HUGE INJUSTICE at USA's

CaliGuy wrote:
Here's what I'd suggest instead.
- When the A and B standards are published, publish the field size as well.
- When deciding the field size, fill all the damn lanes, in the name of both competitive equity, and in the name of getting more people into the meet. The competition in the men's 800 was not improved by having 5 empty lanes in the first round.
- Allow additional athletes to come to the national meet as alternates if there are late scratches so the lanes are full..

That should be the plan but they always make it so things are up in the air. My guess is they do that so they can add the Gouchers and Abdis of the world without having anyone to answer to.

At the 08 trials they did the numbers thing and it was a good tool. You could look at the list and say "I am 23rd and they're taking 32.". However, when several guys scratched from the 1500 (you're always going to have athletes (or the athletes' agents?) declaring in multiple events for some reason), even though the next few guys were there warming up (Tom Parlapiano being one of them) they didn't fill the lanes nor did they reseed the races. At least Tom got to watch the trials!

Conversely, there have been several examples of athletes on the B list who were told not to come and another B lister got let in.

More than anything I would just like consistency. If you're going to let an athlete into a crowded field because he or she was fouled (Teter, Acosta, Ulrey, etc) do it across the board (Rutt). These guys make decisions with apparently no rationale.

Why John Chaplin should be released from USATF in all capacities:

EVIDENCE 1:

"There are three levels of appeals that a runner can take," said Mastbaum. "Those are before the USATF Appeals Council, the U.S. Olympic Committee, and the American Arbitration Association. At all levels, no official is authorized to award monetary damages. It shields them from being responsible for athletes harmed by their actions."

"By creating a complex, unwieldy adminstrative scheme, as a consequence the selection process is not based on merit," he said. "It is not possible for an athlete to obtain a quick and fair resolution to an eligibility dispute..."

This quote in particular is clutch for illustrating the unethical nature of USATF.

EVIDENCE 2:

July 8, 1997

Track star says he was held back as starting gun went off

By Carl Rose

Colorado Daily Sports Writer

Boulder-based elite distance runner Shannon Butler has overcome adversity, raising himself in an unstable foster home environment in Eureka, Mont., with virtually no contact with his parents.

He persevered as a rising track star at Montana State from 1988-1991. Butler won 12 straight Big Sky conference titles, as well as the 1991 NCAA and USATF titles in the 10000-meter events. Later that summer he ran a scintillating time of 27:59 in Hengelo, Holland at the age of 23. At the time, Butler, Bob Kennedy and Todd Williams were heralded as the next wave of world-class American talent in distance running.

Butler's future seemed bright. He came within one academic quarter of graduating in health and human development, when Nike offered him a substantial professional running contract and he relocated to Eugene, Ore.

Nonetheless, Butler's somewhat volatile side was viewed cautiously at times in running circles. Since 1992, his illustrious career had been a series of ups and downs, including flashes of brilliance, a difficult divorce from Vicky Huber, a daughter he talks to as often as possible, nine surgeries, as well as personal problems.

Butler was injured for the 1992 U.S. Olympic Trials, but he readied himself for 1996 after he moved to Boulder to train in 1995. He was the second American at the April 1996 Carlsbad, Calif., 5K road race in 13:46. A regime of mile repeats in 4:25 at altitude honed his rapidly improving fitness. His chances to make the U.S. Olympic team were bordering on excellent. This was proven by a 28:40 effort at the Peachtree 10K road race in Atlanta on July 4 immediately following the Olympic trials.

So many now ask why didn't Butler compete at the 1996 U.S. Olympic Trials?

Just prior to the trials, Butler learned Butler learned he was to be excluded from the field although he had clocked a 28:33.54 mark at the 1995 Mt. SAC Relays in the 10000-meter run. This provisional mark qualified Butler as the 24th athlete out of 24 allowed into the field. Still, Butler was replaced be fellow Colorodan Jon Hume, whose time at 28:38.50 was roughly five seconds slower than Butler's.

According to USATF's local representative, Boulder attorney Joe French: "One of the issues here in Shannon Butler's case is whether a 25th person should have been added to the field because he was a provisional qualifier." French offered no further comment.

