USATF president hopefuls address masters issues in Q&A
Bowman, Jensen and Hightower
|
Bob Bowman, Dee Jensen and Stephanie Hightower — the known candidates for president of USA Track & Field — have responded to a 10-question email interview I sent a couple weeks ago. They all have deep USATF backgrounds and serious track credits. Their answers were revealing, especially when it came to masters track. In Bob’s Q&A, he says he’ll commit to doubling the Masters T&F Committee budget “if we have the money and masters T&F presents a good case for the use of the money.” In Dee’s Q&A, she suggests that USATF might help pay entry fees, supply uniforms and ship implements for U.S. masters entered in world masters championships. In Stephanie’s Q&A, she pledges “to continue to support the aims of masters track.”
Bob is a little coy, referring several times to the chair of Women’s Track & Field. That chair is Stephanie Hightower. For her part, Stephanie is a lot more concise in her replies than when she spoke by phone to Jimmie Markham at thefinalsprint.com.
Bob, Dee and Stephanie addressed more general concerns about USATF in their audio interviews with Jimmie, which are archived as podcasts. Check ’em out:
Bob’s interview went online Oct. 7.
Stephanie’s interview went online Oct. 8.
And Dee’s interview went online Oct. 9.
The voting membership of USATF will choose among these three (and any late entries) on Friday, December 5, at the Reno convention. But you can express yourself here as well. Feel free to vote and post a comment.
FYI: Click here to see links to all three of my interviews.
USATF President Bill Roe to TrackCEO: Drop dead
The following note, posted with extreme prejudice, is part of an email exchange over the issue of delayed meet results from the national masters weight pentathlon championships. Not a word has been changed in this dyspeptic missive, sent with extreme ignorance, by Bill Roe of Bellingham, Washington, the elected president of USA Track & Field. It reflects the eat-crap attitude the leadership of USATF have toward folks who question their authority, wisdom and priorities. It also manifests the Holier Than All mind-set that puts Olympians on a pedestal and age-groupers in a ditch. Bill may be USATF’s boss. Thank God he’s not mine — or yours.
16 Responses
-
simpdog - August 26, 2008
IMO both parties have merit…Ken wanted some results posted and Bill said he was basically understaffed and did not see a need to rush results to folks during the Olympics..
Honestly I was deeply involved in watching the Olympics and didn’t think twice about a weight pentathlon…
On a personal note, posting a personal Email is breaking rule 16 of the ‘mancode’ or is it a rule? Anyway, stay tuned as this could get better as the weekend grows near. -
nolan shaheed - August 26, 2008
Masters Track and Field is not a very popular sport but a few thousand of us take it very, very seriously.If not for men like Ken Stone. our voice would never be heard.we must support our hard working voluunteers.
-
Peter Magill - August 26, 2008
I have to admit, I’m uncomfortable having read Bill’s email – not because of its contents, but because Bill was so emphatic in his request not to have it posted. While we all know that anything we send to Ken can end up posted, I do think there’s something to be said for respecting “off the record.”
I won’t touch the subject of the dispute, as I certainly don’t have an informed opinion.
But I will say this: 2 years ago I asked Bill Roe to add a 10K to his weekly all-comers meet so that I could go for an age 45-49 record. Bill agreed. So I got a plane ticket and flew from So Cal to Seattle. About 3 of us ran the race, tacked onto the end of the meet. Bill and a few volunteers stayed an extra hour to put on the race, to time us (with 3 timers for my finish time), and to wrap up the paperwork. And then, at a pizza place afterward, Bill poured me a beer, shrugging off my thanks with a “it was my pleasure to put on a race for someone who breaks an age group record by 25 seconds!”
Bill Roe is A-okay in my book.
Of course, so is Ken. -
Ken Stone - August 26, 2008
This is maybe the second time I’ve posted a private email against the sender’s wishes. The other came from Craig Masback in the Kathy Jager doping case.
In all other instances, I respect the sender’s privacy — or at least provide anonymity by stripping out the sender’s name. But this was a case of out-and-out bullying. As I said: Bill is not my boss.
And his rude dismissal of masters track’s interests deserves public exposure.
Of course, he has bigger fish to fry given Lynn Cannon’s accusations in the next post. -
Anthony Treacher - August 27, 2008
Masters athletics officers can pen some nasty put-downs. Then it is almost a duty to post the contents of their e-mails. I have in mind that insult from the WMA Law and Legislation Committee Chairman: “Also accept the fact, that not everybody may be perfect, or as perfect as you think you are.”
But Ken, this specific e-mail from Bill Roe is not as insulting as the above. OK, the tone is nasty and I know you have had your fill of evasions recently. But Bill Roe did give you an explanation for the delay in sending the weight pentathlon results. Furthermore Bill Roe did explicitly forbid you from posting that e-mail. So Ken, you are out of order on this one.
