USATF banishes Masters T&F from its governing board
Details are sketchy, but my sources indicate that the USATF Board of Directors last Saturday voted — at the USOC’s gunpoint — to shave members off its board, including our representative: Chairman Gary Snyder of the USATF Masters T&F Committee. So far, USATF has issued only a cryptic statement on the reorg. My sole source writes me: “As predicted, the USATF Board of Directors voted Saturday to reduce their size to 15 from 30-plus, eliminating the representation of Masters Track & Field.â€
My source continued:
This was in response to pressure from the USOC to emulate the USOC board of 9. I understand all committees will continue to operate in the same fashion with a chair etc. but won’t have a seat on the B o D. Actually I understand that 3 of the members of the new board will be outsiders and a sport committee chair cannot sit on the board as at the same time holding a chair position.
In the run-up to this vote, former masters chair Bob Fine wrote the USATF Associations listserve:
I’ve suggested that the professionals (high performqnce) have their own funding and internal structure, satisfatory to the USOC and leave the Youth, Masters, Associations & Officials alone.
My personal opinion is that the Masters would do better on our own. I don’t want to leave USATF as I care about the sport and feel that the Masters are providing officials, administrators and coaches. However, if any new structure keeps the Masters out of the loop then the Masters are not being given a choice.
Multiple sources also say that Gary, our leader, wasn’t present for the vote. In military parlance, this is called being AWOL — a dereliction of duty.
The ultimate fallout is hard to say.
But this we know:
USATF has done masters few favors, and now we’re in a position of diminished authority. We literally have no seat at the table.
Final seating arrangements won’t be made official until the USATF national convention this winter in Reno, but it looks as if masters track has been told: Go to hell.
What will we say in reply?
21 Responses
I say we should wait until we know what “actually” has happened before going off the deep end. Ken’s source may or may not be correct. As I understand it – USATF has to reduce the size of the BOD – or else. That may result in Masters, Juniors etc – all but the elite being thrown off the bus and left for dead – but that is not certain.
But whatever happens – please no cries for creating a separate Masters Track and Field organization and affiliating it with the National Senior Games. Enough of that nonsense already – NSG is too large and too dysfunctional an organization. If you think the Masters T & F will be but a neglected stepchild under the reduced BOD of USATF- just take a look at the number of sports affiliated with NSG please.
Their task is to put on a big show every two years and they leave it to state organizations to put on a state meet each year. The extent to which this happens varies widely from state to state and does not exist at all in more than one state. Some are well run, some exclude all but state residents, some let everyone from anywhere over 50 participate – yes you have to be 50 – not 30 or 35 to participate in the NSG and most State senior games. And in some states the track and field meets leave much to be desired. Be careful what you wish for,
Meanwhile – don’t jump off the diving board before you check to see if there is water in the pool.
In Louisiana we actually work with the Senior Games to cross promote track. This helps both parties to engage more participants and gives them more meets to choose from. Of course, Louisiana has a progressive SG director and also allows 40+ to compete in the State Games.
I thought my fees went to USATF, not USOC. “Or else” what? USATF needs to stand strong!
Currently masters have to join USATF/pay for membership, and in return most major meets are ‘USATF-santioned’ and officialed by USATF folks. This arrangement for masters has worked well – does this change mean the end of these services?
SEE IT! ( The USATF disassociating themselves from Masters athletes who’ve supported them finacially throughout the years) HEAR IT! ( The USOC and USATF laughing at the sheep Masters athletes really are) FEEL IT! ( The pain of knowing that in reality, the USATF and other sports governing bodies never wanted or cared about aging athletes and all we ever were to them was revenue ) You feeling that love from the USATF now Deena Castor?
LOL…and they really have the balls to show that commercial! We as masters should form a National organization to replace the USATF and on the local level we should be speaking to the major universities and smaller colleges about introducing masters in with their Invitational or Open meets with the younger or higher competitive ranking masters competing with the Open and Collegiate athletes as to not have too many extra events just for masters.
Usually there are more than enough of these meets to satisfy the master athlete. Then the only worries would be to organize a Masters championships. Sponsors would be highly needed like Nike, GNC, Sports drinks, ect. to help in funding these events.
