USATF site labels Sacramento nationals a non-sanctioned meet
By now, everyone knows you can’t set a USATF record unless the meet is sanctioned by USATF (or a partner). So what happens if the USATF masters outdoor nationals aren’t sanctioned? Check out the USATF calendar. Yup, the USATF Western Regional Masters Outdoor Championships and the July 22-25 Sacramento masters nationals have no black dot. That denotes lack of a USATF sanction. C’mon, guys! Get your acts together! (Here’s the sanction form.)
As of today, the USATF National Masters Outdoor Championships in Sacramento lack a USATF sanction, according to the USATF meet calendar.
19 Responses
I thought it had to be certified in order for there to be record consideration.
No wonder Sacramento nationals doesn’t have a meet sanction!
It’ll cost meet organizers a cool grand!
http://www.usatf.org/events/sanctions/application/download/info.asp?associationNumber=38
So your saying if someone breaks an American record at Nationals, it doesn’t count?
Just because there is no “dot” next to the meet doesn’t mean it isn’t sanctioned. It likely just means that someone in Indy hasn’t updated the site. It took a while for the “dot” to appear next to the Western States Master’s Invite since the sanction paperwork was submitted and approved after I listed the meet on the USATF site. I seriously doubt there is cause for alarm.
there’s probably a missing field in the database that needs to be corrected.
FR: David E. Ortman (M57) Seattle, WA
Given the fiasco with the 2009 National Senior Games failure to obtain a USATF sanction for record purposes, I think masters should be wary about meets that wait until the last minute to get sanctioned.
For example, as of July 4th, the USATF West Region Masters Outdoor Track and Field Championships is still not listed as a USATF Sanctioned Meet on the USATF Masters Meet Calendar.
http://www.usatf.org/calendars/searchResults.asp?ageGroup=M&includeAllAges=ON&show=25&page=6
O.K., let’s assume that the USATF Masters Meet Calendar is not current. This information should be on their entry form (entries close tomorrow July 5th). But it is not.
http://www.scausatf.org/events/usatf_masters/2010_USATF_Masters_West_Region.pdf
Nowhere on the entry form does it state that it is a USATF sanctioned meet. Of course, it does carry the little flying wings USATF logo, but that to me is not the same thing as an affirmative statement that the meet is USATF sanctioned.
So with close of entries, neither the entry form nor the USATF webcalendar have the Western Regional meet listed as sanctioned. So what is a masters to do?
I am impressed, however, with the number of all-comers meets around the country listed on the USATF webcalendar that are marked as USATF-sanctioned events. If all-comers meets can get themselves sanctioned, than our regional and national masters championships should be able to do it, and before the close of entries.
FR: David E. Ortman (M57) Seattle, WA
As a followup, the sanctions form states:
“USATF name, logo and trademarks: The entry form must state the event is sanctioned by USA Track & Field.”
http://www.usatf.org/events/sanctions/application/forms/USATFSanctionApplication.pdf
The form also states that an application for sanction should be returned four weeks prior to the event. It doesn’t say how long sanction approval will take.
I’m one of the first teams each year to renew my club, usually at the end of November for the next year, and it takes a bit to show up as recorded. I’ve entered Indoor Nationals and had it come up as not recorded but a quick email fixes it in no time. I’m sure this too is a simple oversight.
I’m sure that many of these things can be resolved very quickly, Bubba, but I want to respond to David Ortman’s excellent points somewhat more globally. First, our masters athletes are now supposed to conduct “due diligence” about the meets they plan to enter, especially their “sanction status,” and for this to work the schedule must be updated in a very timely fashion.
Certainly, it would not be unreasonable for the neophyte to conclude that both our Nationals and the Western regionals are NOT sanctioned events and thus should be avoided. The experienced athlete would no doubt conclude that the nationals could not possibly be unsanctioned and that the Western regionals MIGHT be unsanctioned.
Further investigation by the experienced athlete would be needed, but why should this be necessary? After all, if a sanction is a sine qua non for the informed athlete, must not the posting be quick and accurate?
