Mt. Sac Meet Director Please Stop Joseph Boland

why the hate for ridgewell? out of all the seed times submitted at sac, his seems reasonable. he was 3rd at the ncaa champs and ran 1:48.5 indoors. i would say 1:47.9 seems like a rational seed time. did he stick it to your girl and now you are upset?

In fairness I know that Dave Nightengale from princeton last year got into the fast heat with a pb of around 14.ox and ran 13.48 or something in the 5k at Sac. He ran 4 minutes during the year though. All I'm saying is that in some cases lying is ok if you know the athlete has the skill but never has had a chance at running a quick one.

For example nobody would question a guy like Lamong posting a fast time in 5k just because people know he's a quality athlete.

This obviously does not apply to most, just sometimes its ok.

Were there slower heats available for this guy to run in at all? I thought that if you were not a collegiate (sp?) runner, and it appear mr. boland is not, you could only run in the top section? If that is the case, I would suggest that he shouldn't have ran Stanford at all, but it would be nice if the meet had a b/c section for non-collegiates. My 2c.

Boland seems to have run a 3:54 last year at the world Army games. Bad race day? Hmm...

I hate when high school coaches lie about your seed time to get you into the faster heat because they think you'll run faster when you usually just end up dfl and feel like shit after the race because you were completely destroyed by the rest of the field. Much rather be in the heat I'm SUPPOSED to be in so that I can actually have a real race and possible even get a win.

What I can't believe is the fact that everyone acts like no one lies. When I was in college 3 years ago you had to lie about your time to get into a heat that you deserved to get into. I was a 3:50 runner and if I entered that for my seed time than I would be running with 3:55 guys. My coach always entered me at 3:46 and I would be anywhere from 1st to 5th most times running 3:50-3:52. From my experience there is not a coach out there that does not lie about seed times. The only exception to this is f you have an extremely fast runner who you do not have to lie about to get them into a fast heat.

Boland didn't even deserve to be in the C section at Stanford; neither did his teammate in the 800m. It was a joke seeing their names in the A sections results and must have been even more of a joke to see them live. The thing that these guys don't realize is that they would have likely run faster had they been in the C section. If you're going to lie, make sure you get into an appropriate section for your ability.

All they have done is embarrassed themselves and tarnished their reputations. It also tarnishes the reputation of the Edmonton Thunder and the coach. They will likely find it difficult to get into Mt. Sac.

The C section? You're way too generous. Even the D section of the 1500 was won in 3:49. And it was worse in the 800, where even the E section was won in 1:51, several seconds faster than the Edmonton guy's best time.

And to the other guy: yes, everyone lies about seed times, especially at meets like Mt. Sac (though for Stanford you have to submit a real performance along with the date and place it was run, so these guys must have just lied). But there's a big difference between seeding a 3:50 guy at 3:46 versus seeding a 3:54 guy at 3:43. Two very different kettles of fish. The latter is blatantly stealing someone else's chance to run fast in a good race.

This club has lied about seed times worse than any other for years. The guys they brought to the west-coast series in Canada usually ended up last in heats well too fast for them (1:58 man Blaine Woodcock seeded 1:50 flat type things)

Big deal its part of the sport.... he'll get spanked but to moan about something like this on an internet forum is a bit high schoolish... what if the guy had an off day last time.... "deserving running" qualify that,... because last time I checked a "deserving runner" is better off competing for the win in the 2nd heat with the leaders, than getting last/next to dead last in the fast heat.. if it's your runner (getting "screwed") get them to run faster so this might not be an issue instead of being a crying pansy on a running forum....

This is all just a big misunderstanding. The Canadians are submitting times in metric minutes and seconds, while the Stanford and Mt. SAC races are run in imperial minutes and seconds.

is it just me or does it sound like truthsayer was one of those deserving guys that was shafted...

hypothetically, if what the others are saying about non collegiate entries is true, what if the seed time was to insure he simply got into the meet. there is nothing worse than getting axed out after you have travelled all the way to a meet. its no excuse but it might explain the rational behind the inflated time.

Joe is a stand-up guy that would never do anything like purposely.

I think the coaches in his club made a mistake exaggerating the seed times to ensure that the athletes would get into the meet. At the meet proper I don't believe there was a rep from the cub to inform the meet director that he shouldn't have been seeded that high. Take it easy on the guy, he is far and away the nicest and most honourable guy you'll ever meet. He only started running a few years ago and is likely naive to these types of things. I doubt he was even aware of the caliber of athletes in that heat. In true Canadian fashion is too polite to respond himself regarding the mix-up. Actually, I doubt if he even goes to this website.

rojo wrote: There just isn't a chance that 1358 guy is going to run 345.

Not sure how you figure that one. Several 1358 guys can run 345.

Maybe it's a canadian thing (Simon Frasier Entries)

McGavock wrote:

Take it easy on the guy, he is far and away the nicest and most honourable guy you'll ever meet.

Why is it that these are almost always the people to whom 'bad' things happen?

Has anybody noticed any changes in Seeding, in the events they are interested in? I haven't so far, and there are some gross seeding errors. An earlier poster cautioned against whining about this, and I have empathy for that position. In events such as the 800/1500, there are dozens of good opportunities, but for post-Collegians trying to find a solid 5K, 10K or steeple is not easy. The chances to run fast in these events in North America are few and far between, and the most deserving athletes should have that chance at Mt.Sac.

im sure he meant 358, which is what everyone else said

McGavock wrote:

He only started running a few years ago and is likely naive to these types of things.

"was that wrong? should i not have done that?" --george costanza, 1991