I know this would be a sore spot for some of the masters out there but to reduce the size, time and finacial burden for these national events I also believe there should be a qualifing time or distance for each event to bring the best of each age group to compete for more viewing interest from the public and the possiblity of television publicity as well as the efficiency of running the meet.
Masters who would qualify for a Nationals event that were under finacial restraints could be sponsored out to the championships by sponsors as well with lets say, a round trip plane ticket. Just a few Ideas but I’m sure there are some out there that disagree or have a better plan…write in here and let us know what you are thinking.
I know there is a savy retired business man or woman out there who would love to tackle this undertaking and make a name for him or her self in the world of not just masters athletics but sports itself….Who will it be….?
I disagree…no qualifying times are needed!…run rounds like the big boys do, include as many as you can, don’t exclude them and the experiences they’ll cherish.
I say include as many as you can. Keep promoting masters track and field (media)..and get former elite athletes who were on top of the world in their prime, swallow some pride and come out and compete again…too many I’ve spoken to have the “what do I have to prove attitude”.
wow…for as long as i could remember, i was extremely proud to be a member of the AAU.as a junior nj champion, i wore my patch with pride…then came a different governing body, the TAC…once again i was just as proud to be affiliated with our national organization…the same one that our “elite” ran for.but when the USATF came about, USA TRACK and FIELD…i was that youngster again.running and jumping as part of our national track team. having the same officials measure and time me ,that only the week before were doing the same in the olympics, on the world stage.the shirts that i wear…the card that i carry..the guys i compete against..the national medals i’ve won, that i tell people that ask.”yep..it’s the real deal…a united states track and field championship medal..here..hold it” i only hope that this news is something that we as masters athletes can respond to and be heard, and rectify.sometimes i just don’t get it…albert
I don’t think requiring a qualifying time is a good idea. I live in area where the nearest possible venue for qualification is 500 or more miles away. Last year, I had no previous time, but finished 5th in the 1500 m. If a qualifying time had been required, I couldn’t have competed.
Qualifying times and marks?!?
Since when was masters track and field elitist?
Great responses folks!!!!! To respond to my idea of qualifying times and marks, I was mentioning it as a suggestion to allieviate the extra work, man and woman power a new organization would have to expend to sponsor a National Championships and possibly make it more exciting for the fan or viewer. To answer a concern that was mentioned, qualifying for a national championship could be done at a local college or university T&F open or invitational meet as I mentioned in my previous post. I do understand the concern about limiting the entrants to a nationals meet and the message it may send to many. Maybe we should be leaning more towards a more social type governing body that encourages recreation than an all out T&F athletic organization. Kind of an AARP that promotes healthy living with more social T&F meets that don’t involve medals or winning, but the joy of getting outdoors and enjoying each others company as we drink a coke and sing the old song…” I’d like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony… PERFECT HARMONYYYYY…” LOL.. JUST KIDDING!!! Unfortunately there is no easy answer if the USATF were to dump us as excess baggage. Mellow Johnny, In my opinion you are correct to a certain extent about masters track and field not being elitist, but some do strive to be the elite by winning, earning medals, winning athlete of the year awards etc. When I looked up a definition for Elitist I came up with…” The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority” We do that every time we give a medal to an athlete for winning an event or name them as an athlete of the year (a.k.a. better than the rest) We do it by having qualifing rounds in an event and finals. By doing these things we are saying to other athletes less gifted, I am better than you. Again, only my opinion. Great responses so far so let’s hear from the rest of you out there.
Perhaps you’re right (NOT)..just bring in the top 8 in each age group in each event, let them battle it out in a final and the ones that don’t finish first are then called the losers! What’s the difference?
If Masters does that then >80% of the competitors will have to resort to eating a big bag of Lays Potato chips and a 2 liter bottle of Dr. Pepper a day while endlessly watching TV, deteriorating mentally and physically their love for athletics while being singled out as a perennial loser..by George, great idea..bring in the best only? Pa-Lease!
The day our governing body does that is the day I change over to Masters Cat Juggling, no limit on numbers there 🙂
What college meet wants me to take up time and space at their track meet running the 5k or 3000? At age 73 I am more than slowwwwww compared to the college age athlete – I do not run these events at open and/or college meets even if they permitted me to do so. In the 1500/mile,sometimes I might be able to hang on to the slowest college athlete – but increasingly this is not possible. I am not a pathetic loser of a running – at one point I held a world record for Women 70-74 for the indoor mile.
