Controversy at CO State Meet

well... what's the rule and what are we looking for in this picture?

Either way, pretty shitty that a coach did this. Nothing in particular stands out to me besides the socks (not a violation in Ohio). Sounds like some d!ckbag just wanted his team to move up a place based on a technicality.

It is a shame that a coach caused for two of the girls not to run.

The top priority should be for the girls and boys, and that they all get to participate in a race that is fair.

Nvm, sorry. I was looking at the picture not realizing there was an article with it.

It looks nit picky, but it's still the coach's fault for ensuring this didn't happen since they are strict on such rules at these high level meets.

Something not addressed in the discussion on that site is how annoying it is for the rest of the field to have to stand on the line for 6 minutes while 1 or 2 of the team in question gave up their uniforms so the top 5 would match.

Last time that happened to me I got steamed up by a race starter that decided to run an impromptu warmup session for the entire field. Yes, he directed stretches and stationary exercises while delaying the start of the race (that was already late starting because he was lecturing the field on the importance of yoga to running). Uggghhh! Small hometown races.

Has the great sport of track and cross country come to this low, base level of stupidity?

Doug Heffernan wrote:

well... what's the rule and what are we looking for in this picture?

Either way, pretty shitty that a coach did this. Nothing in particular stands out to me besides the socks (not a violation in Ohio). Sounds like some d!ckbag just wanted his team to move up a place based on a technicality.

Read the article. The second picture down is the one the OP was referring to. The rule is stated right below it.

I don't know how you can look at those two uniforms and get confused that the athletes might be on different teams. Sure, they have slightly different designs. But who cares? Seems nitpicky.

Glad it worked out, sorry for the two girls who didn't get to run, and inspired by their maturity for agreeing to give up their spots.

sadgdsjaf wrote:

Glad it worked out

It's not clear to me that it "worked out." Although the author of the article is less than clear about what happened, I gather that the coach of the Alamosa team protested the slightly different design on two of the seven Salida uniforms, and the meet official upheld the protest. Running with only five runners, Salida lost the state championship to Alamosa by a score of 91 to 95. (The five Salida girls actually averaged faster times than Alamosa's top five finishers did.)

Would the team results have been different if all seven of the Salida girls had been permitted to run? I have no idea. But despite being quite a stickler about adhering to rules, and despite recognizing that the meet official may have felt compelled by the rules to act as he did, I'm having a difficult time coming up with a good explanation for the Alamosa coach's action. Am I missing something here? (I am not, by the way, overlooking the tautology that "rules are rules.")

You aren't missing anything. It was clear that the official was told by an Alamosa coach that Salida didn't have legal uniforms. According to how the rule is written, that isn't necessarily true. The official deemed it so, and ruled that 2 of the girls couldn't run. It was a judgment call. The coach from Alamosa put the good of his own team ahead of all else. I am fine with rules, but the "spirit" of the rules are more important at the high school level. Hard to look at that picture and think Salida could gain any advantage with their uniforms...

aren't the porta potties a little close to the starting line?

It should not be too hard to make sure that everyone is in the same uniform.

No wonder we are a country full of obedient stupid little sheep.

luv2run wrote:

It should not be too hard to make sure that everyone is in the same uniform.

A curious comment. Do you really believe that the degree of difficulty involved in obtaining matching uniform designs for seven runners is a significant consideration here?

It's clearly the coach's fault. Not many rules in XC but that is one everybody knows. He even takes full responsibility for it. If you know there are two similar uniform varieties for your team, you need to be absolutely clear which one to bring to the state meet.

These uniform rules are bullshit. Uniforms get lost and worn out. Eventually, the number of uniforms a school owns is less than the number of athletes on its team. When this happens, they have to order more. Manufacturers often change the designs they offer, or schools change vendors. So now instead of buying 5 new uniforms to resupply, you have to buy 30 or 40 or 50 to keep in accordance with these rules. Many schools don't have the money to do that, or don't want to spend the money to do that (and don't see the importance--it's rarely the coach doing the ordering).

Also, any coach who feels it's important to DQ runners from a direct competitor is missing the point. Yeah yeah, "rules are rules." But what kind of message does that send to your own runners? "Sorry guys, I don't think you're good enough to win on your own" or "Hey kids, the best way to beat someone who you've been training all year to beat is by taking advantage of a technicality." How bout you just beat them in the race?

They should change the word "same" to "like" in the rule.

In the article, top picture (from the starting line at the meet), look at the shorts on #499, #498, #497, all in different shorts. That's a uniform violation just like Sedalia but for some reason not called.

Exactly. In college, I ran for one of the richest schools in the world, but some of us still got old hand-me-down outfits while others got more fashionable updates. As long as the letters "MIT" were clearly visible, I don't think that any meet officials or opposing coaches had a problem with that.

The kids from the small town of Salida have perhaps learned one lesson -- that the adult world includes people who will take advantage whenever and however they can. The kids from Alamosa have, I hope, learned a different lesson -- that just because you can take advantage doesn't mean that you should.

…... wrote:

In the article, top picture (from the starting line at the meet), look at the shorts on #499, #498, #497, all in different shorts. That's a uniform violation just like Sedalia but for some reason not called.

That looks like Vanguard that had 2 runners between both teams 2nd and 3rd runners so it wouldn't change the margin but wow, if it would have...