials refuse to call out the splits at the finish line area (Dartmouth Relays several years ago in the 3k and Boise, Indoor National Masters also the 3k ) and then the race is just a sick joke. I do not expect that to happen as Sac. I wear a watch but I rarely set it to time the race – after all that is why I am paying the big bucks – to have someone fire the gun and time the race! This is not a road race where you want to know your time at the mile markers.
The key is to have a good idea of what you think you can run – and stick to it regardless of what is happening around you and regardless of the circumstances. I would not boycott a race because of the time of day but I might not run it if it is so hot that I think I might endanger my health. I did not run the 5k in Charlotte because of the heat and humidity. That was not a boycott – that was self-preservation. My body is not acclimated to running even a 5k in high temperatures and humidity, and they were in the midst of a heat wave.
Uh, yeah, I’ll get right on that, solution.
You’re obviously kidding about it not having to be at Hayward Field (I hope) if in Eugene. Also, Eugene, not North Carolina is hosting the US Champs next year unless that’s changed in the last week or something.
I don’t know if the committee will look this deep, but I did. In the 10,000–which was what I was referring to in my previous post–there will be a woman running close to 2 hours for her race, and one man close to an hour and a half, plus a handful close to an hour. Ideally, I’d say they should all be in the same race. By dividing the sexes, we will waste a lot of the valuable moderate temperature time available. Even by starting at 4 a.m. five races could get close to 10 a.m. In Sacramento, thats the time the temperature is accelerating by the minute. By the way, looking at the weather curves, it doesn’t cool down until like 9 p.m. Between Noon and essentially 8 p.m. we are talking 90’s. That and the charts I just read are based on yesterday. I’m not sure if Sacramento is attached to the same cold weather we are having in Southern California right now, but if they are, that’s a bad sign. It rained here yesterday. I’ll repeat for clarity, on July 6 and 7, it rained in Southern California. That is freaky weather. So I do hope the planners are hearing our voices from this blog. An early wake up call and some stadium lights, or fried distance runners for lunch.
PT, 2orry about using the wrong terminology, I’m not a real trackie, just a pretender! I hope I can keep track of my own laps, but I am not very good about that in the heat. Should be “interesting.”
Personally, I’d love to run at night as I’m not a morning person, although it’s hard to fall asleep after a night race. But many others would prefer the early morning as it will be cooler than – it takes a while for heat to dissipate.
They should let the NT people submit seed times or estimates. My last track race was 2 years ago, so I did not feel right submitting that time, although I can tell that others used times that old. I mean, “older, slower, lower”, right – can’t believe that a 2 year old time is very accurate. Moot point for my race, but some of the men’s races will lose some great competition by putting some fast runners in the “slow heat.”
I was curious about the US Outdoor Championship Meet as well. This is a cut and paste from Wikipedia but I don’t know how accurate it is. I know that the Outdoor Championships and the Olympic Trials are one and the same in Olympic years, so the 2012 Outdoors will be in Eugene. But per Wikipedia, the 2011 Outdoors will be in NC. Can anyone find anything different? The point being made by Mr. Solution is that if you are disatisfied with the way a championship is run, you should get involved and consider helping your association prepare a bid for an upcoming meet. This may allow you to “fix” the things that you don’t like. First, Hayward Field is not the only place in the state of Oregon for a track meet. Second, it would appear there is room in the Hayward schedule for a 2013 bid. This is the next available year fot the masters outdoor championship meet. Why not bring it up with your association and see what can be done, if not for 2013 then for a future year?
“2011 Raleigh, North Carolina North Carolina State University
2010 Des Moines, Iowa Drake Stadium, Drake University June 23-27, 2010
2009 Eugene, Oregon Hayward Field, University of Oregon June 25-28, 2009
2008 Eugene, Oregon Hayward Field, University of Oregon June 27-July 6, 2008”
There is no question that the 2011 USATF Championship Meet (open, not masters) will be at Hayward Field:
http://www.usatf.org/news/view.aspx?DUID=USATF_2007_12_12_13_23_27
The University of Oregon is also trying to become the permanent home of the NCAA’s. The resurgance of “Track Town” has made it difficult to squeeze in the Hayward Classic, and makes hosting the masters nationals very difficult. Finding a workable set of open dates at Hayward Field is a problem, plus many the people who would organize that meet also work on all the other major meets here.
It would be tough to get the masters nationals in Eugene unless some year Hayward Field doesn’t have another big, multi-day meet going on. That doesn’t seem likely anytime soon…
Craig is correct:
“EUGENE, Ore. –…
Eugene, which next year will host the 2008 U.S. Olympic Team Trials – Track & Field, also will host the 2009 and 2011 USA Outdoor Track & Field Championships, Masback announced.”
