Husky Invite - Any big names and races?

Our sport is a sport of numbers, it is objective not subjective. "I think" doesn't cut it. You are what you have run. Not what you wish to run or think you can run or can project yourself to run.

THE ONLY WAY we can get it right, is to ALL be honest. Once someone starts to use their own rationale that is when the trouble starts.

The intent of the rule is clear, there needs to be no more clarification.

YOU ENTER AN HONEST SEED TIME. Galen Rupp has PLENTY of verified and recent performances that can be used.

If the coach wants leeway, then he calls the meet director about the specific kid he wants leeway with and they discuss it and agree.

But in this one thread alone we have a guy seeded 6 seconds faster than he ran, and another guy using old marks which are not backed by current performances , and STILL inflating those. Where does it stop unless there is a hard and fast rule to be followed WITH CONSEQUENCES.

Again, IF EVERYONE tells the truth, then EVERYONE gets in the right heat. It is only when people start thinking that they have some unique circumstance that allows them to circumvent honesty and integrity that the flood gates open and we run into trouble.

I am floored that people actually think this performance inflation is acceptable.

An exception is exactly that, an exception. Not every kid from every team in every event or every calibre is justified in having a false seed performance just because the coach HAS to because everyone else is doing it.

It is absurd.

WGAF ? It's only indoors. Real T&F doesn't start until April.

.............................. wrote:

bogus seed marks/meet entries has been a point of emphasis for a couple of years at our national convention. it is a major problem in our sport. a football team with a record of 5-8 can't just tell the BCS they are 12-1 and get into a good bowl game.

Honesty and integrity must prevail at some point. You should enter the time you have run, not what training indicates you might run, or what a relay split indicates you could run or what your coach thinks you will run or what your grandmother hopes you could run. You enter what you have run. it is a pretty simple concept.

If the rule was written "Misconduct is intentional reporting of false marks PERIOD" than the concept and spirit of the rule may be as simple as you have framed it. The rule says, however, "misconduct is intentional reporting of false marks for entry purposes." Either the writer was clumsy or else there was a deliberate attempt to say that a specific use of false marks, but not all use of false marks, is misconduct. Apparently the inclusion of this sentence, as written, is new for 2009-2010.

I don't want to split hairs and dance around the spirit of the rule. Just as bad, on the other side of the coin I don't want to bind someone with a rule that isn't intended to be a rule. Hence my question about what the coaches have collectively intended.

Would a coach who travelled across the country be upset that his athlete can't get into a prime heat if they already ran that time this year? Would the very same coach be upset if that athlete ran that time last year but hadn't had the right race to run in, until now, this year? Is the intention of the seeding for coaches to forebear with each other as to where their athletes are currently at, or is the intention to say "only what you've run this year and nothing else?"

If I'm understanding you, then you would say it's the latter--only what you've already run this year. If that is your position, are you saying that the rule intends for Wheating to run in the slowest heat because he hasn't run that time this year? If not, then what do you mean by "false mark". It is a simple concept, no?

The thing that sucks is you get meets with this caliber of competition very rarely. When the opportunity presents itself you want your athletes to have the best chance to succeed. Putting Mac Fleet in a heat with a bunch of 4:04 guys when it is pretty clear he is in better shape than that is not giving him the chance to run to his potential. Looking at the heats I felt that most of the seed times were pretty fair and people were where they should be based on past performances and expected ability. Sure not everyone will run them but they will be in the heat that gives them the best competition, challenges them with others of the same ability.

I missed Borchers in the mile though, didn't he run over 9 for 3k a few weeks ago? That is a terrible seed time and worthy of being a rule violation.

No, just make it easier and legit.

You can use even a last year's verifiable mark.

But not marks from two years ago, when none have been improved and then subtract 2-4 seconds, that is laughable, and all it leads to or did, was everyone else lying as well because they now have to.

Because the trend was already set.

Wheating, like Rupp is an Olympian. He has MANY verfiable marks from the last year. He is an exception that can be worked out with the meet management.

But to have a blank slate for EVERY COACH to do it for EVERY athlete, of EVERY ability simply to keep up with the Joneses is why we are in this trouble. It is why the rule had to be written and modified.

It is why TFRRS is keeping a NATIONAL list of EVERY SINGLE MARK.

And don't think that every coach has the intellect to honestly guess what their kids can run.