Think of this parallel: Bill Collins (Texas) and Oscar Peyton (Maryland) are both entered in the 100-meter dash at our nationals in Sacramento, but does the 100-meter dash at Sacramento really measure 100 meters? I don’t think it’s up to Bill and Oscar to find out (either one could set an M55 record there); they should just trust that it is 100 meters.
Similarly, I believe (given the great prominence given to sanctions in the last 3 years) that the sanctioning status of meets should be posted on the calendar before the first entry is submitted. As David Ortman shows, the meets are almmost upon us and yet the calendar does not show sanctions for them. Personally, I do not feel that athletes should be required to do any investigative work in this area.
A larger issue for me, however, is the whole concept of a sanction as the gateway to a record. Somehow, the notion has gained currency that a sanction is some kind of guarantee that the meet will be of good quality, that it will be conducted the right way, etc.
Others know more than I, but all I could see on the sanction form was an “intent to comply with the international rules and regulations….”, etc. One other sentence elaborates this a bit, but I didn’t even see a requirement for officials, much less officials with experience in masters T&F. Does a sanctioned meet even need officials?
One recommendation would be to have two kinds of sanctioned meets: I and I+RE.
I: The insurance obtained through a sanction will be in force for all the athletes.
I+RE: The insurance will be in place, and the meet is a record-eligible competition. To get this designation the meet management would have to submit the surveyor’s certificate (or a copy) for the track, the actual names of the track referee and the field referee, and the name of the organization that will do the FAT (fully automatic timing). Certain meets would have this requirement waived and would get I+RE status immediately after sending in their check.
Once the I+RE status is received the meet administration can advertise it as “sanctioned by USATF” and “eligible for both American (USATF) and world (WMA) records.” This would be good advertising and might result in more entrants.
This suggestion was prompted in part by David Ortman’s point about the number of all-comers meets given sanctioned status. Very good, but is the impression now given that these meets are eligible for record ratification?
What if these events draw people who are seeking records, who break those records, and then find that their records aren’t accepted because the necessary officials are not there, the meet uses hand timing, the sector for the discus drops 1 meter in elevation for every 10 meters of distance, etc.?
Another issue that concerns me is what seems to be the relatively new practice of NOT accepting (at least in the short term) records that are set at masters nationals. For example, Charlie Kern broke both the 1-mile and 3000 indoor M35 records at nationals last year (Landover), but 16 months later (it’s July 5) they haven’t been accepted.
I won’t even try to guess how many world or American marks set THIS YEAR at Boston indoors have not been given either world status (accepted) or pending status (American). I don’t know computers much, but why not simply do a “compare and contrast” of the two databases (results and records)? If a mark set at indoor nationals betters the world or American mark, it is accepted (no application required).
Why go down this road of not accepting marks at our nationals? Imagine how hard it is to explain to people: “Yes, you can set a record at the championship of the United States (for masters) and still not get it accepted.”
At Sacramento later this month we might have some women going after the W50 American mark in the high jump of 1.55 meters (5 feet, 1 inch). If someone jumps 1.56 meters, will that not be a record? It will go into the final results as 1.56 — isn’t that enough? I think that masters T&F could do a lot better here.
You’re absolutely AMAZING Peter!! As always thanks for some great input. HUGE respect for you sir!!
Thank you, Bubba. Just trying to get some respect for the athlete. If Collins or Peyton runs 11.43 at Sacramento (the record for M55 is 11.44), and the wind is no more than 2 meters per second, that’s a record. The wind speed is part of the official result of the meet, as are the time and place (why make athletes go through hoops to get their records after they have already set them?).
In the case of the high jump, of course (as in the pole vault but no other event), I do agree that the height should be measured before and after the record leap. This makes these events an exception, however, as in every other event I believe the final result should automatically become a record (if set at nationals or worlds).
Remember also, Bubba, that in the high jump and pole vault the athlete can actually become a “friend” of the officials. She or he informs the officials of the record attempt, they watch it intently, etc. This is totally different from the athlete who runs, let us say, 5,000 meters on the track at a big meet, has no idea beforehand whether she is going to set a record, sets the record, and then walks off exhausted.