Also, as I stated, I’m “planning for the worst and hoping for the best” and that’s all at this point. A lot of people are concerned about the schedule for nationals. That may all be for nothing. I have no problems with anything at this point.
For the sake of discussion, I was merely asking those who have been at this awhile what are the remedies available IF people aren’t satisfied? That’s the extent of it.
Kelly: No problem. Hope I didn’t sound too officious. I should note that most of what I see here (the 54 comments) has been in the way of suggestions and not complaining, lest people think “we protest too much.”
Schedule. The schedule comes out Monday, but to paraphrase A. Lincoln, the world will little note nor long remember what the schedule will say. Some people will be alarmed, while others will be pleased. But a month or two from now that will all be forgotten (what the schedule actually says).
What WILL be remembered is the actual experience of the Sacramento meet (July 22-25). How will things play out? Will the distance races be our downfall, or will things be OK? To me, the 10,000 looks like the biggest problem. How is this for a solution:
Enclose a note in the packet of the 10,000 runners that they can declare for that race as early as Thursday (opening day). Encourage declaration all the way through Friday evening (the 10,000 is on Saturday morning). On Saturday, based on the declarations, REDRAW the 10,000 to eliminate at least one of the sections included in the July 12 schedule. In other words, collapse the 10,000 schedule a bit.
As far as the 1500; if I am in the M40 1500 (includes the very speedy Jim Sorensen), I don’t want to be in row 3 (if they have rows of 12, 12, and then 4 with no scratches in a field of 28). It gives me a very bad start, makes me search for running room the entire first lap or so, and increases the chance of accidents.
I understand the desirability of knowing how your competitors are doing (by running just one big section), but I prefer a split. Perhaps I am overly influenced by indoor masters nationals in Boston, which has many split finals.
As far as changing NT, I still think the only solution is to change what is in the database. Changes at the site, I think, will mean nothing.
Pete – the rules about running heats or sections for the open national meets are spelled out in USATF rule 166. I couldn’t find anything specific for master’s though
Section (c)ii states: If more than 16 report for the 1500 Meters, more than 18 report for the 3000 Meters or Steeplechase, or more than 20 report for the 5000 Meters, heats shall be run.
Good ideas there, PT. I concur that I think this is all merely discussion in anticipation of the schedule. There’s nothing to complain about…yet 🙂
This is very unlike the last two national championships for several reasons in my opinion:
1) the concern of heat and temps significantly higher than what average temps call for in Spokane and Oshkosh (although Spokane was pretty warm at 2pm on Friday for the steeple)
2) the “promise” of all races 1500m and longer to be in the morning
3) the # of races in the distances in particular is higher so the schedule will be even fuller
4) the great track record (no pun intended) of Sacto in hosting big meets and being flexible with morning and night sessions in the past
As a result, a lot of anticipation for July 12th.
Either way, I’ll compete regardless and deal with whatever factors are involved just as everyone has to do.
Finally, hope everyone’s last couple weeks of training and tapering are going well! I get to have a root canal redone next Wednesday as part of my prep…fun stuff.
Thanks, Scott. How all of this will be resolved is difficult to guess at this point (Friday afternoon, July 9). Of course, masters championships are a bit different from the norm in track and field, and thus we have to be flexible, I believe, in laying out and scheduling our events on the track.
In the masters, we know that some of us require quite a bit of time to get through our races. Nothing wrong with that, but there are implications for the schedule. In addition, heat can be a major issue for some of our athletes, more than it would be for those aged 18 to 25, for example.
Furthermore, some of our athletes have little experience in competing in a crowded race on the track, or knowing how to “cross over” without impeding other runners or how to pass in a tight field without “making a mess.”
In terms of scheduling and laying out our races, therefore, I think that approaches incorporating maximum innovation and flexibility are needed (see, for example, the suggestion by Mr. A. Hecker [no. 50]).
I contrast this need for flexibility and innovation in our scheduling with the need to be inflexible (and not “innovative”) when it comes down to the actual competitions. If you foul in the long jump, that’s a foul; if you leave the line early in a race, that’s a false start; if the discus lands outside of the sector it doesn’t count.
Personally, I predict that there will not be a great deal that seems new or “different” in the scheduling, but I will find out on Monday.