However Butler was verified he was 24th on the U.S. list after he contacted other competitors, including Boulder's Mark Coogan, and contended that Hume was the 25th athlete on the list. Butler flew to Atlanta on his own dime, sure that something would be done to resolve this discrepancy.

At the trials headquarters in Atlanta, Butler sought out the Chairman of USATF's International Competition Committee, John Chaplin, who, Butler says, gave him a notebook and said, "Write your appeal in here. You have 10 minutes because I have to go."

"I'll never forget when Chaplin came out into the hotel lobby, it was clear that they had no intention of letting me run. Even the athletes who had to compete against me for a spot on the team think I got screwed," Butler said.

No further appeals were available and Butler says Chaplin told him, "Butler, you're not running, and I don't care of there are three guys on that (starting) line, you're not getting into this race. So you can just pack your bags, go home, and try again in four years."

Shortly thereafter, Butler contacted Boulder attorneys David Mastbaum, James Christoph and CU regent Jim Martin, all serious runners at one time or another. He filed a verified grievance complaint against USATF in August, 1996, and filed suit against them last November in the Boulder County District Court. A motion by USATF to dismiss Butler's complaint, claiming that Butler "had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies required by the AMateur Sports Act of 1978," was recently denied.

USATF indicated that they would have rerun the 10000-meter race for Butler "if Butler had gone through the proper channels," according to Chaplin.

In response to Butler's complaint, USATF said Butler "failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," and that Boulder County District Court "lacks subject matter jurisdiction."

In the meantime, Butler's attorneys did some research on USATF and found other irregularities in its appeals process, althugh USATF states in its Olympic Trials Handbook that it treats its athletes, "fairly and in good faith."

In a written response to Butler's complaint, USATF denied thta a contractual relationship exists between themselves and amateur athletes.

Officially, Butler's lawsuit is an action to recover damages he sustained as a result of his wrongful exclusion from the 10000-meter race at the 1996 U.S. Olympic Trials. The central issue is to hold national sports-governing bodies accountable to pay damages and play by a fair set of rules. Butler believes he not only missed his chance to compete for the United States in his prime at age 28, but says he also lost his sponsorship and source of livelihood from Nike.

"Whether or not I am awarded monetary damages from this is not the most important thing here. I just want to set precedents down the road so that this can't happen to someone else in the United States," said Butler.

"The last thing I would want to do if I was USATF is to have to explain to a jury why Butler was excluded and a runner with a slower time was added to the field," said Mastbaum.

USATF's General Counsel representative Robert Hersch in New York declined to comment on pending litigation.

EVIDENCE 3:

(Letsrun.com poster "Marcy Projects"):

I can't believe it's been going on for this long and still goes on. I posted this yesterday-

First let's rewind to last year. Thomas Morgan (ZAP) was on the bubble to get in. They let their designated number in, 24, but then inexplicably added some dude named Ghebrey who was 3 spots behind Thomas and Matt Gabrielson who had run 13:55 (Thomas ran 13:39). WTF?

John Chaplin, head of the selection committee, said (direct quote) "I am the head of this committee and I can do what I want." Wow. Last year's world cross was in kenya in March and a ton of athletes were backing out due to extreme weather, threat of violence and other reasons. They begged Matt to go and finally made the deal that if he went he'd get an auto entry to USAs for the 5k. Matt's excuse, a legit one, not to go was it hurting his outdoor season so they told him he'd qualify regardless. I don't even know if 13:55 is the USATF B standard, but they let him in anyway. So after a huge stink Thomas, Steven Haas and a 3rd athlete whom I can't remember (those skipped in favor of Ghebrey) got in. As far as I know their was never an explanation as to why Ghebrey got in. I am not blaming Matt for this, but come on. Why would they make that deal?

Now, on to this year. Leading up the 5k final Alberto knew that The Gooch needed to be top3 and get the A standard. No small feat. He approached John Chaplin, who btw is paid by Nike as a "consultant", "if Adam doesn't feel good in the 5k and has to drop out will he be allowed to run the 10k?" John agreed. I'm sure some money changed hands. During the tv coverage of the 5k Ed Eyestone said "Adam's coach told me if he isn't on pace to hit the A standard he will drop out to rest for the 10k." He wasn't and he did. It was no secret why he was dropping out. So then out of nowehere Adam is added to the 10k even though he is 33rd on a list that takes 24 and nobody knows why. Athletes 25-32 are pissed and looking for answers.

