USATF Board overturns 392-70 vote, will instead nominate Stephanie Hightower for IAAF Council

The National Office attempting to do damage control: http://www.usatf.org/News/A-Message-from-the-USATF-Board-of-Directors.aspx

Seems fair to me. It is clear that they did not have to follow the vote of the members. The only thing that I don't understand is why they voted at all when they were not going to follow it. Other than that it seems clear and straightforward.

that's such a bullshit piece. like 80% of it is just meaningless boilerplate.

"Our governance therefore is a combination of governance and business principles, under the USOC charter."

is hightower somehow 'better for business' than hersh?

"In the case of Friday’s selections, we took the recommendation of the USATF body that was present at the Annual Meeting very seriously. That body voted by more than 80 percent to suggest Bob Hersh for the IAAF position."

and then it suddenly declines to give any reason at all why that recommendation was ignored.

so whiny wrote:

Seems fair to me. It is clear that they did not have to follow the vote of the members. The only thing that I don't understand is why they voted at all when they were not going to follow it. Other than that it seems clear and straightforward.

The board did not want the members to vote at all and fought vigorously against it. The members voted because we got some bylaw changes passed through L&L and the Board at the last minute decided to avoid a floor fight, once Stephanie confirmed she had enough votes lined up to secure victory via the board.

moron wrote:

is hightower somehow 'better for business' than hersh?

Well Max and Nike obviously think so. Probably because Bob serves the athletes first, while Stephanie probably made promises to serve Nike first.

"Far from subverting USATF’s democratic process, we followed it."

How does any rigged process like this every get considered proper or legal. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million dollars were spent to get representatives from 55 associations to Anaheim (2 were not allowed to vote). We spent 4 days discussing the ramifications of this, each committee brought it up. A great deal of discussion took place. A poorly conducted vote delayed the proceedings as many representatives had to catch their outbound flights. Still the results were overwhelming. And eight people know better. The self-serving message

http://www.usatf.org/News/A-Message-from-the-USATF-Board-of-Directors.aspx

Realize this is entirely rigged by the USOC forcing USATF to revamp the Board. Further rigged by the back room negotiations in L&L fixed language to allow this to happen. They may have the letter of the law in their favor but the process to create that law was grossly rigged to achieve the result. Why don't we also go ahead and name the Olympic medalists for 2016 now so they can be wearing Nike uniforms when they are in front of the cameras.

In the end, it's cowardly for them to say SH is better for the new era of the IAAF than Bob...but not explain why.

If there are good reasons, there is probably a diplomatic way to disclose them.

quote]j.scranton wrote:

The other poster was right about a more thorough description being found at

this thread.

Short answer is that anyone can pay the $250 and file the complaint. Section 10 of the USOC bylaws has the filing rules. The filing would be better if handled by an attorney (and I know there are some looking into this now) but a lay person could do it as well.

Let me know if you have other questions and I can point you to other resources or some other folks who are considering this option.

For what it is worth, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I don't know Hersch or Hightower. However, I do think the board's action smacked of an autocracy so I am mostly researching options for shifting the balance of power back to the members.[/quote]

USATF MUST BE DISBANDED!

agip wrote:

In the end, it's cowardly for them to say SH is better for the new era of the IAAF than Bob...but not explain why.

If there are good reasons, there is probably a diplomatic way to disclose them.

This. I understand that the process that got us here ... What I want to know is why the Board thinks Stephanie is the better choice.

What exact qualifications makes Stephanie Hightower a better, "new era" choice for a potential IAAF position?

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/07/14/urban-league-battles-setbacks.html

After you read the article, scroll to the bottom to see a reader's post also questioning Hightower's credentials, leadership and character.

Smoke? Fire?

What has NOT been mentioned throughout ALL of these posts was the fact that the membership only new the day before of the closing session, that this vote was actually going to take place. Most of the voting delegates had already left the convention. This is because the the by-laws were changed the day before (which allowed for the floor vote and the ability of the board to overturn it with the 2/3 vot). Prior to the annual meeting, it WAS in the i-laws that it was the decision of the board to select the imdidual who was to serve on the IIAAF Council. This process had been in place for many years and could been easily addressed during the odd numbered years which are designated as L&L years to make these kind of recommendations. To have it take place at the LAST minute was an insult to all and definitely to the process of FairPlay.

Because she's better at lying, cheating and deception.

Whining on this message board does no good. If you don't like it then go to the usoc. Get the USAtf disbanded if it is so bad. If not then move on.

Monkey smack wrote:

Whining on this message board does no good. If you don't like it then go to the usoc. Get the USAtf disbanded if it is so bad. If not then move on.

The Arab Spring started with texts and FB posts. Word gets out. People will get pissed off enough to enact change, particularly in the face of such unbridled ego.

This kind of thing has been happening forever. I highly doubt the athletes have the collective balls to do anything. Even 10-20 strong athletes speaking up will enact nothing. It would take nearly every high profile athlete to enact change.

Here is who is in charge -

Board -

http://www.usatf.org/About/Committees/Board-of-Directors.aspx

Here's a snapshot at how recent the Men's LDR Annual Meeting Agendas have been kept

http://www.usatf.org/about/committees/LongDistanceRunning/MensLDR/agendas/index.asp

Youth athletics -

http://www.usatf.org/About/Committees/General-Competition/Youth-Athletics/Minutes.aspx

Last I checked, it's December 2014. If you don't take the time to do a little easy research, shame on you. The fact that the website is woefully out of date should let you know that there are ants in the kitchen. If you've seen a couple, there are hundreds behind the drawers and cabinets.

what'sreallygoingon? wrote:

When we see things like this happen, we have to wonder what political force is driving this? It doesn't make sense. Why the overwhelming 11-1 vote by the board?

Has the board given their reasons for this?

What was their basis/reasoning for this?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$[/quote]

What money? If there was any money in play, someone would benefit. Who benefits from Hightower gaining any type of influence? She may be a dubious mover and shaker in Columbus, but not nationally or internationally.