Saying that older athletes should just turn up at college meets is in essence telling them to give it up.
As for getting Nike or another big profile sports company to sponsor a Masters Championship – right – Baa yourself – you think no one has thought to ask them? Have you noticed that it does not happen? Have you ever wondered why?
These companies do not think that we are worth while. Nike has its eye on selling expensive and ridiculous gear to teenagers – not to older athletes. We do not fit their image.
As much as you may loath USATF – until you can come up with a sensible alternative, find funding sources, and lay out a realistic plan – you are just whistling in the grave yard. USATF is not going to risk being thrown overboard by the USOC – it will do whatever it takes to remain a partner – like it or not. What the masters in USATF need to do is to make sure that -we are not just run over by this newly constituted board. making silly claims about organizing a new group is just that – silly – until you have a workable plan. And while it is true that there is cooperation between some State Senior Games and USATF – I will remind you again – The Senior games does not have the hurdles, the steeplechase, any track race longer than 1500m, does not have indoor track meets, does not have cross-country championships,does not allow anyone under 50 to participate in its biannual national championship etc. Think about that for awhile –
Well said,Mary. I agree that our (Masters) efforts would be much better spent trying to stay on the USATF ship than try to construct an entire new organization. As long as USATF will still officiate masters meets (that include automatic timing, hurdles, pole vault, steeple, pentathlon,etc.) and accept our membership and payments, then perhaps board representation will not be needed and masters representation can still be retained but with another title. In the near future after the dust settles, the new (remaining) USATF board will need to asked if USATF will still serve masters in the fashion we are accustomed to.
All right.. the consenus so far is that the USATF is our daddy and we like it. I totally understand everyones concerns and these suggestions are obviously all in theory but if, or when the USATF ever gives up on masters… then what? Mr. Simpson, good points as well, but I never said to run just a final. I thought more of eliminating the stragglers that think paying to ENTER a National championsips instead of earning their way in would be fun to tell there co-workers at the water cooler on Monday or their buddies at the counrtry club on Tuesday that they ran a 25 second hundred meters in the men’s 40-44 group, could possibly be illiminated. Maybe 20% stay home. I personally would rather compete against the top six shot putters in my age group and lose than throw against twenty that I’m out distancing by 20′ to 15′ and win, but some folks don’t mind that. Hey, you didn’t like running into the wind at nationals right? I say “So what”. You all were running into it, right? Who cares about good times as long as we ALL get the chance to compete under the big USATF umbrella of love.(laying it on a bit thick there, sorry) Mary, as for your situation that’s why I suggested masters age groups in those collegiate meets as well so in your situation you would be competing with your age group THEN the higher caliber times and marks of masters compete in with the collegiate and open athletes. Also, just because someone asked Nike or who ever one time and was told NO doesn’t mean it’s a done deal. If we all took that attitude in this world it would stop in it’s tracks because saying NO once means never ask again? No one would ever sell anything, date, marry, have children. (I know , I’m pushing it, but you get the picture) The whole Idea behind this BLOG is to share ideas, agree on some, shoot down others. Silly or not, that’s how changes are made in this world. The final thought of the day for me is “Boy, I hope the USATF doesn’t slowly push us masters out in the cold” because any group or organization is only as strong as it’s members and I only see a nine people who had the HUTZPAH to write in and express their opinion on this subject. We all may not or ever agree on some things but I admire the desire to be heard and speak out for what you believe. The scary part is it’s only nine of you…
While I don’t think there should be qualifying times for national meets, there should be qualifying times to medal at these meets. I’ve seen too many age groups where there is only one or two competitors, and the quality of performance is sub novice at best. Everyone should be encouraged to participate, but awards should go to those who excell and meet an age appropiate result.
The USATF may have kicked us off of the board of directors, but they haven’t kicked us to the curb…at least not yet.
The Senior Games has higher participation numbers, but they also have qualifying meets to run in their nationals. You have to place high in your section meet, or exceed a predetermined qualifying result, at one of their meets, in your event.