This thing only got resolved because a lawsuit came up. Thank you Jon Little. The coaches of athletes 25-32 were asked if they'd agree to go to court on Thursday. All did. USATF prez Bill Roe got wind and called Chaplin "this shit is not happening for the 2nd year in a row. Click." He doesn't want a hearing. Athletes 25-32 are in. Thats still BS. None of them, nor Goucher, should be in. But damnit if The Gooch gets in they all get in.

Anybody know who Greg Myer is? Sure you do. In 1988 he was at the tail end of his career and qualified for the 10k at the trials. Declaration was by phone cause Al Gore hadnt invented the internet yet. So for 2 days Myer tried to get through but the phone was busy. Eventually he hopped on a plane to the meet and tried to pay his 100 bucks in person. Chaplin "nope, you're a day too late." He wasn't let in. Instead they let the 25th guy in who coincidentally ran for Washington State, where Chaplin was the coach. Someone from USATF told Meyer that Chaplin took the phone off the hook for the last 36 hours. Meyer quit the sport.

What about the 5k this year? Why the f*** wasn't Bak let into the 5k final? Two of alberto's athletes run the prelim for fun and keep two other athletes out of the final? Are you f***ing serious? There is a rule saying they wont let someone else in if a finalist scratches. Bullf***ingshit. What if Galen Rupp was the first guy out? They'd bend that rule because "I am the selection committee, I can do what I want." Ryan Bak is Christian Smith. He had a shot to make the team. In that final anything can happen. But, he actually didn't have a shot. That sucks. After Rohantinsky scratched another athlete was denied a spot. I actually don't even know who, but two athletes were left out.

USATF needs to get rid of the old bastards running shit. They cheat like crazy.

Ever hear of Chris Estwanik? Finished 2nd at the indoor 3000m a few years back and made the world team. He had the world A standard from a meet at UW on an oversized track. He got his box of gear and it was like Christmas in March. The day before he left Gags got a call "sorry we overlooked something. Chris ran his qualifier on an oversized track and we dont allow that. Steve Slattery is already on a plane to worlds." They never showed Gags the rule. Also, it's not a World Champs rule, supposedly just a USATF rule. Btw, Alberto was Slattery's coach that year.

Estwanik ran a few outdoor races, was in the best shape of his life (PR'd at Oracle (3:37?)) and the week of USAs quit. he couldn't do it. After what happened that winter he didn't see a point.

What about Teter getting into the final? I read a quote from Teter after the race saying she wasnt going to protest because she had no grounds for a protest. However, when you know the right people you always have a shot! As soon as Teter went down Lannana went to the rescue. He went right to the clerks and didn't file a protest, but just told them what happened and got her into the final. By the time the coach of one of the other fallen athletes got over to the table to file a protest Teter was already listed among the finalists. This was moments after the race. This guy didnt even have to file, he just told them his athlete and they moved her over. Have you seen the race? There was no foul. Shit happens. Similar to 2000 in the O trials 5000 when Jonathon Riley lost his shoe and was advanced to the final. His coach? Vin Lannana.

In 2003 Joe Driscoll was 25th (it's happened to him a few times). They listed the athletes as qualified or not qualified on usatf.org. Joe had a "not qualified" listed. His coach was told "absolutely 100% he isn't in. He didnt qualify." Fair enough. James Carney was 26th. he flew out anyway. He got out there and his former college coach, 1 million year old Harry Groves, talked to some people and got him in. Groves knows everyone and apparently spoke to Chaplin and they let him in. Meanwhile Joe was in North Carolina mopping floors.

In a sport where everything is black and white this is unexceptable. In track and field you either run X or you don't. You either finish in the top 3 or you don't. How does this shit keep happening?

EVIDENCE 4:

Another Letsrun.com poster:

Wow. I wish I had heard of all this two weeks ago.