I was at a meet last weekend where a coach entered 2 girls in the mile at 4:45. To his credit it was discussed and approved ahead of time by meet management. They ran 5:03 and 5:09, totally destroying the fast section of the event. keeping deserving kids out of the section, and having others (although they should have known better) follow the two kids through a 77 second first 400.

And for every example of Rupp or Wheating, there are at least 100 examples of crap dishonesty that gets a pass because "everyone else is doing it." And it ruins not only the experiences of the deserving athletes and honest coaches, but it makes our sport a JOKE.

.............................. wrote:

I was at a meet last weekend where a coach entered 2 girls in the mile at 4:45. To his credit it was discussed and approved ahead of time by meet management. They ran 5:03 and 5:09, totally destroying the fast section of the event. keeping deserving kids out of the section, and having others (although they should have known better) follow the two kids through a 77 second first 400.

And for every example of Rupp or Wheating, there are at least 100 examples of crap dishonesty that gets a pass because "everyone else is doing it." And it ruins not only the experiences of the deserving athletes and honest coaches, but it makes our sport a JOKE.

Your example is stupid. A whole field of what is supposed to be 4:4x women milers follows two of them through in 77? Are they stupid? That has nothing to do with seeding and everything to do with racing. A 5:03 off a 77 first lap isn't too bad, indicates she could probably be sub 5 with good pacing. Don't blame that on the coach and his seeds.

Do you want to take the time on Sunday to go through the results and point out the big liars? I'll be interested to see who got "screwed" out of a better heat.

haha, YO wrote:

... A 5:03 off a 77 first lap isn't too bad, indicates she could probably be sub 5 with good pacing.

This makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. A 5:03 off a 77 first lap means her last three laps were at 3:46 which is SLOWER than 5:00 pace.

Are you arguing that she went out too fast? Makes no sense since she went out at 5:08 pace.

Are you arguing that she went out too slow? Then she should have been able to run the rest of her race at sub 5 pace instead of SLOWER than 5 pace.

And you said the previous poster's example was stupid! Look in the mirror buddy.

Aren't the times used for each athlete entered into a heat determined from last years best time, in the INDOOR season. Wheating's best Indoor time from last year was 1:48.54. I realize he is an Olympian and he has run an Outdoor 1:45.03 @ NCAA's 2008 and an Outdoor 1:46.21 @ NCAA's 2009..... Did his coach add those three times and then divide by 3 to get a 1:47 flat?

Perhaps this can all be rationalized. To keep it above the table and honest the times entered for an athlete should be the recent event time of the previous year or most recent meet. There should be no mystery cloud above the runner.

My bad. That was stupid. She did go out a little too slow though, I take back saying she could run sub 5.

.............................. wrote:

Again, IF EVERYONE tells the truth, then EVERYONE gets in the right heat.

I think there has to be some leeway. Putting Fleet in at 4:03, I don't think gets him in the right heat. 3:57.00 might be fast, but for a freshman that's run one mile race, a race he won, coming back from an excellent 1200m leg the previous day, I don't see the problem with putting down something faster than 4:03. There are some of Oregon's seed times that I don't understand, but Fleet's isn't really one of them.

I mean Fleet has a good a chance as most of that field to run 3:57 (if not faster), his splits in the 1200 (2:54)show how fit he is. I know its not a verified time, and I see how this could cause other athletes to inflate their times. However, making EVERY athlete post a verifiable time would cause deserving athletes to be unable run in high caliber meets in the heats of their level.

I would have more of a problem with all of this if people were dominating a slower heat and could have obviously run faster w/better comp. It certainly didn't seem to happen at the UW Invite two weeks ago.

as you can see, everyone has there "reason" or there "exeption" and that is the problem.

It can reasonably be argued that given the relay split the night before and the negative split the following day and the training he has been doing recently....blah blah blah.

What is fact and needs no speculation is what he ran when in a race wearing a uniform against other people. PERIOD.

Yes the 4:10 people are lying to say they run 4:03 and the 4:03 people are lying to say they run 3:57 and on and on and on.

If everyone tells the truth, everyone gets in the correct heat. And if heaven forbid you end up in the second heat at this meet, and you run a fast time, then you get rewarded by being able to use that seed time at the next meet.

