In the story about Houston getting both men's and women's bids over NY and Boston, the quotes from the two jilted directors sound very bitter, verging on angry. They also read like east coast elitist bullshit, claiming that NYC or Boston are obvious choices for a great race. Houston has come along quite nicely with both its marathon and Half in the past few years, and obviously they put together a good bid. Let some other cities have a chance.
I think the phrase is "a sense of entitlement."
When asked, both race reps said they were "disappointed". As they naturally were. As you would be if you were one of them.
Not sure where you get "bitter", "angry" and "elitist" from that except if you didn't like them to begin with and were trying to celebrate their lost here publicly in the guise of asking a question.
You wouldn't be doint that would you?
After seeing this thread I went back and read the article on the main page. The OP is exactly right. The NYRR and BAA directors do sound bitter. It sounds as if they both just assumed the trials would be held in NY and Boston from here on out. As if no other city in the country is remotely capable of hosting the trials.
A little competition will be good for them. I'm glad Houston got it.
Now can we do something about Glenn Latimer? Good lord, does that guy come off as arrogant and dictatorial and power hungry and everything else you don't want in a volunteer-driven nonprofit.
I heard that one of the consultants for USATF felt slighted by the lack of returned calls he was getting from the NYRRC and BAA. They didn't know he was a consultant and dissed him. Paybacks a bitch.
I read the article too and don't think they sound bitter. Could someone post the exact sentence(s) that sound bitter. I do think the BAA sucks but that's another thread.
Let's see....they express "disappointment" and even send congratulations to the Houston organizers. Where, exactly, is this bitterness you speak of?
Well, USATF didn't even communicate the decision to the NYRR and BAA before it was announced. That's just one of the ways in which USATF is not exactly a smooth and honorable outfit.
boulevard of dreams wrote:
When asked, both race reps said they were "disappointed".
They said a lot more than just that
"As an organization fiercely committed to our sport and our athletes, I have to be honest and say that we are disappointed by today's announcement that both Trials races will be in Houston," said NYRR president and CEO Mary Wittenberg in a prepared statement. "It seemed such a win-win to split the genders and to give the fans of two markets the chance to experience the Trials in an up close and personal way. The New York and Boston Trials were unqualified successes. It would have been nice for at least one of us to have had the chance to build on that success and to capitalize on the momentum of the last Trials."
So, Houston's group is not fiercely committed to our sport and athletes? Why even put that in your prepared statement. It is a disguised jab at Houston. What value is there in holding two separate races for men and women? Why have they been separate and how common is that? It's always seemed strange to me. Yes, NY and Boston trials were successes, but does that mean no one else's will? Why should no other city get to host just because yours was a success?
At least she did this:
Wittenberg sent congratulations to Houston race director, Brant Kotch, and the event's managing director, Steve Karpas, who had spearheaded the Houston bid.
and then:
Speaking to RunnersWorld.com, Boston Athletic Association executive director Guy Morse said he was "disappointed, primarily," when he heard the news. "We thought our bid was still a very realistic one when you consider all the additional intrinsic values of holding a Trials in Boston. Or in New York. We felt we exceeded all expectations in 2008. The results of our effort speak for themselves. "
What is the intrinsic value of having the trials in Boston when it is not associated with the Boston Marathon,as opposed to say the intrinsic value of having it in Houston, Dallas, Charlotte, Atlanta, LA, Seattle, etc?
These quote reveal that those two directors really expected to get the trials. And I don't think that's cool.
Because they're entitled, they like to consider themselves the king-makers of US marathoning. It's petty, a very Eugeneian type of solipsism. They only love the sport so long as they're allowed to sit at the top of it. The sport is actually better for a bit better than NYC's and Boston's being put forward and spreading top events like the OT marathons around the country to other venues more.
The sport is actually better for a bid better than NYC's and Boston's being put forward and spreading top events like the OT marathons around the country to other venues more.
highway to hell wrote:
So, Houston's group is not fiercely committed to our sport and athletes?
Having the NYRR be fiercely committed does not imply that the Houston group is not. Read with an open mind to prevent your prejudices from interfering with correct comprehension.
hardset nipples wrote:
Because they're entitled, they like to consider themselves the king-makers of US marathoning. It's petty, a very Eugeneian type of solipsism. They only love the sport so long as they're allowed to sit at the top of it. The sport is actually better for a bit better than NYC's and Boston's being put forward and spreading top events like the OT marathons around the country to other venues more.
You are correct, sir. NYRR loves controlling the narrative. In this rare instance where they don't, they get defensive. (A prepared statement on not winning the Trials? Why not just shut up about it until you're asked, instead of having your goons descend on a pliable running media with typical Wittenberg spin?)
Yes I know they can both be supportive of our sport. But everyone already knows what NYRR does for this sport. Everyone in the entire world of running knows the importance of the NYC marathon. No one questioned it, so why put that as part of your prepared statement? It is unnecessary and reads like a dig at Houston.
But read the rest of the sentence:
"As an organization fiercely committed to our sport and our athletes, I have to be honest and say that we are disappointed by today's announcement that both Trials races will be in Houston."
You want to harp about reading being fundamental, how about the last 7 words of that sentence. They are dissappointed THAT BOTH TRIALS WILL BE IN HOUSTON. Why would you let that out? Why would your pr person not have suggested someting a little different? Here's a lesson in press releases: "We are dissappointed that we lost the bid." See the difference?
What's wrong with being bitter?
because they put on the best trials ever, even better than 1984, and they should ahve gotten them back a second time. Typical USATF - screw over anything that was successful. They almost had it right, giving the track trials to sacramento two times in a row, building on it the second time, then going to eugene for more than one. both make a lot of sense.
Houston makes no sense other than spite and lining the pockets. NY and Boston are th media capitals of marathoning in the states and should have had second runs at the trials. NY's involvement with the media was unprescedented and should have been built upon. USATF are idiots and this is a perfect example of the wrong choice.
highway to hell wrote:
You want to harp about reading being fundamental, how about the last 7 words of that sentence. They are dissappointed THAT BOTH TRIALS WILL BE IN HOUSTON. Why would you let that out? Why would your pr person not have suggested someting a little different? Here's a lesson in press releases: "We are dissappointed that we lost the bid." See the difference?
Now I see your problem. You did not read the background information on the bidding process. You did not understand that, prior to these trials, the men's and women's races had always been at separate sites. Thus you did not understand NYRR's suprise and disappointment at BOTH races being assigned to the same city.
No, I got that. And I posed the question above: why? I've always wondered why they are separate. Where else are the men's and women's trials done separately? Is that common?
And why is it a problem if both trials are in one city?
highway to hell wrote:
What value is there in holding two separate races for men and women? Why have they been separate and how common is that?
Two separate races probably yields more net coverage for the events. As it is now, one newspaper article covers the results of the trials. Separate races have been the tradition for a long time. Kind of innovative for Houston to go after both actually. I don't think any of us saw it being awarded that way.
What is the intrinsic value of having the trials in Boston when it is not associated with the Boston Marathon,as opposed to say the intrinsic value of having it in Houston, Dallas, Charlotte, Atlanta, LA, Seattle, etc?
Having the races in Boston or NY probably brings a bigger ready made audience in the form of marathon participants. NY clearly has a lot more of these than Houston and one could probably argue that Boston participants (and Boston natives) are more likely to come out for the race. Finally, like it or not, NYC is a media center and that's got to be worth something.
The big factors it seems is that Houston was awarded the trials based on cost to USATF (not that there's anything wrong with that) and the timing which truly is better for the athletes. I think you can make a good argument, however, that NY or Boston would have gotten more exposure for the event.