Large fields in the 5,000 and 10,000 should be no surprise to anyone. Northern California is a hotbed for quality Masters distance running (ie. large field for the National Cross Country Championships at Golden Gate Park in 2006). Sounds to me the only reasonable solution would be to utilize the Sacramento City College track (Hughes Stadium has hosted the Open Nationals befoe and is scheduled to be utilized next year for the World Championships) for half the races. If Sacramento City College is not available you have either American River College or Consumes River College close by. All of these facilities would be fine for both races. I would assume that using multiple facilities for these races is being considered for next year or you will certainly have older men and women running in the middle of the day which will be 90 – 100 degrees. Hopefully the organizers will make good decisions or learn from their mistakes for next years Worlds.
Generally, I think they try to schedule the oldest racers in the longer events first (at least it has been done that way) – it’s the “youngsters” (30s and 40s) who generally get the later (and hotter) times. Yours in an interesting suggestion, but the only thing that’s going to get ME through a hot 5k is having friends (fellow competitors) yell for me. As I said previously, I don’t think 21 runners in a section was excessive for the 5k (but maybe I’ll have someone count my laps).
Let’s forget the heat for a moment and think more globally (with an eye toward future nationals). This meet (Sacramento) is the 4th outdoor nationals (of about 43 or so) to draw more than 1400 competitors (it did not reach 1500). I am struck by the fact that the turnout is really putting some pressure on the schedule.
What if the meet had been scheduled for University of Minnesota-Duluth instead and, amazingly, had drawn more than 1400 (but below 1500) as well. We would be still be talking about schedule difficulties, the possibility of going into the evening, etc. (In Duluth, the average low and high temps for July are 57 and 75.)
When I look at the Saturday schedule for Sacramento, I see that a large part of the day will be devoted to just 2 events — the 10,000 run and the trials in the 200 dash. Before adding sprinters from Canada, Trinidad and Tobago, etc., you can see that we have 293 entrants in the 200 dash. Hmmm….how many hours is it going to take to run all of those trials?
Would it be possible to have no trials in our nationals? In those events in which there are trials (100, 200, 400, 800, 80 hurdles, 100 hurdles, 110 hurdles, 300 hurdles, and 400 hurdles) the athletes would be placed in a section that would be determined by their past performances — I, II, III, or IV. Everyone would get to run at least once, but no one would run twice.
All right, I am just throwing it out for discussion, but the heat issue, for me, has obscured the fact that we need very long days to accommodate the track events even though we did not reach 1500 entrants. Sound crazy?
Look at this realistic schedule for a meet of exactly our size that would be held in Duluth (no worry about heat, even though there it gets hot every so often):
Saturday, July 24:
10,000 Finals from 7:30 AM to 1:00 PM.
Trials in intermediate hurdles from 1:00 to 1:30 PM.
Finals in 100 for men and women (about 22 races): 1:35 PM to 3:15 PM.
Finals in 800 for men and women: 3:20 PM to 5:30 PM.
Trials in 200 from 5:40 PM to 7:45 PM.
Daggone, that’s a long schedule with no breaks at all. And all for a meet with fewer than 1500 competitors.
Since it’s the 4th such nationals with that many competitors, my first question would be “what did they do at the other 3?”
Did the meet run for 12+ hours daily?
Guess I should do some research first. Looked at 2003 in Eugene. I imagine that was one of the meets that had high attendance. Correct, PT?
Each day started at 8am and the latest any day went ON THE SCHEDULE (in reality, I have no idea obviously) was Friday’s 6:20pm for the 3000m Steeplechase.
Which leads me to another point that the precedent is clearly there to move distance events to the end of the day.
I don’t know, Mellow Johnny. But you can see where I am going — we are really at the breaking point when we are in the 1400 to 1499 category.
Masters T&F is odd in that a large % of the people who run in the trials also run in the finals. My proposal, which clearly can be debated, would lengthen the finals considerably but eliminate the trials altogether. It would also give more emphasis to what you had done in actual events between, let us say, January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010 (your performances there could get you in race I [for elites]).
Some people will say it’s a little weird, but if we are successful in the future at getting these bigger draws we are going to run into the same problem we have for Sacramento: A large % of the track time over the 4 days is devoted to trials, which puts pressure on the distance races. It’s not just about the heat.
Note: I did not attend any of the previous 3 championships with 1400+.
Mellow Johnny, you and I have a propensity for writing at the same time. Eugene in 2003 had a paltry turnout, only 1207. Go back to Eugene 2000, which had 1503.
Yes we do. Unfortunately, the website only has a meet history going back to 2002.
