Shades of Landover snafu: ‘All 60m races currently under review’
Two years ago at Landover masters indoor nationals, the timing company made such a hash of results that USATF Masters national chairman Gary Snyder apologized and the USATF Masters Track & Field Committee pledged, “Never again.” Don’t look now, but we have “again.” As many of you have noticed, results from Albuquerque nationals include a disclaimer: “All 60m races are currently under review.” That includes American records by Bill Collins and 13 others!
Here’s how USATF reported the 60-meter results at the time:
The 60m was the event of the day, with records falling seemingly every time the starter’s pistol blasted. A total of 14 American Records and three World Records were broken during the event. The following athletes set records: John Means (Richmond Heights, Ohio) M90 AR/WR 11.23; Robert Whilden (Houston, Texas) M75 AR 8.65; Stan Whitley (Alta Loma, Calif.) M65 AR 7.92; Stephen Robbins (Cleveland Heights, Ohio) M65 AR 7.93; Bill Collins (Houston, Texas) M60 AR/WR 7.65; Alfy Pettes (Omaha, Neb.) M35 AR 6.82; Etroy Nelson (Abingdon, Md.) M35 AR 6.89; Johnnye Valien (Los Angeles, Calif.) W85 AR 14.89; Barbara Jordan (South Burlington, Vt.) W75 AR/WR 10.31; Audrey Lary (Frederick, Md.) W75 AR 10.81; Kathy Bergen (La Canada, Calif.) W70 AR/WR 9.13; Brenda Matthews (Anaheim, Calif.) W60 AR 8.78; Renee Henderson (Merchantville, N.J.) W45 AR 7.67; Dena Birade (Bellingham, Wash.) W35 AR 7.83.
In the days that followed indoor nationals, I was CC’d a number of e-mail exchanges on results problems, especially the lack of them being posted expeditiously online.
Here’s one from Rex Harvey, a longtime member of the oversight Games Committee:
Concerning the recent USATF Masters Indoor Championships; to my knowledge, no one on the MTF Games Committee has posted any result of any kind on any Internet website or officially endorsed any results. If you followed the minute to minute conduct of the meet, you will be aware that many different things were on the edge of completely breaking down numerous times and the Games Committee was kept very busy doing much more critical tasks than posting results.
Things like fixing malfunctioning electronics, hauling hurdles, pits and other equipment, setting up event venues, even directly officiating events just to keep things moving. The Games Committee is willing to do this, but it all takes time and there is little time left over for additional tasks. The facts are that results cannot be posted if there are no results, so that is our first priority. First and foremost, the meet must go on.
If I understand it correctly, the quick posting of results to the Internet is a service to the athletes and the public that USATF undertook—not as a requirement, but as a voluntary service. It is very easy for them to stop the complaints about the immediate results postings by simply not doing them. They are not the technical experts on matters such as this. They simply take what they have available to them and post it. They don’t know if it is right, or if it is in the correct format. And no one on the current Games Committee has time to verify results in real time.
So the result of all of the complaining will most likely be that results will not be immediately posted, but only after the Games Committee have had time to verify the results and to make sure that they are reported in the proper format. And this, most likely, will not occur before a week or 10 days after the Championships or more if there are special problems such as in this Championships. USATF, LOC, and Games Committee are all staffed far too thin to do all of this in real time and I don’t see that being relieved anytime soon.
An important point that people need to remember is that the Local Organizing Committees are dependent on volunteer officials. By volunteer I mean that they have to get their own training and qualification and, not only take their own time and effort, but also pay their own travel expenses and often their own lodging and meal expenses also. And for some to complain and complain encourages them to save time, money, and frustration by just staying home to work a Junior High meet where they can sleep in their own bed and get $15 expense reimbursement,
I would suggest that people take the same amount of effort that they expend complaining and use that effort to work for the betterment of the process rather than merely criticizing what others are voluntarily doing. It would be a very simple job for one very knowledgeable person to sit at the results table 7 to 13 hours a day to put the online posting in the right format. Is anyone willing to do that simple job?
