USATF does it again - They won't allow steeple qualifying time that Becky Wade ran in nationally televised meet

wejo wrote:

These meets hire USATF certified officials right? Shouldn't these officials know what the rules are an insist on the proper cones etc?

Also unrelated but how can all the indoor world record marks count for a meet that didn't have a curb. Stockholm didn't have one from that video I saw.

The officials know the rule book, most of them don't know the "criteria for a legal meet" because it's not in the rule book.

polevaultpower wrote:

If the National Office wants all marks to be on curbed tracks, they need to spell that out in the criteria above. That would mean no one could qualify for anything at the UW indoor meets...

UW's Dempsey Indoor may have to put in a curb and re-stripe anyway if a current NCAA proposal passes:

Thanks for following this up.

Also, the short distance times 200 - 800m are being allowed, but just the steeplechase time isn't.

USATF officials work a ton of meets which aren't set up for qualifying purposes. A meet can be USATF-sanctioned but not certifiable. It's not the officials' job to ensure that the facility is OK for certifiable qualifying times.

In the end, what does this episode tell us? Above all, the standards for facilities ought to be more clear and transparent. Somehow, in the course of setting up my meet, it was abundantly clear to me that we needed a rail. But I can't easily find the documentation that says so.

I think we can agree on that; I just would hope we could also avoid demonizing USATF in this case. As stated above, I don't think they are to blame. And I can't imagine that David Katz would ever have told Mr. Doyle that the track would be OK without a rail...

Got a text from Becca Gillespy that says "Paul Doyle just told me the track was surveyed for a curb and he only found out 10 minutes before the meet. You should interview him."

So technically the mark shouldn't count under the rationale people run closer to the curb when there isn't a rail (I'm not sure this is the case in the steeple)

The steeple is the one event where the whole rail thing is less important anyway. One one side of the track there never is going to be a rail.

We're then left with the other side of the track. It's ok if the high jump is going on over there and the rail is taken down and cones put up, but not ok if there are just cones? If there is a huge advantage from cones then this should never be permissible.

And due to the nature of hurdling, the athletes are way more likely to be wider and not right in lane 1.

Having said that, if she ran 10 centimeters x 1 turn x 7 laps X 3.14 (pie) short that is 2.512 meters short.

At her pace 592 seconds for 3000 meters, running an extra 2.512 meters would take an extra .49 seconds.

However she ran an extra barrier right?

She qualified by .38 seconds. So we're talking .11 seconds. Problem is USATF made the steeple qualifying time too easy and they are oversubscribed.

However, she ran an extra barrier right? That accounts for .11. I think they should let her in.

1) The rules do not say it has to be without curbs.

2) She doesn't know the track was measured for a curb and doesn't have it.

3) Her effort likely would have qualified her if the track had been properly setup.

Where is my logic wrong?

wejo wrote:

Got a text from Becca Gillespy that says "Paul Doyle just told me the track was surveyed for a curb and he only found out 10 minutes before the meet.

Where is my logic wrong?

Your logic may not be wrong, but I question the facts as stated by Paul Doyle. Look at an aerial view of Lakewood Stadium on Google Maps or another online source. The lane staggers at the 300H start lines, where they are on the straight and more easily measured, are exactly the same for 1 to 2 as they are for all the other staggers. On Google Earth, this can be measured, The lane width is 1.07m (42 inches), and the stagger at the 300H start is 3.36m. If this track had been built, striped, and surveyed for having a curb, then the stagger from lanes 1 to 2 would be only 3.05m. That difference of 31cm is enough that it would easily be apparent on the aerial view.

So I question Mr. Doyle's information. Also, if that track was built to have a curb, then the curb should have been stored under the stands or in a shed somewhere, and it could have been installed.

Rulebook wrote:

clarifying human being wrote:

It's on the USATF.org OT qualifying link. Research it yourself. Just as I did.

I'll take that as "I got nuthin' " until you can cite a URL or Rule No. that mentions the curb thing.

It's USATF Rule 160.2

Chet Manly wrote:

Rulebook wrote:

I'll take that as "I got nuthin' " until you can cite a URL or Rule No. that mentions the curb thing.

It's USATF Rule 160.2

Rule 160.2 allows a track without a curb, if you read it carefully. BTW, you're a little behind. See my post dated 6/24/2016 2:14AM.