I was #26 for a field of 24. #25 told me that he was not running. One more spot, and I get my shot.

There were a number of runners whose times were from '07, including two who had not even touched the track this season. (I hit my time two weeks earlier, having gotten a very late start, and had only one race before that.)

Someone advised that I try an appeal to get the field size expanded.

Interestingly, the phone number for appeals had been taken off the site, despite that it was still four days before the first round of my event. Made calls, and calls, and calls,... couldn't get John Chaplin directly, but was given the message from him not to bother appealing because it would be a waste of my money. The field size would not be expanded. End of story. I got Butler'd... told not to appeal so later if I raised issue USATF could claim that I didn't follow the appropriate channels.

23 guys went to the starting line.

No doubt there is a difference between myself and Goucher, and he could have been considered a contender for the team while I wouldn't. I still can't help feeling cheated though. I hope USATF gets gutted.

EVIDENCE 5:

PAC-10 PENALIZES COUGARS' TRACK, BASEBALL PROGRAMS

P-I Staff and News Services

Monday, June 22, 1992

Section: Sports, Page: D1

Men's track and field and baseball, two of Washington State University's most successful athletic programs, were placed on probation for two years yesterday by the Pacific-10 Conference because of NCAA violations.

The penalty includes a ban on postseason competition for the 1992-93 school year, reduction of scholarships in both sports for four years and removal of WSU's track and field Pac-10 championships from 1985 and 1991.

An eight-month Pac-10 investigation found the NCAA violations after the conference was tipped by a person unknown to WSU, a school official said.

``The core of this case," said Pac-10 Commissioner Tom Hansen, ``is related to an athletics job program in which out-of-state student-athletes principally worked on athletics facilities."

The athletes worked 20 hours a week in exchange for waivers that reduced their tuition to in-state levels. But WSU did not count the value of those waivers when calculating its financial aid equivalencies, Hansen said, and thus exceeded NCAA scholarship limits in men's track and field for each of the last eight years and in baseball six of the last eight years.

The Pac-10 also found that athletes in the program worked for the athletic department instead of academic departments, as required by university policy, and that ``in many cases" they did not work for the amount of time for which they were paid.

Hansen cited ``a lack of institutional control" in the administration of the jobs program.

Jim Livengood, WSU athletic director, was at the meeting of the Pac-10 Council and Chief Executive Officers in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, where the penalties were announced. He could not be reached last night for comment.

In a news release from the school's athletic department, Livengood announced the jobs program had been terminated and that WSU had self-imposed scholarship reductions for the next four years, reducing track scholarships by the equivalent of three each year and baseball by 1.5 each year.

The NCAA limits are 14 for men's track and field and 13 for baseball.

Livengood also announced that track and field coach John Chaplin and baseball coach Bobo Brayton were directed to cease recruiting activities in the spring, as soon as the nature of the violations became clear.

``We are deeply disappointed to discover these violations," Livengood said in the news release. ``This is a difficult day for us."

The Pac-10 investigation found:

-- NCAA financial aid limits were exceeded from 1985 through '92 by an average of 2.42 grants per year in men's track and field and by 1.31 per year in baseball. WSU, like many schools, divides its scholarships to spread the aid among more athletes.

-- Baseball players spent more time than allowed in athletically related activities. NCAA limits, instituted for the first time last year, are four hours per day and 20 hours per week.

-- ``A representative of the institution's athletics interests" paid transportation expenses for redshirting athletes to compete in a track meet. According to the WSU release, a local track club member and supporter paid $474 in personal funds to send an athlete to the national indoor championships of The Athletic Congress.

-- A track and field athlete received financial aid, practiced and competed in 1992 while ineligible. The athlete was ineligible, WSU's release said, because the Scholastic Aptitude Test score for that student was achieved in December 1991, instead of by July 1991 as required.

``This is a very real and severe penalty for our coaches," Livengood said about the scholarship restrictions, ``especially when combined with the two years of probation and loss of postseason eligibility for 1992-93.

``John and Bobo are fully aware of the seriousness of these violations. ... "

The Washington State men's track and field team has won four Pac-10 championships and has been NCAA runnerup four times during Chaplin's 19 years as head coach. The baseball team has won 21 division titles in 31 years under Brayton.