When I wrote Rex about this revelation — since I’d always assumed Indianapolis HQ was in charge of posting results — he replied:
You probably should mention there is reported to be more than $20k in the surcharge fund. Increased surcharge and drug testing starting out of this fund will muddy the water. Jim Flanik (head of Games Committee) has been trying to get the amount down by buying equipment needed for national championships (like the 27″ hurdles, throwing implement, shipping of same, etc.)
And this is all to cover up for the deficiencies of the LOCs that may not, actually never, have all the needed equipment. You are aware that some LOCs are better than others. Perhaps the Games Committee should hire the timing and meet management computer companies rather than the LOCs using their locals (like Landover and Albuquerque recently).
They were the source of the biggest problems we have had. Our Championships are bigger and more complicated than most locals realize. That would guarantee no problems but it would greatly reduce them.
I would like to see results up as soon as possible with the caveat that they are tentative and subject to change. We always fix mistakes when they are discovered and if they are fixable. A full time Games Committee results person would help find mistakes.
At least one masters track official volunteered to post results, but she was kind of swatted down.
The bigger issue is how the timers, or meet managers, screwed up on the 60-meter dash. Was the distance wrong, or was the timer off?
I’ll pursue this.
27 Responses
I’m an M45 sprinter and was affected by the 60m timing snafu. As someone who didn’t expect to be in the finals, but hoped to set a new PR, to find out *after the fact* that the timing was not, in fact, fixed after a 40 minute delay, and be told that we would never get accurate timing, was more than upsetting.
When I voiced my complaint (and the idea that we shouldn’t complain just because the people running the event are volunteers is, at the very least, a non-sequitur), I was told that I should be happy and that the $500 I spent to attend the race didn’t go to waste: “You got to see some friends, didn’t you?”
I almost broke my chin when it hit the floor in response.
I asked if USATF would take any financial responsibility for not delivering what they promised (accurate FAT). After I received an irritated snort for an answer, I asked, “So, just to be clear, the USATF position is ‘Go f— yourself’?” “Yes, that’s basically it,” was the reply.
FWIW, my “posted time” is slower than I’ve ever run in my life (by almost .3), and other runners that I’ve spoken with report the same.
Yes, it was nice to see some friends. And, yes, it was a massive waste of money. And, yes, once again I feel let down by the organization to whom I pay my dues and fees, and am reminded that just because they SAY they’re working for the sake of the athletes, it doesn’t mean they are.
It would be a wonderful if no one ever made mistakes or computers didn’t crash. Unfortunately, things do go wrong and those in charge can only do their best to keep the damage to a minimum. I am thankful that I have had the opportunity to attend so many National Championships and appreciate the hard work and time of our Games Committee and Local Organizers in making it happen. Until one runs a meet and has the responsiblity for its operations, it is impossible to realize how many things may go wrong.
It is truly sad to see that we as Masters are so disrespected in that if your conversation Steven is true and accurate the only reason we go to a meet is to see friends is a crock!
It should not be too hard to expect correct times for people running events or getting marks accurately measured!
Think of how much money someones spends to go to a National meet! Wait until the economy gets a bit worse and no one will be able to afford to go!
USATF wonders why no one wants to belong- what value is there if one can not get an accurate time or measured mark?! Most local road races can do that with no problem! I’d venture to say most Youth meets can do the same! Why only masters?
I know that there are huge headaches to run a meet such as indoor and outdoor nationals! But people are elected to USATF positions and should require the bidders (LOC) to do it right!
Steven–I thought it was obvious to every sprinter under 70 that the heat times in the 60m weren’t valid. After two guys in M70 ran 7.52, there obviously was a problem. For the record, one of the 7.52s was by a 72-year old. He’s a phenomenal sprinter but let’s be realistic. That’s an age-graded 5.75. The WR by Maurice Greene is 6.39. The M70 WR is 8.20.
I empathize with you re: spending your money and
expecting to get a legitimate time. It is a disappointment. But I also saw how hard the people in charge were working to correct the problem once they realized the situation.