While I don’t think there should be qualifying times for national meets, there should be qualifying times to medal at these meets. I’ve seen too many age groups where there is only one or two competitors, and the quality of performance is sub novice at best. Everyone should be encouraged to participate, but awards should go to those who excell and meet an age appropiate result.
The USATF may have kicked us off of the board of directors, but they haven’t kicked us to the curb…at least not yet.
The Senior Games has higher participation numbers, but they also have qualifying meets to run in their nationals. You have to place high in your section meet, or exceed a predetermined qualifying result, at one of their meets, in your event.
USATF….
NSG….
USOC….
AAU…
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E….
Be careful what you wish for,
you just may get it !!
I couldn’t bring myself to get into the conversation yesterday…I wrote a response three times and erased them all because I decided not to express my opinion about MG and his entry. Simpdog said it best! PA LEASE! and Mary Harada it’s good to hear from you on this. MG you could probably get a small group of throwers together who are up to your standard and have a meet or two. What is it you want from track and field? Why do you need masters track anyway? I know you can enter the college meets, I have, and you won’t have to worry about all the wannabes dragging you down. There are plenty of people who care and have the HUTZPAH, but what do you say to someone who obviously doesn’t get what this is really all about?
Slow and old…I’d normally answer your question, but do you normally get all riled up and use a phoney screen name so no one knows who you are? Not much HUTZPAH in that…and no answer either.
1) Masters is about inclusiveness. I wouldn’t want to attend a Nationals that wasn’t open to everyone. I’m not trying to revisit the hyper-competitiveness of open competition. I’m trying to have fun with lifelong friends.
2) Almost every local college meet in my area is sanctioned by USATF. Those that aren’t don’t invite open or masters runners. And even if they could be convinced to set up separate masters events (and a special 100 yard dash for Dorothy, Toto, Tin Man, Lion, and Scarecrow), that would end after only 1 or 2 masters competitors per event bothered to show.
3) We barely have enough volunteers to keep masters on the map as a part of USATF. Any proposal for opting out of USATF to form multiple independent cells negotiating with local entities (colleges, etc.) for inclusion in meets would demand far more involvement from masters as a whole. I don’t have the time. Do you?
4) I personally like USATF as a governing body – as someone who competes in x-country, road races, and track, I’m happy knowing I can depend on well-run competitions year-round. And I would remain a member even if masters split off – though I’d “wait and see” before becoming affiliated with any new masters governing body.
5) This is not a new topic. And many have posted on it in the past. Demeaning one’s peers because they don’t choose to go over the same ground again and again doesn’t serve any useful purpose, unless that purpose is to annoy your peers.
6) It is also demeaning to one’s masters peers to suggest they just haven’t tried hard enough to get sponsorship for the sport. Are you kidding? Do you have the faintest idea what you’re talking about? Have you tried? … And how did that turn out? … Just because you’re unaware of all the attempts that have been made in this arena doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Seriously, USATF is not some giant soulless behemoth. Bill Roe, its leader, is a huge fan of masters competition. As are many of its chairs.
If you want to tear apart the current masters USATF structure (because USATF certainly doesn’t), then I think a more thoughtful plan needs to be offered. To simply rehash ideas dismissed long ago by the masters rank and file won’t get you the new organization. Or many followers. Or, if you choose to insult us for not cheering your nonsense, many friends.
One option might be to run our current Masters Track & Field program as a subsidiary of the NSGA ( provided they are willing). We would still have the same format as we presently have; organizational structure, meets etc. except the NSGA would take care of our administration as Indiannapolis does now.
We would still use USATF officials, USATF sanctions and USATF rules of competition.
All income from membership fees 8000 x $30 = $240,000 would go toward administration and to support our programs. We would also benefit from the marketing expertise that the NSGA possesses. Their size is what marketers are after. They are the US representive organization for Senior Sports. USATF is a professional athlete’s organization with a youth feeder system.
I know some egos feel good about the association with USATF ( mine does as well) but USATF can’t use the Olympic name as the NSGA can in certain situations.
It might be nice to control our destiny and grow the organization.
Yes, we should wait until the Board downsizes but maybe a committee should be studing options. Any major change such as this will take considerable time.
Leave a Reply