Rowbury and WC 1500m

[quote]obummer wrote:

#2 is false. her agent screwed up and should be fired. just another reason why most agents are worse than useless.

[quote]

You are wrong

Rowbury told USATF she wanted to be the 1500m alternate on more than 1 occasion.

Rowbury's post on Twitter (which was cited earlier) indicates that the USATF never offered her the alternate spot due to a technicality. This substantiates the fact that Rowbury was under the impression that she was still on the alternate list

According to what was posted earlier, the USATF is citing a rule that they dropped her from the alternate list because she never told them that she ran the A Standard in Monaco. Again, substantiating the fact that they had Rowbury on the alternate list but dropped her because they were not aware that she ran the standard. And this is where the USATF fails.

The Monaco race was all over the track and field news. 4 Americans ran 4:00 - 4:01 and claimed the top 5 spots in that race. Those are stellar mark and Rowbury was one of those 4 Americans. How could this slip by the USATF employee who is in charge of the team roster?

That employee was not doing his/her job by keeping track of the standard chasing by our alternates, something that is very easy to do thanks to the internet.

There are 22 individual events for each gender at worlds. This means that the USATF employee would need to double check only 44 alternates to confirm whether or not they rightly qualified to represent team USA. You go to the IAAF website, type in the athletes name and find real time marks achieved by that athlete.

So let's assume that employee is too lazy to go to the IAAF website and verify marks.

How hard would it be for that USATF employee to reach out to those 44 alternates (and their coaches/agents) BEFORE he/she submitted the final roster to advise the athletes that they were being dropped from the alternate list because they did not achieve the standard?

That email would certainly prompt athletes who were expecting to be alternates to write back to the USATF and sort through this oversight.

This is just another example of the lazy, sloppy work being done by the USATF.

Rowbury speaks out on why she was not an alternate at 1500m

http://www.flotrack.org/coverage/251036-IAAF-World-Championships-Moscow-2013-Interviews-Races/video/719370-Shannon-Rowbury-frustrated-by-1500-debacle-thru-in-5k-at-Moscow-World-Champs-2013

I couldn't even watch that whole interview. Wow, unbearable.

you are wrong as rowbury explained today. there's a formal process in becoming an alternate when chasing a standard and notifying USATF when one hits that standard is part of it. rowbury admittedly did not do that. end of story. it's preposterous to think that "well, it's a high profile race so someone from USATF should have been watching the monaco race and filled the paperwork out for her." as much as i do think USATF is a joke, it's ridiculous to think that the burden is on the USATF to track every athlete across the globe chasing standards and updates the alternative lists on its own.

the bottom line is that rowbury had to notify USATF that she hit the A and wanted to be the alternative but failed to do so. yes, the window was extremely tight but that's what she pays her agent to do and she has had continual internet access (read her tweets) to do so herself. it's unfortunate but that doesn't change the facts here. i would fire her agent if i were her.

runn wrote:

Interesting thread and I think it all comes down to Moser. I've lost respect for her. If this really is a hamstring injury then (as someone recovering from a minor hamstring strain) I can say that she knew long ago that she wouldn't be able to race (unless the injury happened within the last two days).

The US should be able to have their best team there and if that means Rowbury runs the 1500 then Moser did us wrong.

The US has emphatically decided against putting its best team forward. If that were its goal, they wouldn't make their clear favorites participate in trials. Britain doesn't make Mo Farah run the 5000m and 10000m in a four day period to qualify.

Sorry, but I disagree with your sentiments.

You think it is ridiculous to expect the USATF to track every athlete across the globe chasing standards. Just so you know, the alternate list includes up to 44 athletes. I could look up the current marks for those 44 athletes in less than 1 hour on the IAAF website. This is hardly a monumental task for the USATF to take on.

I think it is ridiculous that the USATF would so quickly dismiss any of their alternates (especially those that have proven to be top performers at world class competitions) without first reaching out to those athletes to let them know they are being removed from the alternate list. Rather than do a thorough, competent job, they choose to pass the blame on the athlete on some stupid technicality.

If it were my job to send the best team possible to the World Championships, I would put forth the extra effort to make sure all of the bases were covered. I guess my work ethic and quality standards are a bit higher than yours.

you can disagree all you want but the process was very clearly established before nationals and it very clearly requires the athlete to notify USATF upon hitting an A standard when chasing it after nationals. shame on rowbury's agent for not doing this (btw, the agent had 10 -- not 1 -- day to do this).

just so you know, we aren't talking about the list of up to 44 athletes -- we are talking about the list of athletes who potentially could become an alternate by chasing standards and that list is well into the 100s. you might think that a better system is to have the burden on USATF to track 100s of athletes around the globe for a month on a daily basis but USATF and most reasonable people disagree. that is completely untenable. a much better system -- and the one actually in place -- is to have an athlete chasing a standard to notify the USATF when he/she does so. rowbury and her agent shockingly failed to do this. shame on them.

btw, it's not USATF's job to send the "best" possible team to the WCs. it's job is to set up a fair system and let the athletes decide who goes. for example, if kynard had failed to squeak in in the HJ last summer, it's not USATF's job to then bounce whoever was 3rd in the HJ and replace him with kynard because kynard was the reigning gold medalist and better jumper (who just so happened to have an off-day during the HJ finals). other countries do it differently but most agree that our system is the fairest. regardless, it's the system that was in place this summer.