I also have experience of Bill Roe’s Civic Courage in my case, so I concur with Peter Magill:
“Bill Roe is A-okay in my book.
Of course, so is Ken.” -
Ray Lapinski - August 27, 2008
You were out of line to publish this e mail word for word. I have many complaints to those at the top of usatf who “forced” me out of the organization, but this is not the problem nor the answer.
-
chuckxc - August 27, 2008
Requesting that an e-mail response not be posted is like putting a bill-board ad on I-95 and asking that nobody read it. Once you hit “Send” it’s “out there”.
Buy some stamps, for christ’s sake. -
Warren Graff - August 27, 2008
The original goal was to find out why the results were not posted as quickly as the participants wanted. Bill provided a reasonable explanation, which could have been paraphrased for us without reprinting his entire email,against his wishes. Another more important goal, however, is to maintain and foster a good working relationship with USATF, who run our biggest masters meets, and do a fine job of it.
-
Andy Martin - August 27, 2008
All,
It has been pointed out to me that there has been some discussion on this website regarding the posting of the results for the recently completed USA Masters Weight Pentathlon Championships. Let me first compliment Jerry Bookin-Weiner and Carl Reichard for a great event. Both have been a pleasure to work with from this end. A perfect example of how the Masters T&F Committee, the LOC and National Office should work together on events
Regarding the results…..i like Ken am adamant about posting of championship results in a timely fashion. Many know that I worked closely with the LOC in Maine last year to facilitate live results and likewise this year with the LOC in Spokane. Unfortunately due to some technical issues (lack of a live internet connection) in Spokane we were not successful this year.
With respect to the posting of the results for this weekend’s meet……… Bill is right we were busy over the weekend with covering the Olympics and staging the Associations Workshop but we were also working on posting accurate and complete results for the Weight Pentathlon. To Carl’s credit, the results were sent to me on Saturday night from the company hired to handle the meet scoring. The results were sent at 8:18 p.m. ET. Upon returning from one of the functions of the Associations Workshop I reviewed my email. This was at 10:39 pm ET, specifically looking for the results. Unfortunately the results were sent as a Hy-Tek backup file. I do not personally have Hy-Tek loaded on my computer so I was not able to utilize the results. (note: typically events send the results as either a HTML file or a Text file). At 10:40 pm ET (on Saturday) I responded to the timing company that I need the results in either a HTML or .txt file. To their credit they sent the results in HTML files within the hour but I was already off line by this point preparing for the remainder of the Workshop. As it turned out, due to several on-off meetings on Sunday as well as post-event wrap up activities, I on was not able to get online at all on Sunday. On Monday morning I downloaded the 18 result files that were sent from the meet and combined them into one file for posting. At that point i noticed that the M45 results were not included and immediately asked (12:23 pm on Monday) for that file so we could post the compete set of results. I received that at 4:00pm that day but was in a meeting until 5:30pm and then headed home for the day (as I had not seen much of my family the past 5 days). At some point late on Saturday night I added the M45 results in to the main results file and we posted the results.
I am sure that is way more detail than anyone wanted but it seems as though it might be worth the time to lay out all of the details rather than have anyone try to pick apart the situation. Yes, we need to continue to do a better job at providing event information (including timely results) but other factors come into play that sometimes cause delays to occur.
Andy Martin
Director of Grass Roots Program
USA Track & Field -
Mark Alexander - August 27, 2008
Ken is right to complain about delayed results. Too many administrators believe that making results available within a day or two is acceptable. It’s a question of organizational priorities, expectations, and forethought.
An idea: engineer the site to allow meet directors (or those they designate) to post results directly.
By the way, Bill Roe is a true class act who works very hard for the sport, including at the grass roots level. USATF is lucky to have him. The All-Comers series which he organizes is a great resource for masters athletes in the Seattle area. Check clubnorthwest.org for details.
Mark Alexander
800m masters guy
USATF official
Former webmaster, Pacific Northwest Association of USATF -
Jimson Lee - August 27, 2008
“yellow journalism” ?
Was that meant as a racist comment? A lot of Asians (particularly the Chinese) will take offense to that. -
Grant Lamothe - August 27, 2008
Jimson, you’re kidding, right?
If not and you really do believe that, rest assured that Ken is not being racist, but rather using the phrase ‘yellow journalism’ that means sensationizing stories to attact interest and reader circulation. Specifically, the term originated at the turn of the 19th-20th century with the circulation battles between Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World and William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal running from 1895 to about 1898. Both papers were accused by critics of sensationalizing the news in order to drive up circulation, although the newspapers did serious reporting as well. The New York Press coined the term ‘yellow kid journalism’ in early 1897 after a then-popular comic strip to describe the down-market papers of Pulitzer and Hearst, which both published versions of it during a circulation war. This was soon shortened to ‘yellow journalism’ with the New York Press insisting, “We called them Yellow because they are Yellow.”