We just got a tweet from Becky Wade. USATF has done the right thing and let her in.

https://twitter.com/bexwade89/status/748173045584433152

It amazes me how USATF officials are consistently brain dead on a public relations front.

Coming off of the marathon Trials, Becky Wade ran a steeple at the nationally televised Atlanta meet. She ran 9:52 - under the 9:53 USATF auto time.

USATF now tells her the time doesn't count as there was no rail. There were only cones on a turn (which a USATF official told meet management was ok for last year's meet). So now she's flying out to Portland to get a time.

I'm all for standards being enforced for records and what not but this is just stupid.

1) There aren't even 24 people with the auto time. They should just let her in. You're talking about it being worth fractions of a second.

2) The fault wasn't hers, it was the meet management. Just tell the meet management, "In the future, the times won't be allowed. Let this be a warning."

I understand this is a slippery slope and they are worried that if they let it slide in this case, someone will sue in another case so then give her a penalty. It looks like a rail is worth a few feet per lap so then say we'll add 3 seconds to your time.

We have an update on the story.

1) Weldon spoke to David Katz. He never ever told Paul Doyle that it would be ok to run a meet without a rail.

Katz told Weldon that he spoke to Doyle after the article was published and that Doyle says he never told Flotrack that Katz told him it would be ok to run the meet with cones. Katz said Doyle told him that he told flotrack something along the lines of "You need to talk to David Katz" about how it all works.

Note: Earlier we said the Flotrack story was "inaccurately written". That is incorrect. The story does not accurately reflect what David said happened. We have no idea what Doyle actually told Flotrack so we definitely shouldn't say it's inaccurately written, but it's inaccurate to the facts according to David.

2) It's clear to me that the Doyle (not Wade) screwd up. If you are running a meet on national tv, you get a rail. As an athlete, when invited to compete in a nationally televised meet, it's not on you to ask, 'Will there be a rail?' So Doyle screwed up but USATF could easily make this whole by just saying, 'We're going to make an exception as we want to reward you for getting a meet on natinal tv or we're going to penalize you .5 seconds per lap.'

Second Update: We just got a tweet from Becky Wade. USATF has done the right thing and let her in.

More details here:

That's good they let her in, but it shouldn't have taken them so long to do it.

Becky Wade is quite light and not very tall. Considering the barriers, this makes me think a flat event like the 10k would be a better for her than the steeple.

After all of the run-around, I hope she proves herself and has a fine race.

Rebecca Stowe disagrees.

Yeah but didn't see say she already cancelled her flights and hotel? Read that in the Flotrack article. I'm sure flights are super expensive now... Sucks.

I hope Becky has the run of her life at the Trials in eight days, despite the rollercoaster of emotions that no doubt have been messin' with her psyche since "that" race. And even if it doesn't work out, she can always feel great that she made it to the Trials! That, in itself, is a great achievement, and hopefully a stepping stone to her to even loftier performances.

Thanks to USATF for letting her in; despite being in a no-win situation (you'd be lambasted no matter what your ruling), those involved deserve a proverbial pat on the back for reconsidering and ruling favorably for Becky. Compassion should be a part of every organization's thinking. Strict rules are meant to be challenged and overruled, on a VERY limited basis, and this was one such time.

The field was already filled by the time that got past everyone who made the standard. 35 women hit the standard for a goal field size of 24.

Wade didn't push Stowe out. Stowe didn't run the qualifying time while Wade did.

Great, now work on this:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7429836

ThinkxAgainx wrote:

The field was already filled by the time that got past everyone who made the standard. 35 women hit the standard for a goal field size of 24.

Wade didn't push Stowe out. Stowe didn't run the qualifying time while Wade did.

Even usatf does not believe she ran the qualifying time. That is why she is listed as "accepted" and not "qualified".

Sharer of new info wrote:

ThinkxAgainx wrote:

The field was already filled by the time that got past everyone who made the standard. 35 women hit the standard for a goal field size of 24.

Wade didn't push Stowe out. Stowe didn't run the qualifying time while Wade did.

Even usatf does not believe she ran the qualifying time. That is why she is listed as "accepted" and not "qualified".

That doesn't change the fact that Becky Wade being "accepted" had nothing to do with Rebecca Stowe not qualifying.