I consider the journalist biased based on the viewpoint and tone of the article. I have read about five articles now on this incident and I consider three of them very one sided and biased and those three are his local papers that have covered him and his school consistently. Two other more major outlets did a fair job of presenting facts without picking a correct side.
7676 wrote:
Thats great. Link?
As "PACoach" said below, it just happened earlier today and I'm not sure it's been printed yet. But it happened. I imagine it'll be in the paper this evening.
Ron Lopresti will have to try harder to get his way next time I guess.
brogan1 wrote:
Futch got screwed but this has nothing to do with race.
Trollist wrote:
It was all about race. Pennsylvania is as bad as the Jim Crow South.
Right, because I am sure there was a ton of white guys capable of winning with Futch out of the picture. The officials DQ'd Futch because they wanted a white winner.
I think we see that the PIAA board has decided the officals actions where by far the questionable ones in this circumstances. Continue to defend them if you want but most people are not seeing it as you do.
Suspending a runner from the meet (and thus state meet as well) for an arguement as to where he could sit while waiting for awards, is one of the silliest things most of us have ever heard of. The PIAA Board agreed and reinstated Futch.
This seems like a shoddily run meet. They had a tent for awards, but not for athletes? The only water available to the athletes was hot in the sun? They made athletes wait in the sun when they got way behind handing out awards? Then on top of that, the officials act unreasonably when the athlete is trying to do something sensible, like getting out of the sun. The officials were dead wrong here and let their egos get in the way of rational thinking. They should be ashamed of their behavior.
Just to remind you again he was not DQed for that incident or arguement. He was DQed after the fact when he went back a second time and sought out a arguement with the officials and then proceeded to act in an unsportsmanlike manner when the meet director became involved.
just finishing my 32nd yr of coaching - was at the Illinois girls meet last weekend and now boys started today - 90+ temps coming. Thanks to the 200+ volunteer officials and workers who make it all happen. There are no doubt some power mongers and morons in their midst but it is really ridiculous to overgenerlize and call them all bad. I have seen far more officials going out of their way to help athletes along and put on a quality event than those trying to throw their weight around etc. Every sport has to deal with officials and judgement calls - fouls-penalties-balls and strikes - if you want to have high quality championship events at any level you learn to deal with it. I feel sorry for the bitter ex-coach who felt bad officials forced him out of coaching. 99.9% of all my coaching duties and responsibilities had nothing whatsoever to do with track or xc officials.
I'll be back later to complain if any of my kids gets messed with in the next day or two.
I've had the privilege of working with great officials at high-school meets and at international meets, and the best officials all had one thing in common: they managed to ensure a fair competition without emerging from the background. It's not easy as it sounds - as stories like this make clear
A friend of mine, Jules Lucas, expressed it pretty well. We were working track events at a meet at the Armory in NYC when I commented on the fact that the yellow (foul) end of his flag had a rubber band around it, but the white (fair) end didn't. He took me by the arm and turned me around as he pointed out all the people in the stands. "Giles, see all those people?" he asked me. I nodded. "Well, I know for a fact that none of them came here to watch me wave my flag...it's gonna be a lane violation or a G'damn mugging before that rubber band comes off."
Anyway, I'm glad this young man will get the chance to run in his state meet.
All the best,
Giles.
wow lets just take a second wrote:
Just to remind you again he was not DQed for that incident or arguement. He was DQed after the fact when he went back a second time and sought out a arguement with the officials and then proceeded to act in an unsportsmanlike manner when the meet director became involved.
Lopresti, go jump off a brdige, jump off a building, put a bullet in your brain, or whatever. Just kill yourself and rid us of another lowlife like you.
I'm not Lopresti nor do I really even know who he is or when he is mentioned in this story aside form the alleged conversation.
But thank you for ignorning the point of my post and responding with a immature post of your own, always good.
wow lets just take a second wrote:
I'm not Lopresti nor do I really even know who he is or when he is mentioned in this story aside form the alleged conversation.
But thank you for ignorning the point of my post and responding with a immature post of your own, always good.
Okay, then let me remind you that your last post
" Just to remind you again he was not DQed for that incident or arguement. He was DQed after the fact when he went back a second time and sought out a arguement with the officials and then proceeded to act in an unsportsmanlike manner when the meet director became involved."
is basically the way the jackasses that set up this kid wants you to believe is what happened. It isn't, that's why the decision was overturned.
Check your facts and read the articles. Even when he is being quoted he admits that he went back the second time to argue with the official and that is directly which lead to intervention from the meet direct which lead to the DQ.
Yawn, your "facts" are alleged bullcrap made up by the officials. 0/10, try harder troll.
My facts are in the very newspaper articles that you are drawing your arguement from.
I'm not trolling just trying to point out the that this situation is absurd. This thread has turned into bashing on the officials in a situation that is being inaccurately portrayed.
Former High School Coach wrote:
So you are calling a respected journalist a liar and saying he would risk his career to make-up a story about a high school track meet.
Respected journalist????? The Delco Time is a very local paper....the kind of paper that lines the bottom of a bird cage after the 15 seconds it takes to read the "content". If the "journalist" is over 25 I would be shocked and I would be doubly shocked if his ultimate career was journalism. In one article, he had Futch winning the 300 meter dash. This isn't Pulizter winning stuff here.
Futch got reinstated because the PIAA doesn't want egg all over its face on a national level because the District 1 officials finally got called out for being cranky, old pains in the asses. However, let's not forget that Futch cursed a blue streak near that tent and acted like punk. He thinks he's a bad ass, but he's a punk. Talented out the wazoo, but a punk.
wow lets just take a second wrote:
Check your facts and read the articles. Even when he is being quoted he admits that he went back the second time to argue with the official and that is directly which lead to intervention from the meet direct which lead to the DQ.
There are no facts in the series of articles....someone should ask the writer for his notes or a copy of his tape from the recorder he used......there were many athletes near that awards tents and no one would describe the situation simply as a verbal altercation.
IMO the officials are a big reason track is fading. Kids just don't want to deal with the crap that the officials are dishing out. Not to mention that half the volunteers are definitely biased. Most come from other schools or have old ties to certain schools. Track needs a serious facelift for the American audience to come back to it.
He didn't go back for looking for an agurment he was questioning the double standarded set up by the award clerk that allowed other athletes to be under the tent after he was forced to wait again for another award. But who cares what you say or why you feel so heavily invested in this to keep coming back to stir the pot. The PIAA knows it had a very sticky situation on its hands and had to reinstate Fuch because there simply wasn't enough evidence to keep him banned from the state meet.
Funny how the officials' own organization, who I'm guessing actually have more facts than you do, disagree with you. But keep going with your blind, irrational defense. Or study a rulebook. Either way.
wow lets just take a second wrote:
My facts are in the very newspaper articles that you are drawing your arguement from.
I'm not trolling just trying to point out the that this situation is absurd. This thread has turned into bashing on the officials in a situation that is being inaccurately portrayed.