This is really sad for the athletes whose times probably won’t count. Obviously they should not be allowed to have records if there were timing errors, but some of them may have actually set records but we will never know. What also bothers me is that for the $100000+ in dues and entry fees we masters pay collectively to USATF we can’t even get reliable timing at our national championships.
Stephen,
I wasn’t really paying attention to times in the other heats since I was warming up in the other room.
And I understand and appreciate that everyone was working hard to fix the problem.
But it didn’t get fixed, we weren’t told in advance that things weren’t fixed (and they did know by then), and they weren’t able to deliver what they, essentially, promised.
In the companies I’ve run, if we have a problem that affects our customers, we take responsibility for it, even when we weren’t the direct cause. If our product gets lost in the mail, we didn’t lose it, but you can be sure we’ll send out a replacement at our cost. Much to the detriment of my happiness, I expect others to live up to the same standards.
For the record below is my monthly email:
Work to Done
Two years ago there were significant problems with the timing of events during the USA Indoor Championships in Landover MD after which changes were made to the contract between USATF and the LOC hosting the meet. The intent was to ensure a higher level of quality by specifying what equipment such as computers, cameras etc., were required to be used by the timing company.
If you competed in Albuquerque you know there were problems again! As of today the USATF official on line results reflect the following:
All 60m races are currently under review
Currently the Games Committee and the timing company are reviewing the data and as soon as they’re confident that the results are accurate they will be posted again.
The real issue is how to ensure it doesn’t happen again! One proposal is for our committee to hire the timing company, which would be used for all USA Championships. This would be expensive but it would eliminate many of the issues with using local timing companies.
Gary Snyder
National Chair
USATF Masters T&F
I thought the finals times were accurate ?? Just prelims that were screwed up ? My final was faster than prelim and that was what I expected as ran through finish for final and didn’t prelim, so was it all 60’s , prelim & finals ??
First, a big thank you to the masters track and field officials who are willing to help put on our masters track and field meets. Without someone to run the meet there is no meet to run.
However, as I wrote in a NMN “False Start” column back in October 1999, even bowlers get better and faster scoring feedback than track and fieldsters.
See: http://ortmanmarchand.com/fs5.html
I am willing to trade a bit of delayed gratification (or wailing) from seeing immediate T/F results for ACCURATE timing and measurements at National Masters Meets. It’s not just timing problems in 2009 at Landover and 2011 at Albuquerque.
The 2006 and 2009 Masters “multievents” championships held at Shoreline, WA could not manage to record all the wind gauge readings negating a record decathlon score by M50 Bill Murray in 2006.
It’s “time” to find the problem and fix it.
Congrats and thanks to Gary Snyder for bravely wading into this issue. Gary really has our best interests at heart, but his hands are tied if the LOC has freedom to pick and choose timers. If results aren’t accurate — and not posted quickly — we’ll be guilty of what we’ve accused the Senior Olympics of being for years: half-ass operations.
Quick fix: Any contact between LOC hosting nationals and USATF should include provisions stipulating that results be done by certain approved timing companies and posted online by a certain number of hours after the event.
If this happened at the Olympic Trials, for example, blood would run on the track and heads would roll toward the sand pits.
This is really a wild thing. Many different people ran fast times in the 60, but I am not sure which ones are wrong (I do believe that some of them are incorrect).
It reminds me of Landover 2009, including the posting here by Rod Jett. Rod commented in 2009 about the craziness in the hurdle times, and oh, were they wild. Completely crazy. But Landover was out of control, with the “mischief” affecting many different races. Here I think it is confined to the 60.
But why do some times look right while others appear highly suspicious? I can’t really find a pattern. Can’t wait to find the answer. BTW, they had a big meet the week before in Albuquerque, same facility, same conditions. I am talking about the open nationals. Winning time for men was 6.48; for women it was 7.12. Among the men, only 6 competitors in the final broke 6.70.
It is baffling to me that you guys are again having this problem. Both Albuquerque and Landover are sites that host many major meets throughout the season without incident. I do not understand how it is possible for all other meets to be timed properly, and then it get screwed up so badly for the masters.
My time in the finals was consistent with what I ran at Boston last year. The prelims times were not correct and meet management expressed that to some of us.
