USATF Says no to altitude conversions

I thought it was explained quite well.

First, the IAAF doesn't do it.

Second, there is no objective way to do it.

Is there also a conversion for a non-rabbited race?

'Cacho's 3:40 off of a 2:06 pace with a 50. close = 3:32 if they go out in 1:55...'

Sometimes you just have to let the performance stand by itself.

I know it's an unfair advantage to the sprinters an arbitrary conversion isn't the best answer.

toro wrote:

Second, there is no objective way to do it.

They should just ask ventolin.

The point is that the altitude advantage for the sprints also effects earlier performances in the Visa series. It gives an advantage to those in the sprints over times run in the sprints earlier in the series and rabbitted races run in the series.

There is a fair way to do it. There are plenty of conversions available that are based on performances and scientific data. If the NCAA can figure out a conversion for New Mexico, why can't USATF.

Also, the IAAF does not convert altitude times because they don't need to. They aren't trying to compare performances at altitude among a variety of events.

What would the altitude advantage do to the shot putters?

I honestly doubt any of the US distance runners have any shot at the VISA prize anyway. They are typically not even in the running for it since they are so far off of world performances.

First off, Shannon Rowberry is currently leading the Visa Championship Series. Further, Shelane Flanagan has won in the past. Since now there is a second and third place prize you are even more off base.I have long had a problem with altitude conversions since I believe that some people are affected less than others so there are no fair standards.I think there are only two fair solutions: Move the USA Indoor championships (far too late) or take the USA Indoor Championships out of the Visa Championship Series (also not going to happen.)

Mr. Obvious wrote:

What would the altitude advantage do to the shot putters?

I honestly doubt any of the US distance runners have any shot at the VISA prize anyway. They are typically not even in the running for it since they are so far off of world performances.

toro wrote:

I thought it was explained quite well.

First, the IAAF doesn't do it.

Second, there is no objective way to do it.

Is there also a conversion for a non-rabbited race?

'Cacho's 3:40 off of a 2:06 pace with a 50. close = 3:32 if they go out in 1:55...'

Sometimes you just have to let the performance stand by itself.

I know it's an unfair advantage to the sprinters an arbitrary conversion isn't the best answer.

You are missing the point. You say you know that it is unfair, the problem is Doug Logan is saying that it is fair. He is essentially saying that Altitude doesn't affect distance runners.

Second. The IAAF doesn't do it: Solution = Run your qualifying times at sea level. The USATF doesn't do it = Peak at Boston indoor games and hope that the sprinters don't catch up to you when they go to altitude? (how is this fair)

There are three Visa Championship races. First is millrose where you have to run on the short track But the 60/hurdles, and the field events are the same as always. Second is Boston. Third is USA Champs at altitude where distance is disadvantaged and sprints are advantaged over sea level. Basically 1 shot vs. 2 or 3 for the rest of the sport

It is kind of ironic that this snafu is getting people to care about the Visa Championship "series" for the first time. In years past all the "series" was was rewarding the top individual performer (who also competed at the US champs) at one of the meets.

This year the "series" is down to 3 meets total and from the USATF website there does not appear to be any outdoor meets (this is just a guess but likely because Diamond League rules prevent the meets from being part of another series).

Regardless of the reasons, it seems likely that the apparent loss of the outdoor meets is the main reason people care this year. In years past $25,000 was given to the outdoor winner, $25,000 to the indoor winner. Thus $50,000 total.

This year with no outdoor series USATF has increased the 1st place prize to $30,000 and created a 2nd place prize of $15,000 and now has a 3rd place prize of $5000 coming to the same total of $50,000. In years past there was never any money for 2nd or 3rd so now more people have a chance at the money.

And saying there is "no objective" way to do it is complete BS. There are tables out there to begin with. If there are problems with the tables, then make corrections. That is more fair than just unilaterally deciding not to do anything putting all the distance runners at a disadvantage. Altitude not only slows down distance runners but it helps sprinters.

The one thing people are forgetting is these races in Albuquerque are unrabbited. It is very unlikely to see a distance runner run a fast time at USATF indoors anyway. So this in reality may be just a principled stand for some fairness.

Maybe this will end the Visa "series" forever. I always thought handing out a $2,500 check at the end of a televised meet for the best performance of the meet made our sport look cheap. Ususally when people pose with checks on tv it is for much more money. Way back in 1998, I broke the course record a local road race, and I think I then was given a big cardboard check for $2,500. That is what the winner at each meet gets.

[quoteThe one thing people are forgetting is these races in Albuquerque are unrabbited. It is very unlikely to see a distance runner run a fast time at USATF indoors anyway. So this in reality may be just a principled stand for some fairness.[/quote]

WeJo-Your making one little mistake. If the prize was determined solely by the USATF championships, you'd be right, it's not likely that a fast enough time would come from the distance races.