Hope that puts that issue to rest.
On the more serious issue of the topic of this posting, I think that both my friend Ken Stone and Mr. Bill Roe are right for reasons well-enumerated in the postings previous to ours.
But I think that you, Ken, maybe should not have leaked Bill’s personal email, at least not so verbatim. You could have reported it a little differently and still let it be known that the results were late.
We’re in bed with the USATF and should try to work with them. Remember: in North America Track&Field is an underpaid, under-appreciated, under-staffed sport, under-funded sport. Best that those that are involved in it try to work together to promote it in a positive light. -
mellow johnny - August 27, 2008
First off, just to get the facts straight, it was Bill Roe that used the term “yellow journalism” in his e-mail, not Ken.
Next, I’m new to masters track and field but coached high school track and XC for several years. I was one of those coaches that wanted results ASAP.
However, I’ve had to tone back and gain some patience now returning to compete as a master’s athlete.
For example, the people is USATF-Oregon have all been very friendly and helpful. However, they no longer send out the Oregon Association newsletter (which is fine) but the latest edition online is the one from January! Nothing from May at all. So I feel a little short on information and news that’s recent.
Not saying that as a complaint against anyone at all but just pointing out that things take time and the delay of results for the weight pentathalon just don’t seem all that late relatively speaking! And Andy Martin’s explanation is very reasonable as to why the results weren’t posted sooner. -
Ken Effler - August 31, 2008
In a digital world I think we’ve become accustomed to immediate results, whether in the world of news, politics, or sport.
With USA track and field I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect the same with any major championship event. I followed the recent Olympic Games via the USATF website, which provided a link to the IAAF site which had instant results. I would expect the same quick results for the USATF Open Championships as well as events as the Olympic Trials.
When it comes to Master’s results, I usually expect the results within a couple of days. I competed in the afore mentioned Weight Pentathlon, and as athletes, we were given results for our age group after each event. This was a great service to the athletes competing. I have competed in several (7) track pentathlon’s at the Nat’l Masters Meet, and in only two of them, did I know what my score, and the scores of my competitors were, after each event. On that front, the recent Weight Pentathlon provided excellent service to the athletes competing.
Since the meet was held on a Saturday, I would have liked to have seen the overall results sooner, but my expectations were to hopefully see them by Monday, but realistically by Tuesday. I believe they were posted during the day on Monday.
Can the results be available quicker-certainly, which is Ken’s point. My kid’s compete in high school track in Massachusetts, and often the results of the larger invitational meets are available on line, by the time we arrive home after the meet. Other times it takes days to get them. The technology is available to post results quickly, and in this case would have been, if Andy had received complete results in the original file. -
Ugghhh. I let the collective addle my brain and sway my emotions. My previous posting was not objective and was unworthy of me.
On closer examination I see that USATF President Bill Roe CC:ed that e-mail to “creich51 @….” So what the USATF President effectively did then was to insult Ken Stone and forbid him to publish and thus refute the insult. At the same time he informed “creich51 @….” – who is then presumably free to display the e-mail to his colleagues as proof of the USATF President’s support and displeasure with Ken. That is unfairly placing Ken at a disadvantage, while restricting Ken’s freedom of expression. That is not good.
Ken would only have been at an obligation not to publish the e-mail if Bill Roe had likewise also forbidden – and in the same uncompromising terms – “creich51 @….” not to publish the contents of the e-mail. That was not the case. So, irrespective of the e-mail content and the facts and personalities involved, it is now my finding that Ken Stone was fully justified in publishing that e-mail and that it was his journalistic duty to do so. -
Mark Cleary - August 16, 2013
When your a self professed muckraker like Ken, it goes with the territory. Some of what he does is good-this was definitely out of line.
10 Responses
After reading the Q & A my personal opion is that a vote for High tower is a vote for the status qou- I don’t see one statement that leads me to believe that she will do anything, but the minimum for the Masters program.I have had experience dealing with the high performance program each year and every year we have to fight to get the Masters Invitational events into the Open Indoor and Outdoor National Championships.This should not be the case, but it happens every year– I have not seen where Stephanie Hightower was ever a strong proponet of the Masters program. It’s easy to say anything when your running for office–I tend to look at a person’s record and their actions, which has not shown strong support for the Masters program.Dee Jensen is very ethical, but I didn’t really see a strong commitment to Masters in her answers to the Masters program. Bob Bowen seems to have a balanced approach and at least is willing to give some stronger support to our program in his responses. It’s a free country vote how you wish–but I think Bob Bowen is a stronger advocate for the interests of Masters Track & Field.