I am confident the finals were accurate and those records will be recorded. If a record was broken in the prelims when the clock was not working properly, then we know that will not be recorded.
Great idea to hire meet manager for future meets.
Masters was the third of four consecutive indoor championships held in the Albuquerque Convention Center over a three-week period. (Great venue, by the way.) Maybe we just suffered a malfunction.
Since my 60m results are under review, I am adding my two cents.
When we enter a national championship we assume that it will be run properly. We train long and hard and are willing to spend over $1000 to participate. The least we can expect is a national class facility, i.e. scoreboard, video screen of track, electronic timer, videos of track events, technical advisor familiar with the timing system, table for the announcer’s materials, performance indicators, etc.
The officials have always been very efficient and knowledgeable. The local volunteers have been helpful and willing to find answers when asked.
The Games Committee should not award a national championship to an organization that can not handle it regardless of promises made.
A competitor who has been an administrator and athlete for years said of Albuquerque “This is a well run local meet, not a well run national championship.”
There was an all comers meet at the NY Armory last night. The meet had FAT timing but officials also used stopwatches in case of any malfunction with the FAT timing. Is it too much to ask to have hand timing used as a backup at a national championship? I understand that hand timing is not ideal for the 60m but at least they’d have something to compare. I wasn’t at Albu but feel bad for those affected by the screwup.
Ken….please, “Bill Collins and 13 others” is incorrect. It’s “Bill Collins and Fourteen” others. There are a total of 15 pending AR or WR/AR marks in the 60 meters.
I asked this question after Landover, I’ll ask it again: Where is the back-up system?
I have been to a lot of major meets, every single one of them, and a lot of minor meets have TWO or THREE cameras on the finish line. Multiple independent systems. What is it in our specifications that makes the Masters NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS a sufficiently unimportant meet not to have the same standard?
As a master’s sprinter, I have no expectations whatsoever of competence from meet officials, anywhere, anytime.
I don’t go to any meets that I can’t drive to in a couple of minutes. Sad? Not really–after all, it’s not an important activity.
The amount of money I am willing to put on the table is directly related to how low my expectations are.
Many of us have been to high-level national/international invitationals, etc., where the “sophisticated” timing system operated by “seasoned experts” failed for some reason.
Q: why is this so important to people? Why spend the big $ to travel to “master’s nationals”?
Surely if someone wants good competition and FAT, one can find a local meet that is more convenient, unless the “nationals” meet IS local for someone.
Why bother? If you honestly have performance expectations of those to whom you have paid your dues and entry fees, and you feel they were not met because of some fault or deficiency on their part, take them to task and sue them for damages.
Or do as I did–adjust your expectations and attitude to reflect reality, and enjoy running the meets you can–because as we all know, life is too short.
I think that if we give something an important title “National Championships” we have a right to somewhat higher expectations, particularly when it comes to something so fundamental to the sport as “how fast did he/she run”. The concerns are hardly only about how long it took to post times. The bigger questions are:
1. What, exactly, was the problem that caused the delay? (or were there more than 1 problem)
2. How, exactly, was the problem fixed, if at all?
3. How is it possible to decide who the “fastest losers” (i.e. folks who qualified for the finals on by time) were if accurate times weren’t available for the prelims?
4. If it was possible to make the determination that some folks had run times that qualified them for the finals, why weren’t the times in the prelims available – not necessarily online, but right there at the meet – when athletes asked for them?
5. If there were problems with the times for the prelims, why is it that there was no official mention of this until Mr. Stone’s post? The meet has been over for 2 weeks.
On that last point, I’d just like to thank Mr. Stone for posting on this. having an open discussion of the issue is the only way things will get better.
On Saturday (March 26) it will be 3 full weeks since our wonderful sprinters flew down the track at Albuquerque to those amazing times in the 60 (the 200 and 400 as well, but we’re concerned about the 60).
We have some of our top “track pathologists” on the case, but it’s taken a long time. Is the disease that complicated, or is there no disease at all? Again, I can’t wait to find out. I am totally out of the loop, and thus I can only speculate (mostly to myself) about what is going on.