Like I said. My work ethic and quality standards are clearly higher than yours.

There are wonderful computer programs and databases in place that can make seemingly monumental tasks like contacting 44 (or even thousands of) athletes to alert them of the pending changes to their alternate status, etc.

And with all due respect to your last argument, Rowbury rightly EARNED the spot as alternate at 1500 meters. She also happened to be the BEST alternate for that spot. No one is suggesting that someone who earned that spot be bounced on Rowbury's behalf.

This has been discussed in this thread for nearly a week, but it's now clear that a blunder occurred from the Rowbury quotes cited in LetsRun. LetsRun has done a real service in publicizing the facts here. USATF cannot take this attitude of "tough luck" towards one of our four best world class athletes (in the 1500) running some of the best times of her life. It's also revelatory that Kim Conley felt commpelled to push the pace in her semi because she didn't know she had a nearly automatic qualification (the race commentators knew precisely what was going on, but apparently the athletes did not). I guess the athletes simply do not have enough organizational support whether its from agents, sponsors, coaches or the USATF. And of course we still have the recent memory of the men's USA 5000 trials going forward with only about 60% of the racing slots filled.

yes, i am sure your work ethic and quality standards are higher than mine. please post which graduate schools you have degrees from.

it's not 44 athletes so why are you still using this number? i just corrected you but, apparently due to your work ethnic, you still have not processed this bit of information. it's 100s of athletes -- every single one chasing an A or B standard. it's comical that you think there are "computer programs and databases in place" (really?) to contact the athletes. did you just learn about email today?

now i am really confused over your new complaint -- that USATF should be using email or a phone to contact athletes regarding "pending changes to their alternate status." what do you think USATF did with Brown? do you think they used mental telepathy to tell her that her status just changed from alternate to on the team?

you are completely missing the singular issue here (which isn't surprisingly considering that you are so quick to pat yourself on the back regarding your great work ethic and "quality standards" (whatever that is supposed to mean)) -- the burden is on the athlete to notify USATF before 7/29 upon hitting a standard that he/she is chasing. this really isn't very complicated or unreasonable but rowbury and her agent miserably failed here. it's a shame because i do agree that she would have been better than brown but it's also not a shame considering that they couldn't follow the most basic procedures, which, by the way, all of the other athletes chasing standards complied with.

you also are wrong (which isn't surprising considering some of the blather you have written) about rowbury "earning" the spot. it may be upsetting to you, but she really didn't. there's more to being on team USA than just running a fast time as one must follow a whole series of steps beforehand (starting with the most basic one of declaring for US nationals). if you miss one, like she did here, then you don't get an invite to the party. it was painful watching her interview linked about with her complaining about not being in the 1500 when that is so entirely due to the failure of her agent, coach and herself. get back to that exquisite work ethic of yours.

obummer you appear to be an obsessive rule-follower. The real world doesn't work that way, nor does the USATF (see Webb, Tarmoh). I find it strange that the USATF didn't let Rowbury in, even though she didn't notify back when she hit the A. My guess is that she didn't have enough pull within the organization.

i'm not an obsessive rule-follower and the real world generally does follow rules. your examples of webb and tarmoh are exceptions to the rules. how about all of the athletes who just miss qualifying for nationals every year who petition USATF for a waiver in who get denied? they vastly outnumber the few exceptions to the rule. in rowbury's case, it probably would have made sense to have made her an exception to the rule given the fact that she already has a bronze in this very event and recently ran 4:01. however, i really can't fault the USATF here (there are a million other places to find fault with it) given the utter and complete incompetence on the part of rowbury's agent. what on earth was her agent doing the day after she ran 4:01? did the agent think that rowbury would magically gain entry and it was beneath the agent to just confirm her entry? my guess is that the agent was lazy and figured it was a lost cause at that point (who withdraws from worlds 2 days before the opening day?)

if USATF were a competent organization, i agree that someone from USATF should have given rowbury a courtesy call and asked why she had not given notice that she now has the A and wants to be the alternate. however, as i have stated above, the rules very clearly placed the burden on rowbury here.

Well, she told them several times since nationals that she preferred to run the 1500. And then she runs her best time in a couple years and makes the A standard in a big race.

We all saw it, we all know it and its not our full time job.

Yes, her agent messed up, I guess. But if you were in a competent organization wouldn't you call someone and say "Hey, saw your results, congrads. Go USA. Oh, by the way, you need to submit your time before this date to be put on as an alternate. Let us know mkay?"

Its how the rest of the world works, well the rest of the competent world.

Not sure if she would still run it this late stage since she has been focusing on the 5K training, but disappointing all around.