Opps! I meant Bob Bowman
Disclaimer – I am a supporter of Stephanie Hightower so I am admittedly biased. That being said, Bob Bowman committed to “doubling the budget if the money is there”. However, if you’ve attended any of the budget meetings, you’ll know that the money simply is not there for Masters. How can Bob, or anyone, promise something that does not exist?
It’s not prudent, in my mind, to base my vote on how much money someone will promise us. If that’s your impetus for voting then I urge you to take a page from Youth and start working on making Masters a separate entity like the Youth Committee has.
But, if you need someone to work with the Chair and Executive Committee and leverage her national fundraising experience and contacts, then Stephanie is the obvious choice. She raised over $11 million dollars for capitol improvements and empowerment growth for the college she works for. NO ONE else in this race has demonstrated the ability for nationwide community outreach like Stephanie Hightower.
Aditional thoughts – We need to get away from the mindset of “what will USATF do for us”. Let’s face it, NO ONE is going to do anything for us. As a sports committee, we hold our own economic future in our hands. WE need to start devising ways to raise more money for ourselves!
I agree with Mark’s comments. After reading the Q & A’s of all three candidates, Bob came across as at least understanding the issues surrounding masters track and field, and will hopefully try to address many of them.
Personally I still think that the evolution of the USATF will lead it to become the a professional track organization with it’s only interest being in elite athletes and the Olympic/World games. Where does that leave youth and masters…on their own. It’s time to explore moving masters T&F to the NSGA. We’d all be better served by the separation.
I personally know that both Men’s and Women’s Chairs over the past eight years have been strong advocates for the Masters events being entered into the Championships. Both John Chaplin and Stephanie Hightower have always voted to have them included. However, the perception that Mark has that he has to fight to get Masters invitational events into the National Championships stems from the real issue of the national office notifying the chairs of the events in a timely manner and where to place them on the schedule.
I’m sorry Dexter but you have no idea the conversations that have taken place. You should know, that it required George Mathews going to Craig Masback and Bill Rowe to get those chairs to reverse their decision to not have the Masters events in the Nationals. I know what I am talking about, it is fact not my qoute un quote perception. I have been around the sport for 30 plus years and around the board for almost a decade, I know what goes on. It’s not pretty we don’t get respect from most of USATF.The high performance chairs find it a hassle to have our events in their National Championships.I had a very nasty conversation with Mr. Chaplin before the Olympic trials- trust me he has no respect for the Masters.
Ted the Youth programs are safe because they are the feeder program for the Olympics–we on the other hand will have to see how things go– I predict that we will need to form our own organization in 3 to 5 years based on the direction things seem to be going.
I don’t have the inside perspective of some of these other posters, but I did read the statement of support for Ms Hightower on the TAFN site and I noted with astonishment her claim to have been involved in supporting racewalking.
This is a pants-on-fire sort of claim. In endorsing it, Ms Hightower presumably calculated that only racewalkers would know for sure that it wasn’t true, and that there aren’t enough racewalkers to matter. Both calculations are no doubt correct, but taken together they portray an individual who may not be suitable to head USATF.
Quick Silver
Hong Kong
Mark, if you go back and read my comment I said that Stephanie and John have voted to have Masters included in the Nationals. These conversations that you refer to were apparetnly were between George Mathews and the national office. If the national office does not want Masters in the Nationals, how is that Stephanie and John’s fault? They take their direction from the National Office as well.
As for Quick Silver’s assertion that Stephanie does not support racewalking is kind of odd considering that racewalking is part of the Track & field program as it pertains to national and international team competiton. Incidentally, she’s engaged to a racewalker.
My point in my original comment is that it appeared that Mark was supporting Bob Bowman because he committed to DOUBLING the Masters budget. That’s an empty promise at best. NO ONE ELSE HAS DOUBLED MASTERS BUDGET! You know why? Because there’s no money! Stephanie was simply being forthright in saying I can’t commit to doubling the budget but will do all I can to assist you in enhancing your revenue stream.
Clearly, we will remain on both sides of this issue but if you’re going to vote for someone, vote based on the facts.
Dexter,again you missed my point–I am telling you that John and Stephanie were the one’s in many cases dragging there feat and in some years against having the Masters Invitational races in the Open Championships. They played political games with the situation.I have first hand knowledge because I was dealing with those situations–It required going over their heads to get our events back into the Championships one year. It had nothing to do with National office and everything to do the the High performance people–they either approve or deny our events-National office stays out of it.You clearly do not know the history, but I will be more than happy to give you the run down at the
convention.I am not voting for Bob Bowman because he talked about doubling a budget. I liked his responses most to the Q & A. He will be fair to all segments of our sport not just focusing on the Olympic athletes. Stephanie can say what she wants but I know she has that bias coming out of the Olympic program her self. I am not saying that it’s good or bad. I do think, however that selecting Bob would be a better choice for the Masters program.Your right we will remain on different sides of this issue because of our different personal experiences.
Leave a Reply