Livengood said these are the first sanctions ever imposed on WSU by the Pac-10, although the athletic program has received letters of reprimand for minor infractions in the past.

EVIDENCE 6:

From the ncaa website regarding major infractions (I don't think Scott is very good at this searching thing):

Institution: Washington State University

Date: 04-MAR-94

Facts Summary: Extra benefits; excessive financial aid and athletics activity; competition and financial aid for ineligible student-athletes; lack of institutional control.

Violation Summary: FINANCIAL AID: student-athletes received non-resident tuition waivers inconsistent with university policy; excessive financial aid awards; failure to notify student-athletes of availability of financial aid appeal. EXTRA BENEFITS: faculty member provided transportation expenses to red-shirt student-athlete. ACADEMIC ELIGIBILITY: participation by ineligible student-athlete. PLAYING SEASONS: excessive athletically related activities. LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL.

Penalty Summary: Public reprimand; ban on recruiting in baseball and men's cross country and track and field for 1992-93; eliminated jobs program for student-athletes; annual reviews and reports; reduction by 3 equivalency grants in men's cross country/track and field for four years commencing in 1992-93; reduction by 1.5 equivalency grants in baseball for four years beginning with 1992-93; vacation of track and field awards for 1985 and 1991; forfeiture and vacation of any records from 1988-89 through 1991-92 in which ineligible student-athletes participated in baseball and men's cross country/track and field. The institution did not participate in any conference or NCAA championships in men's track and field and baseball during 1992-93.

EVIDENCE 7:

Trials and Stipulations

An in-depth look at the Olympic Trials start list controversy

By Scott Douglas

As featured in the Web Only issue of Running Times Magazine

print mail view page: Prev 1 2 3 Next

The U.S. Olympic trials process is fair and straightforward—place in the top 3 and have the Olympic “A” standard, and you’re on the team. Athletes and fans from other countries regularly praise the American system for removing politics and preferential treatment, cronyism and corruption from the mix. But what if the process for deciding who is on the start line isn’t as clear-cut?

That question arose during an otherwise magnificent Olympic trials in June and July. In the distance events, there were several instances where decisions about who was let into the meet appeared more arbitrary and capricious than straightforward and easily comprehensible. With the U.S. Olympic Committee threatening USATF with decertification as the national governing body of track and field, athletes’ claims of a lack of fairness, transparency and accountability took on extra weight. That was especially true with the trials being held in Eugene, Ore., where Steve Prefontaine is revered, in part, for his battles with one of USATF’s predecessors over athletes’ rights.

Although certainly not yet of Prefontaine’s caliber, Blake Boldon is a middle-distance runner who has placed in the top 10 at three recent national championships. At the outset of the trials, he was seeded 27th in the 5,000m field; USATF stipulated a minimum field size of 24. Because fields in the event had been expanded soon before races at other national championships, including the 2004 Olympic trials, Boldon spent $1,500 to be in Eugene to appeal to be added.

In the men's 1500m, heats of 10 were run to qualify

runners to a 12 person final

Appeals are heard by two-person committees. On the men’s side, one member of the committee is named by John Chaplin, chair of USATF’s Men’s Track & Field Committee. The other is considered an athlete representative. In Boldon’s case, that was Dexter McCloud, a 47-year-old hurdler who told me, “I have been working as an athletes’ representative for approximately the last 5 to 6 years. I was selected for the position because I am an athlete and my experiences on a number of committees.”

When Boldon got to Eugene to appeal, “there was no protocol,” he says. “There was no transparency to the process to say, ‘This is what you need to do, this is the deadline, this is who you have to talk to or where you need to be.’ Anything they told us, we tried to follow through. We were sent to the downtown Hilton; they told us to be there by 1:00 p.m. to meet with the Appeals Committee. When we got there, nobody in the hotel had even heard of an Appeals Committee.” On the day of the 5,000m heats, Boldon tried to follow up; he had crafted his formal appeal with input from “well-connected USATF officials,” he says. “I got a call from the track essentially saying they were not even going to consider it, so I shouldn’t pay [the] $100 [appeal fee]. I felt like, I want to at least pay $100 to make you read my appeal and explain why anyone isn’t allowed to expand the field. They took my credit card and said, ‘We’ll meet and get back to you.’ “

When Boldon heard from McCloud, “He told me that if he allowed me into the meet, they would have to add numbers 25 and 26 [on the 5,000m seed list], and then they would have to add a heat in the 5K. At that point I realized what I was up against and I asked him, ‘Did you read my appeal?’ He said, ‘That information was not presented to me.’” Boldon wasn’t allowed to race in Eugene.

