Why doesn’t Sandy Pashkin have help vetting records?
Just curious:
Who would be willing to serve on the USATF Masters T&F Records Committee? For years, this committee has had only one member — Sandy Pashkin.
Given the recent controversy over John Hinton’s rejected indoor mile
record, who might be able to lend Sandy a hand in vetting records? It’s a tough gig, but very important. Certainly such a committee
could help avert mistakes, or errors of interpretation. No single
person knows it all. Nobody is infallible. Anybody out there interested? Moreover, should Masters T&F Chairman Gary Snyder require that all official masters committees have at least five members? We need to groom more volunteers in the movement, and this would be a great place to start. I’ve also posted this question on the Forum. Feel free to nominate people to this committee. (Anyone but me, of course. I’m booked with a blog.)
6 Responses
I would like to help Sandy vet the masters mile records, but I would like start with the year 2008 if that is OK with the committee. I might also be useful in vetting the masters 800 meters.
I will not volunteer, but I like the fact that Tom Hartshorne is putting himself out there for the mile and possibly the 800.
I just went to usatf.org to look at the record form. To my surprise, the latest form for masters running events has been revised as of March 2009. Even with all the brouhaha over the rejected mark of John Hinton, however, the form does not list a requirement that the event be sanctioned. That borders on the unbelievable, in that John Hinton’s mark was rejected in 2008.
What the form does require is that the surveyor of the track sign it and list his/her USATF certification no. To be frank, I have no idea who has surveyed the track at the Penn Relays (Franklin Field) in the last 3 years (if anyone). This is important because I will be at Penn next month to help with records set by masters.
Nor do I have an idea what the statute of limitations is on surveying (how recently must it have been surveyed?). Finally, I will not ask any of the announcers at Penn (although I have worked with most of them) to page the surveyor so that I can get that person’s signature. But based on what happened with John Hinton, if I can’t locate the surveyor I have NO chance of getting marks ratified that are set at the 2009 Penn Relays. Is that what we want?
The record form also requires a printed program of the event. I believe the program at Penn Relays this year will cost about $10. What if Bill Collins runs an 11.43 at Penn to break the M55 mark in the 100 but I have just $22 in my pocket and don’t feel like giving up $10 of it to get a program (I need money for tolls, etc.)? I assume that he won’t get his record ratified.
Traditionally, the masters have not had their own referee at Penn. In 2008, Herman Frazier (the Olympian) served as college referee at Penn and was asked by me to serve as masters referee as well. He signed the masters applications from Penn. Theoretically, they could be rejected on the grounds that the wrong referee signed them.
What if I go up to the FAT people in the stands to get a photo of the finish of the 100 (Bill Collins: 11.43), but the people there tell me, correctly, that both Bill’s official time and his wind reading for the 100 will go up shortly on the Internet?
They explain to me that they can’t stop what they are doing at the world’s busiest track meet to search for a photo of a previous race. Is Bill out of luck? Based on the treatment of the John Hinton mark (and of Alisa Harvey before John), there is no question in the world that he would not get his mark accepted.
This explains why I will not volunteer. The process, as embodied by the newest application form and the hidden requirement for a sanction, is simply so far beyond the realm of practicality as to make it worthless. Something must be done about this, but I can do nothing.
Just to clarify, for the few people in the world who have not heard of “the John Hinton affair,” this brilliant runner’s world indoor mark of 4:20.18 was rejected in 2008 on the grounds of “no USATF sanction,” but the March 2009 record application for masters does not even include any language that a sanction is required. How is that possible?
Has anyone considered asking Sandy if she wants help?
I’ve asked Sandy several times for an interview. She has never consented. It’s her right not to answer my prying, shameless questions. But she does herself no favors, either.
Okay this is gone beyond ludicrous. My suggestion – go straight to the top. Ask Gary Snyder (Chair of the Masters Committee) to put together a task force to study the current structure of how records are ratified. They should have recommendations by the time the USATF Annual Meeting convenes in December.
Since this is a Law & Legislation year for USATF, those recommendations can be written to the bylaws to take effect starting next year.
Leave a Reply