Compensation should be independent of total revenues or expenses in the sense that it should depend on the job, since you'd be doing more or less the same tasks during the same time period, regardless of whether NYRR was bringing in $60 million or $700 million every year. This kind of calculation is applied only to CEO-executive types because it allows them to take in ludicrous amounts of compensation, courtesy of their interlocking directorates, who get to pad their own way at the same time.
-
41
-
I made this comment upthread, and it was inexplicably deleted, so I’m not sure if it will be again, but It seems sketchier to me that she claimed it was prescribed by a doctor for asthma than if it were in some over-the-counter cold medicine.
40 -
Just because something is a charity doesn't mean that the people running it should do charity work; it's not like putting on the NYC marathon is a side job. In order for NYRR to put on the best races they can, they should hire the most qualified people- and those people need to be payed adequately.
45 -
Hypocrisy Goes With Wokeness wrote:
Don't worry, the new NYRR chairman's excessively paid job with obscene pension is safe. It's the NYRR board after all, they are extremely woke and where you have woke you will always find a huge helping of hypocrites. The NYRR is a registered "charity" with the IRS and accepts donations, yet I think we've all seen the huge salaries the NYRR chairman and the rest of the board chose for the executives, which they will also have chosen for themselves, too.
Here's the latest known salaries for some of the NYRR executives, benefits and pensions would be extra:
Key Employees and Officers Compensation
MICHAEL CAPIRASO (PRESIDENT/CEO/BOARD MEMBER) $569,566
JAMES HEIM (SVP/TECH. DIRECTOR EV DEV & OPS) $320,041
JAMES GROOMS (SVP OF LEGAL/ASST. SECRETARY) $316,830
Those salaries are completely obscene and should be illegal for a registered "charity". You can tell by the board's lack of ethics that they are not going to care one bit about one of their elite circle taking drugs.
^ in response to above post
01 -
In the anti-doping challenge, your post implies that you're for a lifetime ban.
10 -
Surprise! wrote:
rojo wrote:
What do you think of this NY Times article pointing out that the next head of the board for the NYRR, Nnena Lynch, wouldn't be eligible to run any of their races as 26 years ago so tested positive for pseudoephedrine which is found in cold medicines and asthma medicines? She said she was prescribed it from her doctor for asthma but was banned for 3 months.
A friend emailed me the link outraged as he viewed it as a hit piece that doesn't accomplish much.
It starts, "Nnenna Lynch seems like a perfect candidate to lead the organization that puts on the New York City Marathon — except for a failed drug test and Road Runners’ zero-tolerance policy."
I guess my thoughts are 1) At first I totally agreed with my friend and get why anyone would write this article. I don't care if someone was on cold medicine 26 years ago (if that's what it was - my first roommates post college ran a pb on cold medicine not knowing it was illegal at the time) but now given that I run letsrun 2) I totally see why it was ultimately published. I do care that she and the NYRR responded as follows.
A spokesman for New York Road Runners said Lynch was traveling abroad and unavailable for comment. She did not respond to text or voice mail messages seeking comment. The organization also declined to make Hirsch, its chairman, available, and he did not respond to repeated requests for comment.Don't not respond.Yes I'm biased as I operate LetsRun but I can't stand it when people avoid the media. That makes you look like you are trying to hide something (are you?). So respond honestly and provide the doctor's notes.....
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/26/sports/marathon-new-york-road-runners.html
Provide the doctor's notes from 26 years ago?
Since Lynch was formally investigated for the pseudophedrine violation by USATF and the IAAF 26 years ago - and her defense/explanation at the time was that it was due to a doctor's prescription for an asthma medication - then it's likely that back then she provided the investigating officials with documentation of the doctor's prescription as noted in her medical chart/records as well pharmacy records proving when and where she had the Rx filled.
Chances are good that she was advised at the time to keep a copy of all the documents related to the investigation and the ban just in case the issue ever came up again.
But even if Lynch didn't keep a copy of the records herself, I'd imagine that the USATF and the IAAF/WA must have archives of all the documents involved in all the doping investigations they've done over the years - particularly in cases where they found athletes to be in violation and issued a ban.
81 -
Code Medecin wrote:
In the anti-doping challenge, your post implies that you're for a lifetime ban.
Yes. I'm for lifetime bans for MAJOR drug busts - not 3 month cold medicine bans - and only moving forward. Going back and applying today's morality to 25 years ago doesnt make sense in any walk of life.
This would be a total nothing story for me if they'd only responded and said, "Cold medicine used to be banned. She made a minor mistake but it reminds us that all people can make minor mistakes so we've updated our pollicy and only those who are banned for 2 years or longer are banned from our races."
52 -
I agree 100%. Journalist fact check as well. You simple express half baked opinions. By the way I tried to listen to the podcast!!! Please for the love of GOD do some research and get your fact right. You are always claiming to be a Journalist but are unable to get even the facts right.