However, the prize is on the top performance from 3 meets. So, a distance runner runs really fast in one of the other meets, such as Shannon Rowberry in the 3k.

Then, along comes a sprinter or LJ for example and at the USATF championship does a performance that is slightly better than the distance runner's. Now they get the prize.

The problem is that sprinters gain an advantage at altitude.

The distance runner is screwed.

Is it a big difference? Well, using some calculators at 5,000feet your looking at .03-.05 performance bonus for a 60m race. That's a pretty big deal.

The magnitude increase is probably bigger in a long jump.

Also, for 400m, you're looking at an increase in performance of around .35 for 5000feet.

Here's the issue from the Cook/Rowbury point of view: she will not have the opportunity to better her 8:47.18 at the USATF meet because the altitude will not allow it.

Who finds it likely that, at sea level, she would be able to run faster than that in a race with no pacemakers? Since the present format of the USATF meet has been in place (no foreigners, after demise of IAAF Indoor GP series), no one has run faster than the 8:52.57 by...Regina "THG" Jacobs.

I'd argue the only reason she's leading is because the VCS has been unable to keep the top talent at home in the USA. Her 1178 total can be surpassed by:

7.12 in the 60m, which Jeter has done three times this year at sea level;

7.95 in the 60H, which Jones has done three times at seas level and Yvette Lewis has done twice;

51.52 in the 400m, which Allyson Felix can easily do ay sea level

Yeah, a distance runner has won in the past. But not with what she ran at the USATF championships, and with a time 14 seconds faster than Rowbury's.

It doesn't matter if Rowberry runs faster.

The problem arises with what if a sprinter who has an advantage runs just slightly faster or even.

Using your examples,

the women's 60m would have to be won in 7.12 or better..Given a conversion, that means about 7.15-6 sea level performance

That's a big difference.

In the 400m- we're looking at a performance that is equivalent of 51.90 or so.

This years top time is 51.64, not good enough to pass Rowberry. However, 5 people, including 1 american, have run faster than 51.90.

What about a hot weather conversion? wind conversion?

If none of these women can run the equivalent of sea level 7.16 / 7.99, it will be because three or four stars all false started. Yes, the altitude is an advantage. This year it just plain doesn't matter.

The slowest winning times since USATF moved out of MSG are 7.16 and 7.98.

justwonderingwhy wrote:

There is a fair way to do it. There are plenty of conversions available that are based on performances and scientific data. If the NCAA can figure out a conversion for New Mexico, why can't USATF.

Those allegedly scientific conversions generally conclude that Kip Keino, back in 1968 at the Mexico City Olympics, ran the fastest 1500 meters in human history. Although I think that Keino's performance hasn't been given the respect it deserves, at least from Americans who think that Jim Ryun was somehow cheated out of a gold medal, I don't think that Keino deserves to be called the fastest 1500-meter runner of all time because some purportedly scientific conversions say so.

I do agree that, without conversions for altitude and air resistance, sprinters and jumpers at higher altitudes, as well as paced runners in the longer events, get credited with better performances than might be warranted.

Fortunately, nothing of any significance seems to be at stake here anyway.

But Ryun was screwed because of the altitude ...American Track and Field Magazine did an article by someone about Ryun at Mexico City about 10 years ago..it showed that Ryun actually ran about 2 seconds faster than he had hoped, but still lost to Keino

I'm a huge fan of Rowbury's, but she didn't even win that race that puts her in first place in the "Series."

This whole thing is enormously silly. It's now a "Series" of three meets. No one who DOESN'T gets firsts in all three meets should even be eligible to be the Visa champion.

[quote]jsquire wrote:

Who finds it likely that, at sea level, she (Rowbury) would be able to run faster than 8:47 in a race with no pacemakers? [quote]

Given the fact that Rowbury's 8:47 was run off of splits including 3:02 / 2:57 / 2:48 - and the runners did not follow the pace set by the rabbit in Boston, I think it is very likely that she could run faster than 8:47 with no pacemaker.

However, it will be impossible to top that performance at altitude.

Mr. Logan, how about you try running a 3k up at altitude before your decision?

Pad Berson wrote:

I'm a huge fan of Rowbury's, but she didn't even win that race that puts her in first place in the "Series."

This whole thing is enormously silly. It's now a "Series" of three meets. No one who DOESN'T gets firsts in all three meets should even be eligible to be the Visa champion.

Well, it IS a competition / Prize Purse for Americans only AND Rowbury is leading the American ladies at 3000 meters. She lost to Ethiopians in Boston...not Americans.