Obummer (perfect name by the way)

Here you go:

Higher education does not equate to work ethic and quality standards. That statement makes you come across as an elitist and based on your insults and defense of this rule you keep citing I am beginning to wonder if you are a lawyer who would defend his/her client who got away with murder on some stupid technicality.

Do some research on mail merge. Yes, you really can reach out to 100's (even thousands) of people In a nanosecond with computers. I do it all the time. Makes me very efficient and thorough in my work

You say that USATF was so easily able to reach out to Brown. So why couldn't they afford the same courtesy to Rowbury?

You defend the rules so adamantly that you miss the point. Try thinking outside the rule box for a minute and think about the overall situation and what is best for our 1500m team. Rules shouldn't be used as scapegoats.

Why can't you admit that Rowbury was the best alternate and she rightly deserved to be the alternate for our 1500 team? Why can't you argue for the human being rather than the rule that prevented one of our best athletes from competing in her best event?

yes. i am an elitist and i have people like you working for me (well, actually not like you. i prefer to have fairly smart people work for me and your complete inability to understand the very basic facts here leads me to believe that you aren't very bright even though you prefer to brag about your work ethic and "quality standards.") i also have news for you that attending top schools DOES "equate" with work ethic. i don't know too many lazy people who went to HLS.

again, you completely miss the point here. the point isn't whether USATF has the ability to send a mass email out to several hundred people (i am glad that you finally abandoned your random 44 number) because it does. the bigger point that you missed (again) is that it would be next to impossible for the USATF to track several hundred athletes and their quests around the globe to meet different standards. thus, USATF places the burden on the athlete to notify USATF when said athlete hits whatever relevant standard he/she is chasing. rowbury admittedly did not do that. not surprisingly, every other athlete who hit a standard properly and timely informed the USATF thereof.

your stupidity is further on display with your 3rd paragraph. why would USATF reach out to rowbury on 8/8 when moser withdrew and brown was the designated alternate? why not just reach to other random people who have no ability to run the 1500 at worlds while they are at it? the IAAF has its own deadline for declaring alternates and it had long past by 8/8. brown was the alternate, which was finalized, and USATF correctly "reached out" to her just like you do in your very efficient and thorough work. you might want to learn the facts better.

this isn't a situation that "thinking outside the box" really matters. this is an extremely basic and simple situation where the USATF tells every athlete chasing standards "you must notify us by x date if you hit a standard and want to be named as an alternate or on the team." again, rowbury's agent knew this and failed to do so. do you think salazar forgot to notify USATF when hasay hit the B standard? do you think any other athlete failed to do so?

i already said that she was the best alternative so why are you asking me to state this again? i even said that what should have happened is that someone from USATF should have made a courtesy call to rowbury asking if she wanted to be named the alternate back in late july. my guess is that rowbury's agent is both lazy and incompetent and didn't feel like doing any extra work that only would matter in the unlikely event that someone already on the 1500 team decided to withdraw at the last minute. fortunately or unfortunately (depending on who you are), that's exactly what happened. your plea to "the human being" is both pathetic and entirely irrelevant so i won't even address it.

Dear angry, disgusting, elitist pig

You know nothing about me, my education or my economic status.

I do not need to flaunt my accomplishments to make myself feel important or to try to make others feel lesser than me.

I was raised to respect and value every human being on this earth, despite their status in life.

Best of luck to you

Work ethic wrote:

Dear angry, disgusting, elitist pig

You know nothing about me, my education or my economic status.

I do not need to flaunt my accomplishments to make myself feel important or to try to make others feel lesser than me.

I was raised to respect and value every human being on this earth, despite their status in life.

Best of luck to you

you can add hypocrite to your list of qualities. you were the one who first made it personal with your entirely caustic, antagonistic and bragging post: "I guess my work ethic and quality standards are a bit higher than yours." could your last post being any more ironic and hypocritical??? get back to that impressive work ethic of yours and let the adults discuss the merits here.

BTW. I was not referring to the USATF reaching out to Rowbury on 8/8 when Moser withdrew from the team. I was referring to them reaching out to Rowbury when they were about to drop her from the alternate list.

Sorry if you were unable to follow this line of thought.

Work ethic wrote:

BTW. I was not referring to the USATF reaching out to Rowbury on 8/8 when Moser withdrew from the team. I was referring to them reaching out to Rowbury when they were about to drop her from the alternate list.

Sorry if you were unable to follow this line of thought.

with all of the incorrect information you have posted and your puerile choice of words (what does "reaching out" even mean? sending a postcard to? a snail mail letter?) you wrote:

I think it is ridiculous that the USATF would so quickly dismiss any of their alternates (especially those that have proven to be top performers at world class competitions) without first reaching out to those athletes to let them know they are being removed from the alternate list.

since USATF doesn't "dismiss" alternates, i don't even know what you are talking about. moreover, rowbury never was an alternate so your bizarre belief that USATF should have "reached out" to her before "removing" her from the alternate list makes even less sense. i'll repeat myself once again: try to learn the facts before posting. you clearly have little idea how this process works so why are you burdening everyone with your malarkey?