Colleen Newhart also experienced what reads like a Kafka-Keystone Kops mash-up. After two women scratched from the 1500m field, Newhart was seeded 31st; the field size was set at 30. However, the agent of Julie Culley, who had made the final of the 5,000m, had contacted Stephanie Hightower, chair of the Women’s Track & Field Committee, to say that Culley was to be dropped from the 1500m field. It looked as if Newhart would be added to the field.

But when she spoke with a USATF representative, Newhart says, “[she] told me no changes could be made within 48 hours of any race on any start list. I told [her] that was obviously not true, since they just notified [Jordan] Hasay and [Kerri] Bland Wednesday morning that they were in the race. Hasay and Bland were not on the original start lists posted on the USATF website.

“I told [the USATF official] I knew Culley would be a DNS and asked her to please follow up with Stephanie Hightower in regards to this so that I could get a chance to toe the line. At that point, she relayed to me that Ms. Hightower was very angry that she was even called the first time in regards to this issue, and that [the USATF official] refused to bother her again on my account.”

Two weeks after the 5,000m heats, Boldon and McCloud still differed on what transpired in Eugene. McCloud wrote to me, “Mr. Boldon partly based his appeal to run in the meet because Adam Goucher, another distance runner, won his appeal for entry.” In fact, Boldon’s appeal didn’t mention Goucher, and was filed before Goucher’s entry into the 10,000m field was announced.

Such incidents didn’t occur for the first time at the 2008 trials. After not being allowed to run the 10,000m in the 1996 trials, Shannon Butler took USATF to court in a case that was ultimately resolved to his satisfaction. In an affidavit for the case, Butler asserted that once his initial appeal to run was denied, “I then contacted John Chaplin, chairperson of the International Competition Committee of USATF, about my exclusion from the trial. Chaplin also declined to offer an explanation for my exclusion, but suggested that I file an appeal, which I did. Approximately five minutes after I had handed Chaplin my written appeal, Chaplin informed me that the Appeals Committee had denied my appeal. Neither Chaplin nor the Appeals Committee offered any explanation for the denial of my appeal...I then asked Chaplin about whether I had any further appeal rights. Chaplin told me that there were no further appeals available to me, and that “[y]ou’re not running and I don’t care if there are three guys on the line, you are not getting in this race. You can just pack your bags go home and try again in four years.”

Twelve years before Butler’s no-go, Boston Marathon champion Greg Meyer had a similar experience. A provisional qualifier for the 1988 10,000m trials, Meyer followed the then-prescribed procedure of phoning in his declaration. Trouble was, the line was busy for two days straight. Meyer tried repeatedly while driving to the meet in Indianapolis. When he got there, Meyer says, “They said I was declaring a day too late. John Chaplin and Brooks Johnson listened to me for a few minutes and just kept saying I was a day late. I was so angry I didn’t even stay in town—just turned around and went home.”

Besides the historical precedent of fields being expanded soon before races start, the other main basis of Boldon’s appeal was that increasing the field size would add to the competitiveness of the races. The schedule in Eugene was constructed largely to mimic the Olympic schedule; for example, four rounds were run in the men’s 200m, even though only two men didn’t advance to the quarterfinals. In some of the distance races, however, the field sizes weren’t close to what American Olympians will face in Beijing. The men’s 5,000m had two semifinal heats of 12 to create a final of 16. In the 2004 Olympics, each of the semifinals had 18 runners. In Eugene, the men’s 1500m started with three rounds of 10; the field of 30 was then culled to two semifinals of 12 to produce a final of 12. In Athens in 2004, there were 12 or 13 men in each of the three first-round heats.