How hard is it to for a group of intelligent lifelong track people to not recognize how illegitimate it is to say you are one thing when you have never done it. The world record is the world record. The world record isn't what current training and perfect race conditions and the coach of the world record holder THINKS he could run. It is what it is. Your personal best is what you have run, not what you might run.

If you want to run with 3:57 people, then run 3:57. Simple concept.

It is why you run the races.

haha, this is just like applying for a job. In order to get a job, you need to have experience, but in order to get experience, you first need to have had a job. The hiring person may choose to make a bet on someone who doesn't have all the required experience, but whose skills seem to indicate they would excel at a certain job. In this scenario, it would be the job of the meet directors to choose to let Mac Fleet run in the fast heat because they see promise in him (254 1200 etc), not the job of the coach to artificially inflate PR's. Inflating numbers willy nilly is where you get into a gray area which is difficult to enforce, and only leads to more lying about PRs.

To all those saying Wheating's PR is inflated however, you're wrong. He ran 147.0 at Dempsey last Winter, the fasted time indoors in the NCAA, albiet on an oversized track.

.............................. wrote:

as you can see, everyone has there "reason" or there "exeption" and that is the problem.

In my mind, you've had three issues in this thread: (1) coaches should simply report their athletes' actual times, and (2) it's official misconduct if coaches don't do that, and (3) it's ruining our sport if coaches don't do that.

I've only responded to the "official misconduct" issue. I'd be interested in hearing others comment on their understanding of what constitues official NCAA misconduct. The rule could have been written "Misconduct is intentionally reporting times for the purposes of entering or being seeded into a meet that were not verified by a sanctioned NCAA reporting process." Instead, the rule refers to "False marks" but doesn't define it. Sloppy work by the NCAA, or intentional? Is a false mark one that an athlete ran in a workout? Is a false mark one that an athlete ran at a local meet directed by a friend of the coach? Who knows. Perhaps a false mark is a time you ran last June at NCAAs but which you as a coach know your athlete hasn't demonstrated this year in workouts, but which you hope she can run this weekend if only the competitive juices can get flowing. The rulebook doesn't say.

My overarching point is that with all our strong opinions about what is legit, we should try to understand what is the intention/spirit of the NCAA regulation. Arguably the coaches, and most fans at large, collectively don't want the simplicity you describe. Even your simplicity isn't really simple, because you allow for exceptions to verified marks, and you presume that a verifiable mark from last year should automatically be meaningful to a race this year. I think most of us would agree the spirit of the law should be, somehow, to get the runners who will run best on a given day to compete together head-to-head on that day.

You are correct about Wheating, his time of 1:47.03 is listed on the Husky Invite as a Meet Record time. (His school bio does not list it.) Thanks, that explains that.

It's true that Fleet probably deserves to be in the fast heat, as shown by his 2:54 lead off leg. The issue is that many teams and athletes book this trip and get geared up for their chance to go out and run a great race and get a huge PB, only to find out that 10 other coaches made up COMPLETELY ridiculous times for some of their athletes, knocking the other athletes out of the fast or faster heats. It is really sad how bad some coaches lie about times. There are lots of guys who shouldn't be in certain heats and some that deserve to be moved up and unfortunately all it is about is "who can lie the most". That's why I think people on here are upset, but it honestly won't change.

"but it honestly won't change."

It will change if two things happen.

One, meet management follows the NCAA rule as it is written. Right now, many meets get around illegitimate entry marks by allowing speculative entries - "that's right, Coach, just take your best guess and we'll put them in the heats accordingly." If meet management does not allow such marks, then they have every right to throw someone out of the meet.

Two, other coaches have to call out athletes/coaches who report false marks. This side of it really only comes into play when dealing with Qualifying marks. Again, someone would have to get up the courage to challenge a qualifying mark that was set in a meet that did not allow speculative marks.

NCAA Track and Field Rule Book:

pg. 12 Misconduct. To bring greater credibility to the meet entry process, the intentional reporting of false marks for entry purposes is now clearly classified as misconduct. Meet directors must publish entry marks in advance of the competition.

pg. 63 Misconduct. Acts of misconduct are subject to reprimand or ejection by the referee or meet management.

Qualifying...

4. Marks will not be acceptable if they are set in meets or events:

o. Where the competitor was entered with a false entry performance in a competition which had a non-speculative entry mark requirement.