14 -
Even better for your position: they'd have to say, "it was banned, then it wasn't, then it was again. [etc.]" Kind of takes the wind out of the absolutism sails.
20 -
Believe it or not there was out of competition testing and no-notice testing in the mid-late '80's and '90's. The rule was the same: if it's in your body you are responsible for how it got there.
It was a big deal when Lynch tested positive. Who would have thought a smart middle-distance runner would be stupid enough to take cold medicine without checking ingredients first? She wanted to be a pro runner and knowing the rules about doping is a big part of being an elite professional runner. The excuses used are always the same. The fact is she's got a drug ban on her resume and the NYRR has a zero-tolerance policy.
71 -
So many people here are saying that she either shouldn’t be the head of this organization or it needs to not have a zero-tolerance policy, and I can’t tell if they mean it rhetorically or not because there are so many anti-doping zealots around. But really, that a minor anti-doping infraction 26 years ago could prevent someone from volunteering their time to chair a running-focused non-profit is the best case against the zero-tolerance, lifetime bans that are proposed every time an East African athlete tests positive. It’s using a blunt tool to fix a problem that requires much more finesse.
45 -
Volunteering their time?
41 -
It’s a volunteer position a chair of a non-profit board. NYRR also recently hired a CEO, which is the top paid position in the organization and is accountable the board.
41 -
Rojo is a fool! wrote:
I agree 100%. Journalist fact check as well. You simple express half baked opinions. By the way I tried to listen to the podcast!!! Please for the love of GOD do some research and get your fact right. You are always claiming to be a Journalist but are unable to get even the facts right.
Please email me or call me and tell me how i wans't factual.
robert@letsrun.com 844-538-7786 ext 3
31 -
All those Villanova girls were hot and could get away with anything!
00 -
Not fair, not clean wrote:
Frankly now that we know she failed a drug test, its not appropriate that she is the head of a competitive running organization. Sorry. AND this doesn't surprise me. Back in the day I travelled to a track meet with her and her sister's team and while we were sitting before the meet in a diner the coach started handing out pills to everyone. (these are high school aged kids). I asked what that was and he claimed it was bicarbonate to absorb the lactic acid buildup in our muscles. I found it to be completely fishy and was shocked since I had never seen a coach do that before. (plus its pretty obvious that this method is not effective, so what was it??) Doping or "testing the waters" to improve performance artificially starts innocently even in high schools. You assume you will be able to get away with it since you always did in the past.
So we're supposed to take YOUR word for this? Make documentation available to us all, or else STFU! Whether it's true or not can't be established, unless you're willing to take affidavits from some of those high school-aged kids about what those little pills did, not that it's enough to prove anything, and that ain't gonna happen.
By the way, Not fair, not clean ran a 3-minute mile, because I said so. It has to be true, right? I mean, I posted it here, so I expect many readers to believe it is true.
36 -
Who are "they?"
00 -
Who, her?
42 -
rojo wrote:
Yes. I'm for lifetime bans for MAJOR drug busts - not 3 month cold medicine bans - and only moving forward. Going back and applying today's morality to 25 years ago doesnt make sense in any walk of life.
This would be a total nothing story for me if they'd only responded and said, "Cold medicine used to be banned. She made a minor mistake but it reminds us that all people can make minor mistakes so we've updated our pollicy and only those who are banned for 2 years or longer are banned from our races."
"I think nearly everyone is onboard for the lifetime bans, holding agents coaches responsible. A few other things.
1) Keep all Olympic drug samples for 20 years. IN the past, they've kept some for 10 years but then it made me suspicious as hell when they threw about a bunch of hte 2004 samples without testing them."
The above is what you said in your only post in that thread. No qualifiers. Then you said 20 years is good for past samples and suggest that 2004 stuff should be fair game. Close to 20 years makes sense in any walk of life but not 25? (Yes, I know you're going to say "I only meant Olympics" but your "today's morality" statement didn't have that qualifier either.)
I posted the WADA prohibited list below. I'm curious to see what out of this list would constitute a lifetime ban? I mean I have no idea what 85-90% of this stuff is (I know the general categories), and I'm fluent in English, with the 10-15% I'm familiar with because of IVF and my wife's pregnancy.
I did weed a few times a long time ago, briefly had an asthma inhaler (misdiagnosed) that probably had something, cough medicine growing up I'm sure, probably had stuff during mouth surgery as a kid, a blue and yellow pill some guy on a plane with a metal plate in his head gave me because of my debilitating headache on a plane, and had topical stuff for eczema a long time ago (allowed I guess). What would be a fair ban if I got caught with all that now in comp?
Edit: Holy crap, Mannitol is in this list? Like the sweetener in a million things?
Edit2: Oh intravenous. Geez.
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/2023list_en_final_9_september_2022.pdf
20 -
Nice pic
41
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.