To consider the task of this hypothetical 5000-meter runner to be equivalent to that of the high jumper or pole vaulter is, in my view, incorrect. She is not a friend of the officials, she is totally exhausted, and the officials probably don’t even know she set a mark. For her to grab a bottle of water, then spin around to start collecting signatures and a photo, much less a copy of the surveyor’s certificate is, in my opinion, unrealistic, especially at a big meet.
The West Region Meet is a sanctioned meet and has always been a sanctioned meet–we would not conduct the meet without a sanction–not only because of records reasons–the legal exposure would be rediculous. This is much to do about nothing–which I find more and more of on this blog–I guess we can now stop panicing that Sacramento will have a low turn out–anyone with half a brian would deduct the high turn out do to the World Championships being conducted at the same facility next year–but there are folks that like to play the chicken little role and say the sky is falling–I think some folks just have way too much time on their hands–let’s get on with the competition!
I’m seeing a forecast of mid-90’s for the next 10 days in Sacramento. So it appears thus far like we’re heading for a normal July.
The fact that the average low is 61 every day of nationals is bearable for sure. Should know in a few days how far removed the distance races will be from that low temp when the schedule comes out.
July 8th is the day you have pegged, right PT?
To Mark Cleary: Why don’t these two events have the all important black dot? This is how this discussion started. The underlying issue is organization. If USATF included the black dot, Mr. Stone would not have brought up the issue. As a first time Nationals participant, things like the black dot matter. Otherwise, I’d stay home and run in my local all-comers meet for $2.
I have to respond to Mark Cleary first, Mellow Johnny. The reason we are giving the matter of sanctioning so much attention, Mark, is that it has become so overwhelmingly important the last 3 years.
There wasn’t much discussion about sanctioning until 2008, when John Hinton lost his world record in the Hartshorne Mile over lack of a USATF sanction (got the record back about 29 months later based on an NCAA sanction). Next, Kay Glynn was absolutely robbed of a pole vault world record because a meet that was apparently listed as sanctioned and which one would expect to be sanctioned (Pacific Assoc of USATF Champs)failed to get a sanction, purely through an administrative oversight.
Even though the meet was conducted according to USATF rules and was a USATF championship, and even though the mark was authenticated by the officials, Kay lost her record in a truly terrible decision.
Next we had the US Senior Games (2009), in which every single record was thrown out. This meet did not have a sanction. Later, after the meet got a “post-dated sanction” the records remained in the rejected file, and there was a statement about failures of the officials. Audrey Lary ran a sensational 1:25.50 in the 400 to crush the W75 world mark and lost the record. Horace Grant ran a fabulous 2:06.37 in the 800 (M55) and lost that mark. Where were the failures of the officials in those races?
Thus, we have learned that the sanction is “it,” there is nothing else. Good meet, bad meet, good officials, bad officials; it’s all about the sanction. Athletes are supposed to be on their guard, to think of almost nothing else.
With all of this as background, every athlete should be able to see whether the meet they are considering is sanctioned. If the calendar says it is not, that is a major, major shortcoming. That is why we are talking about this, Mark, not because we thought the Western regionals were not sanctioned. We need a system that works.
Mellow Johnny: I am still predicting Thursday (July 8)for the final schedule, but what do I know? Your day (Friday, July 23), of course, is the trickiest of all, as it is the only day with two long races on the track (5000 racewalk and 2000/3000 steeplechase). How all of that will be run in the morning will be the big question. Will they borrow some evening hours?
Mark:
I agree with Fidel! How about getting things done right, on time? Make sure all of the t’s are crossed and all of the i’s are dotted- or in this case, make sure that the dot is next to the meet in the sanction box! Maybe it is time to stay home and run the local $2.00 all comers meets- it would be a lot less expensive in this economy! By the way, it is Ridiculous………
I agree with Peter about both the importance of the “black dot”, and the idea that an athlete should be able to simply earn their record, and not have to hunt down officials and fill out forms. We are obsessing about it because great athletes who have earned their records were deprived of them on account of administrative oversights. As for Ken’s insistence on talking about such matters….THANK GOODNESS he does.
Seems to me the hardest part about getting a record is just that: getting the record.
All the training, time, and effort involved in running faster, jumping higher, throwing further, etc. should be it.
Sounds like that’s just the beginning in terms of getting your name in the books.
Leave a Reply