I asked John Chaplin about the field sizes. “Could we have 28 in the 5K? Yes,” he said. “But we decided 24 was a rational number. So you can appeal, but the answer is going to be no—there’s no rational reason to grant that appeal. The point is, we’re taking 24 in the 5K.”

When I asked what harm would have come from expanding the men’s 1500m field from 30 to 36, part of Chaplin’s response was, “The Olympic trials are not a goddamn all-comers’ meet.” For the record, the final man let on the start line, John Bolas, had a qualifying time of 3:41.21. The man who would have been the 36th in the field if it had been expanded, John Richardson, had a qualifying time of 3:41.70.

Another reason to stick with smaller fields, Chaplin says, is logistics. “I have limited space, and I want it that way,” he says. “If I add six more people to the 1500, then that’s six more athlete passes, and two more passes that go with each of them. So I don’t really want 32 in the 5K or 36 in the 1500.”

None of the above reasons were compelling enough to keep the men’s 10,000m field in Eugene from being expanded from 24 to 25 to include Adam Goucher. Nor was a USATF competition rule that calls for running the 10,000m in heats if there are more than 24 men on the start line. That Goucher was 32nd on the qualifying list is irrelevant, Chaplin says. “Appeals are decided on an individual basis,” he says. Certainly Goucher acquitted himself well, taking 7th in a PR of 27:59.31. But once it became known that Goucher would run, the men on the list with faster qualifying times also wanted in. Jon Little, an attorney and 2:21 marathoner, threatened arbitration, but eventually dropped the matter the day before the 10,000m. The runners with faster qualifying times than Goucher wound up not running.

Robert Johnson, the men’s distance coach at Cornell University and co-founder of LetsRun.com, says, “The Goucher case definitely felt like favoritism. Apparently his appeal was granted before the meet started, but was officially announced toward the end of meet. Why go out of your way to make it look like something bad is going on?”

While I was discussing Goucher’s case with Chaplin, it became a little harder to believe every athlete is treated fairly, if not equally, and appreciated as among the nation’s best. Referring to some of the slower men in the field, Chaplin said, “Those clowns in the bottom half of the 10,000 have no chance on God’s green earth of making the Olympic team.” During another part of the conversation, he said, “I have no patience with distance runners any more.”

How are USATF committee members chosen? USATF president Bill Roe told me, “In a nutshell, people get into positions within USATF by moving up from local to national representation through their local association, or through a national sports organization member of USATF (NCAA, RRCA, etc.) As with any non-profit, most people have their hearts and heads in the right places, but you do get a few who are in it for the wrong reasons. Fortunately, throughout my experience with USATF (over 30 years), those latter number very few.”

USATF’s communications director Jill Geer says, “There’s no secrecy about the appeals process. There’s no great conspiracy going on.” Boldon’s point, he says, is “when you do have a premier coach or agent or shoe company, you know the proper channels somehow, but when you’re unrepresented and you run for a shoe company like Saucony, the proper channels aren’t available to you.” Johnson says, “I run one of the most popular running sites and I’m a college coach, and I don’t know how this stuff works. So who does?”

In addition, you don’t have to believe in conspiracy theories or be a cynic to think that having a paid consultant to Nike, as Chaplin is, in such powerful positions creates potential conflicts of interest. Johnson says, “When almost every runner who seems to get preferential treatment runs for Nike, that starts looking like more than a coincidence.” The desire to remove any such suspicions is why, for example, judges often recuse themselves from cases in which they might be accused of favoritism.

As someone who reveled in being in Eugene for the trials, I have no interest in sullying what was a great event. But when the trials are held again in Eugene in 2012, I hope to be there cheering on runners in fields that were determined through a fair, open, easy-to-understand-and-navigate process that puts the athletes’ interests first. To see that hope fulfilled will likely require a new system administered by different people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott Douglas is a contributing editor to our magazine and a regular contributor to Running Times Radio.

HUGE INJUSTICE at USA's

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

HUGE INJUSTICE at USA's

Jump To A Page

Follow polevaultpower

Block polevaultpower

Jump To A Page

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.