At least they won’t change the order of finish in those races (now that would really be a surprise). I just hope the findings come out before the Penn Relays (last weekend in April, and the next big meet I will attend).
Oh, well, nothing really to add at this point other than to say it has indeed been a long time since the sprinters crossed the finish line of such a short race, a race with FAT, no less.
Jeremy Roberts, I know where you’re coming from. Where’s the pizza, or, what happened to the results of the 60?
When you send out for pizza and the delivery is supposed to be in 30 minutes, after 45 minutes you get impatient, and at 1 hr you feel the pizza person is probably lost. At 2 hrs you worry that he might have been harmed. But still you are thinking about that pizza.
Tomorrow it will be 20 days since those 60-m dashes were run. As noted above, I have great faith in our “track pathologists,” but this has become most unusual.
I announced every race, have great interest in the results of the 60, and am still wondering, “Wha’ happened?” Maybe we will know soon. The explanation may recall some of the best Sherlock Holmes stories, or maybe it will be completely straightforward. We will see …
The new American records are out (www.usatf.org). I was not surprised at all to see that none of the 60 dash marks from Albuquerque made the list.
In the 200, Bill Collins made the list (24.32 in M60 at Albuquerque) but Joy Upshaw (26.24, W50), Barbara Jordan (36.80, W75), and Antwon Dussett (21.67, M35) did not. Interesting and rather upsetting.
In the high jump, Stacey Nieder (W40, 1.68 meters) did not make the list for the second year in a row. Last year in Boston nationals she jumped 1.67 meters to break the American mark of 1.66 (Trish Porter). That is very disappointing: break the American record of an Olympian in consecutive years and have nothing to show for it.
Throw out all the track records from this meet and just keep the times the way they are, marked with an asterisk so folks that read them in the future know what happened… Easy! Aren’t you all there to just compete for the love of T&F anyway? Turn that frown upside down!
Jeremy–
There is nothing of substance in a title.
I can’t for the life of me find any reason why your heightened expectations of the so-called “national championships” would be justifiable.
So-called “nationals” is just another track meet.
Without knowing “how fast you ran”, you still know how you fared against other competitors, and whether or not you medalled.
Me, I go by feel. As a master’s competitor, what does it matter if you run 12.0 or 12.2 for the 100m? As long as you feel good, and you acquit yourself well and compete honorably, you should be satisfied.
Who really cares about master’s world records? WHY would anybody care? I’m a master’s athlete, and I don’t care, even though some are not out of sight for me.
There are just so many more things to think about, and in which to be interested. What’s the use in objectively measuring the level of a performance that has no purpose other than to be superior to the performance of others in that race, and for which not all the conditions are controlled?
Me, I enjoy RUNNING and COMPETING against and with others, rather than being fascinated by myself as reflected in objective measures of what amount to athletic performances greatly inferior to what I did at my peak.
And yes, I’ve been to meets where the same thing happened, both as a master’s and an open competitor, and you know what? It didn’t diminish the experience one bit. In fact, my 100m PR is not officially listed because of some irregularity in the meet, having had nothing whatsoever to do with my race.
Running master’s track is not important, and should not be considered important by any well-balanced and emotionally mature individual.
Hey Pete:
Thanks for your response. I guess we all see things differently/have our own opinions. I enjoy numbers and measurement. I like to test myself against myself – and yes, as well as against others.
I am not qualified to decide what makes anyone else “well-balanced and emotionally mature”.
Take care.
Jeremy–
You are in fact uniquely qualified to judge others, you simply lack the courage of your convictions.
Inherent even in MLK’s now-famous quote from his “I Have a Dream” speech: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”, is the acknowledgment of the propriety of judging others according to some criteria.
You like to test yourself against yourself? Why go to meets at all? Why not just buy an electronic timer, a starting gun, and some blocks, and have a friend call the start? Better yet, use a recorded call start. It’s even easier if you’re a jumper or thrower, or a distance guy.
Your thinly-veiled but inappropriate sarcasm aside, there are plenty of better ways to “test yourself against yourself” than by attending a “master’s nationals” track meet.
Leave a Reply