Hanson's turn down money

He did work in the stores and he did live in one of the houses

From roughly March/April 2003 - Feb 2004, Trent DID NOT live in any house owned by the Hansons and he DID NOT work in any of the stores. He lived in an apartment that he shared with 2-3 other runners and worked at a restuarant as a waiter.

So you are wrong, as are so many other people on this message board.

"He did work in the stores and he did live in one of the houses"

but when he applied for the scholarship he was certainly well off financially

Well off financially? Is that a joke? He met the criteria and the RRCA granted him (over who knows how many applicants) the scholarship. Don't really see the problem OR your arguement.

"but when he applied for the scholarship he was certainly well off financially"

Here is WHY the money went the way it did...

1. Mammoth = Meb & Deena

2. Boulder = Ritz & Torres

3. the others...who receive the scraps

are you a joke? just because he could do it doesn't mean he should have done it. what did he use the money on? a new playstation? come on.

unreasonable wrote:

Here is WHY the money went the way it did...

1. Mammoth = Meb & Deena

2. Boulder = Ritz & Torres

3. the others...who receive the scraps

Mammoth = +++ Dobson, S. Hall, R. Hall

Hanson = No olympic medals. No athletes on the Olympic Team in 2004. No athletes on the World XC team in 2005.

USATF (thanks to organizations like NYRR and Twin Cities) is going build this development program with or without Hansons. My understanding is thatr more money is coming and i am sure that money will not be restricted like the NYRR money was (= equal distribution to the DP clubs). Hansons decided to take their toys and go home just when the fun is about to begin just because the first go around did not go their way.

People can throw out the "anti-establishment" crap all they want....bottom line is that the "establishment" is doing what they should have been doing years ago.

Yep, exactly. A new Playstation!!!

"what did he use the money on? a new playstation? come on."

Dobson, S. Hall, R. Hall don't run marathons...And they don't have any medals either.

Good for Kevin and Keith for turning down that money, and "taking their toys and going home". USATF money spells trouble in the long run, and having an ounce of integrity is better than a pocket full of money.

Also, why did the Boulder group receive funding. Didn't they just start up? Don't they only have 3 or 4 athletes? Oh yea, Dathan. He counts as 8-9, right?

Or are there other factors here we don't see?

exactly, way to see the money go some place useful. point is, you yourself have a hard time justifying why he would need this money if he is at hansons.

unreasonable wrote:

having an ounce of integrity

sure.

I don't have any insider information on any of this. However it seems like Hansons turned the money down for many reasons - but partly because they would have been obligated to comply with rules/regulations and commitments that they didn't feel they could comply with. Fair enough - with any deal comes a certain degree of commitment. So why does their have to be a "bad guy" in this scenario. Hansons do a great job supporting US runners and I'll always support them as a result. USATF/RRCA are making an effort to put money back into the sport and thats clearly a big positive step.

There has easily been $250,000 wasted by development and high performance over the past 5 years. We could have a pretty good program for development clubs in place if it wasn't for mismanagement.

As far as Kevin and Keith, I would think that if you've been called to the dinner table a few dozen times, and you saw that everyone else gets not only more to eat then you, but in some cases an entirely different meal, you'd start making plans to get out of the house.

The problem wasn't that NYRR earmarked their donation to be distributed unequally - they obviously felt like supporting groups that have (or they hope will) support their events. Hansons had no issue w/ that, as that is their right, just as if I wanted to donate $10 to Boulder, and $5 to the other groups, just b/c I like Ritz.

The deal breaker was when it was asked whether the next batch of $$ to be distributed would be divided in a manner to bring the other groups that received less of the NYRR $$ up the the level of Team CA & Boulder. When the answer came back "no" or at best "we don't know" Hansons' response was they didn't want any of it.

Jim--I just read the RWonline interview with Masback and Wittenberg and neither of them ever mention that Hansons turned down or even offered the money or that the money was not evenly distributed. Is all of this really true and why did the interviewer not ask these questions? Is this how you would of handled this interview?

I think it was a good move to not bring it up in the interview. It wasnt about that. It was about getting into the guts of the support they are giving to distance running.

You are probably right. I just know that the only reason that I read the interview was to hear their response. Although I am not a politician and I understand that this is probably to much of a political no win.

As is indicated in the introduction to the interview, it was conducted early last week, before any of this Hansons business had become an issue, and it was more of a presentation by Wittenberg and Masback than an actual interview. Having seen the RW website in the last week or so, it looks like they had a whole bunch of "Chats" to go up from runners at USA Cross Country before they final got to posting this thing.

It shouldn't have been mentioned either way. All of the centers are content with how things played out. It appears that even the Hansons are content to go a different direction, according to their website. So why bring up a non issue just to satisfy all of the idiots that post anonymously on letsrun.