Back to your original point which I strayed from a bit, I’ve long been an advocate for timed finals in a meet such as this where:
(a)there is a large gap in times from the fastest and slowest competitor and athletes can be grouped in sections with others close to their time with relative ease
(b) where you have athletes doing multiple races over only 4 days (as opposed to WMAs, Olympics, or World Champs where the competitions run 10+ days)
This has it’s own set of problems of course:
1) USATF doesn’t require us to have our entry times confirmed so it’s easy to falsify marks to get in a section in which you don’t belong
2) athletes like Pete Magill who haven’t competed on the track for awhile and are honest about that and put in “NT” could be left out of the fast section he belongs in (I realize he’s not in the sprint events listed but you catch my drift here)
3) the use of even an honest time from a few months prior may be misleading…I ran a 10:28 two years ago 3 months before Nats and had that time listed but- for several reasons- wasn’t in that type of shape in Spokane (reflected by the 10:50 I ran)
Nonetheless, there is the adage “you should be able to achieve your best performance regardless of who is in the race with you” which is debatable for sure.
Using the timed finals concept, here’s how it would break down for the Men’s 50-54 100m Dash (picked at random). Let’s assume all times entered are accurate and the NT’s really have just that, no time.
To me, you’ll see very similar results from running timed finals than with qualifying heats. Athletes in multiple events won’t be spent from all the rounds and injuries less likely as well.
HEAT I: Fastest Heat
8 participants between 10.08 & 12.07
HEAT II
8 participants between 12.10 & 13.11
HEAT III
6 participants between 13.23 & 14.00
HEAT IV
6 participants all with NT
What about running two races simultaneously? By that I mean, run the longer races (5ks and 10Ks) using lanes 1-4 for one race and a second race could be run from lanes 5 through 8. Simply put up cones and adjust the start line and recalculate the total laps to accommodate the longer trip around from lane 5. This would allow for the older more deliberate paced runners to race without concern of multiple lapping, passing dangers are reduced, etc. and counters could focus on a smaller group of runners. I suspect this may violate some USATF rules, but from a practical point of view, this would cut down the total track time significantly. Just a thought off the top of my head.
PT, going back a few comments, a large field in any race will not be handled by stacking rows. Proper procedure will be to use alley starts. With huge fields 3 alleys would be appropriate, though that is mathematically a bit more challenging on an 8 lane track (which is would be the south turn and east straightaway–the start of the 10K or 1500). The 5K start has a 9th lane.
Under an alley start, everybody gets a waterfall to the appropriate lane line and stay in that lane until the break line where the alleys merge. Nobody is at a disadvantage.
The idea of a second track sounds intriguing, though I am doubtful the LOC will be able to put together such arrangements (requiring duplicate timing systems, multiple officials and site approval–which is a whole ball of wax under good circumstances). Maybe they are sufficiently connected to pull off those arrangements and would be a lot better than having and distance races finishing after around 10 a.m. (as I outlined above). I’ll also mention there is that 2 lane warm up track adjacent to the stadium that could house the previously mentioned heat of 10000 for competitors slower than an hour, who obviously will be spread all over the track.
I’ll throw in some ancient history. I remember the 1989 National Championships in San Diego using two tracks across town (SDSU and Balboa). It solved scheduling problems though in reality causes problems as well. I had a final in Balboa that started over an hour late. I ran out of the stadium and rushed to SDSU, avoiding the crowded school parking lot by parking in front of somebody’s house, jumped the fence and got to the start literally seconds before they were going to scratch me. The simple message is two tracks require more coordination and cooperation from officials than normally happens.
Running the pentathlon events in outer lanes also sounds like a decent idea if time gets crunched. Unfortunately the 200s are the third event, probably conflicting with the 400 or possibly 800 trials, not nearly as convenient as during the 5000. Expect interruptions. And the 1500 will probably have to interrupt those 400 heats as well.
Andrew, thanks for that. Yes, indeed, they should use alley starts, but will they? Sometimes in masters they simply say, “Get ’em out there and let’s get going.” The 3rd alley, BTW, gets technically challenging, as I believe you are indicating.
Overall, my concern is that at some point(s) people will say, “Geez, I didn’t think it would take this long to run these races. We have to get a move on…forget procedures and let’s get cracking.” With the excellent group we have running this meet that might not ever be a problem, but still I get concerned when I look at events like the 10,000 (that thing is going to be interminable).
Again, I believe some innovation in scheduling will be needed.
I noticed true to their word the schedule for next weeks Nationals is out today. They were able to get the 1,500, 5,000 and 10,000 races in the morning. Unforunately for me I am running the Steeple and it is to be contested at 12:20. I don’t think the games committee appreciates how challenging running a Steeple can be and now we will be running it in very hot conditions. I guess we now pray for a cold front to come through. Today in Sacramento it was in the mid 90’s. I guess I am a little surprised that six 5,000 meter walk races can be scheduled before 10:00 a.m., but the Steeple is scheduled that much later in the day?
Leave a Reply