Trevor Graham kicked off track at NCSU

Actually, something very similar happened when the track at Colorado was resurfaced a couple years ago. Public access, which was previously unlimited, was dramatically restricted. Also, those (like coaches) interested in using the facility for events or commercial use are required to pay a hefty fee. They also banned use of spikes for anyone who isn't a CU runner outside of the meets that are hosted there. I think Brad Hudson ended up taking his runners to the Fairview HS track. Incidentally (or not,) the track rehab was funded almost entirely, if not completely, by donated private monies.

i think that last point isn't incidental; it's the most important one of all. if i'm donating money to the XC/track program, i don't want to see that money pissed away by having the entire town running/walking/playing grab-ass on it and considerably shortening the lifespan of the track. if i did want to see that, i would donate money to boulder's park district for them to build a track.

additionally, it seems a bit silly for me, a person who doesn't have a state university anywhere near me (even further to one that actually has a track), to have to pay for a track to be re-surfaced every seven or so years so select inhabitants of my state can run for free on a track. as far as i'm concerned, that track should only be there for the people who go to the university, especially those who compete for it.

If TG is being paid for his coaching services, the University should ask him to pony up. And being he's coaching elite athletes I'd think 250 a day is fairly reasonable. They are providing a first rate track I take it, otherwise he'd be working his crew elsewhere. I know a lady who was asked by a health club she belonged to not to coach swimmers in their pool. Also the local Golds Gyms have signs up everywhere prohibiting rogue personal training. I do however believe that if you're just an average schmoe working out for fun, you'd think the school would encourage that with reasonable fees if any.

IMHO, if the track is paid for by public money then it's only to anyone and the only one that can impose a fee, if they so desire, is the local council (or similar). Rules of course, but no discrimination. If it is through private funding then access is then restricted.

Well, I guess this was the impetus of the NCSU action against TG....

Anti-doping officials investigating Marion Jones, ex-coach

By Sean Webby and Elliott Almond

Mercury News

An official with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency met with potential witnesses in North Carolina last week to ask questions about Marion Jones and her former coach, Trevor Graham, the Mercury News has learned.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/10850392.htm

for comparison, Harvard at its 10 billion dollar endowment charged my club $100 dollars a week for the outdoor season. They said they would police the track for non-paying clubs but they didn't. Most likely we could got away with it but a major issue is insurance. Trevor Graham may not have this problem - but there always the potential for someone to show up to a practice and hurt themselves badly (torn Achilles, who knows) to the point where they sue for damages. USATF has insurance for this sort of thing - but you can't get it unless you notify them of your official practice location. It can't be official unless you have permission from whomever manages the facility . . . you get the point. Harvard $150 a week for indoors but we said screw it and bought individual Reggie memberships instead - at least you can go any day you want.

There is a scarcity of good public facilities in Boston that are easy to get to - and at many of them you are competing with lacrosse, soccer, or the absolute worst - Pop Warner football parents who park their beach chairs in Lane 1.

you bring up a good point regarding insurance; leaving a track and other facilities open to the public also leaves whatever institution owns/operates it open to liability (or, at the very least, litigation) from people who claim to be injured while at their facility. there are just so many actual and potential costs involved - maintenance, monitoring, insurance, lawsuits, etc. - that it makes perfect sense to have stringent restrictions for who may use it.