All valid points, but at least the OP appears to have the option to set up a time to discuss them directly with Kenah. Compare to Max Siegel completely stonewalling the elites who wanted to discuss their concerns about what happened in Albuquerque.
All valid points, but at least the OP appears to have the option to set up a time to discuss them directly with Kenah. Compare to Max Siegel completely stonewalling the elites who wanted to discuss their concerns about what happened in Albuquerque.
They must have really changed the way they start Peachtree. Last time I ran it was in 2003, and I started right behind the Kenyans and so forth in whatever they called our group..."sub-elite" maybe. I probably crossed the actual start line within seconds of the start of the race.
theSausageKING wrote:
lol - how hard can it be collecting 30 to 50 USD and letting, calling city to close 5k route, hiring a timer who provides bibs and chip timing, giving out some water and bananas and t shirts, and probably buying some sort of insurance policy.
seriously, this is what most races are, if you think this is close to rocket science, don't leave the south, I don't think you'll make it out here.
I feel stupid for responding, but I can't let this one go. If I showed you a project plan for a large road race, it would probably exceed the number of characters allowed for a post. Here are a few things:
- You have to coordinate with a half dozen city departments
- Dozens of vendors
- Over one hundred Staff & Volunteers
- Website
- T-shirts
- Financials (receivables and payables)
- Course
- Registration, timing and results
- Photography & Videography
- MC and Race Announcer
- Contracts
- Travel and Hotels
- Parking
- Water and Food
- Elite athletes coordination (coaches and agents/sponsors included)
- Handle hundred of phone calls
to name a few things
This is a huge disgrace on not only the Peachtree race but the USATF. Absolutely terrible. I hope letsrun.com publicizes this as the scandal it should be.
Avocado's Number wrote:
By the way, I'm puzzled by this sentence: "In an effort to ensure an inclusive USA Championship race, we prevented many of you from the race experience you wanted." Could somebody explain to me how preventing these runners from "the race experience [they] wanted" served to "ensure an inclusive USA Championship race"? I would have thought quite the opposite.
Even a Harvard-educated lawyer should be able to understand simple and concise English void of lawyerly verbiage and obfuscation. I'll help you out.
"In an effort to ensure an inclusive USA Championship race"
In order to conduct a National Championship event, Peachtree organizers believed (correctly) that separate starting times/grouping were needed. The reasoning here should be clear to most of us. In large road races there tends to be a "starting creep" where runners at the front, or near the front, begin moving before the start. When that happens there is no way to call the start back against a mass of thousands.
"...we prevented many of you from the race experience you wanted."
Again, more straightforward English, free of lawyerly verbiage and obfuscation. Those who were not in the elite start who should have been, didn't get to participate in the National Championship and compete mano a mano for those spots -- they were part of the a separate 4th of July fun run.
That wasn't so difficult was it?
Rich Kenah. I've never met him and don't know him. I have had a few email and message board exchanges with him over the years. Despite his background at the highest level of competition he is definitely not "one of them". He is one of us. He doesn't seem even remotely interested in promoting himself (as opposed USATF officials) but entirely interested in promoting the sport for he elite, emerging elite, and for the masses alike.
The fact that he stepped up immediately to address the mistake shows that he's cut from a different cloth than the self-serving sleazebags at USATF.
For the benefit of a non-lawyer educated at Penn State, I'll avoid the various Latin phrases that lawyers and judges use to explain that, in interpreting sentences, one should favor an interpretation that gives every word meaning while reading all words in context. Here's the sentence:
"In an effort to ensure an inclusive USA Championship race, we prevented many of you from the race experience you wanted."
Note that the sentence says "inclusive" -- not "orderly," or "safe," or whatever other word might be appropriate to convey your concern about "starting creep." In fact, to communicate what was actually done, a more appropriate word might be "exclusive," not "inclusive."
8/10 for effort. Too long for me to read.
malmo wrote:
Again, more straightforward English, free of lawyerly verbiage and obfuscation. Those who were not in the elite start who should have been, didn't get to participate in the National Championship and compete mano a mano for those spots -- they were part of the a separate 4th of July fun run.
That wasn't so difficult was it?
That would be fine, if that's what had been promised before the race. It is one thing to know ahead of time that you are in a separate competition, it is another to be told you would participate together and have that promise reneged.
It was straight forward in our communications with race staff before hand that our start time would be the same 7:29 start time as the elite field, and that we would be competing in the same race. Compare that to the explicit separate waves of elite and seeded women's runners.
The issue is not the separation, it is the broken promise. Kenah is implying that there was no promise, which is not true.
Avocado's Number wrote:
For the benefit of a non-lawyer educated at Penn State, I'll avoid the various Latin phrases that lawyers and judges use to explain that, in interpreting sentences, one should favor an interpretation that gives every word meaning while reading all words in context. Here's the sentence:
"In an effort to ensure an inclusive USA Championship race, we prevented many of you from the race experience you wanted."
Note that the sentence says "inclusive" -- not "orderly," or "safe," or whatever other word might be appropriate to convey your concern about "starting creep." In fact, to communicate what was actually done, a more appropriate word might be "exclusive," not "inclusive."
Evasive, obfuscating, and lawyerly to the end.
No, Kenah's choice of words was correct. Inclusive. No need to embellish further.
You're talking a few dozen emerging elite, not a crush of thousands of runners. A lot of races have this figured out.
I'm not sure what your point is? - I'm agreeing with you.
Really true wrote:
You're talking a few dozen emerging elite, not a crush of thousands of runners. A lot of races have this figured out.
No sh!t? hence the separate starts. In this case, it was clear that more athletes should have been included in the elite corral.
Avocado's Number wrote:
For the benefit of a non-lawyer educated at Penn State, I'll avoid the various Latin phrases that lawyers and judges use to explain that, in interpreting sentences,
I've always been curious about this quirky custom. Why Latin? Because the Roman empire conquered much of Europe over 2000 years ago? OK, there are more words of French origin in English legal terminology than Latin, and the French conquest of England is more recent than the Roman Empire. Why not use the original French phrasing? Or how about this... why not just use English words and phrasing entirely regardless of its etymology?
Rich Kenah - a huge disgrace.
Played the part of American distance running savior and then does this to the American kids.
Blah.
By putting out separate results for a 1 minute start difference is just adding insult to the egregious errors already committed. MG! they have several heats at some of the big track invitationals with start times 30-40 minutes apart, so why the hell can't they lump the emerging elite times with the invited runners? Wake up Kenah, ATC, USATF!
Lets think about this inclusive championship a bit more. Sub elite but hopeful GUYS started 90 seconds(?) behind the gun. However, sub elite GALS started 15 minutes after the first wave of women started the US Championship race. How many 36 minute women were not inclusive? I'm sure there are women with the same concern as the OP.
I think the trend of specific wave starts is lame. Draw a line on the ground, line up behind it, shoot a gun. But IAAF is to blame with their men can't pace women to records/ mixed race rule. Now every sub group is sometimes forced to start well after the first gun.
malmo wrote:
Avocado's Number wrote:For the benefit of a non-lawyer educated at Penn State, I'll avoid the various Latin phrases that lawyers and judges use to explain that, in interpreting sentences, one should favor an interpretation that gives every word meaning while reading all words in context. Here's the sentence:
"In an effort to ensure an inclusive USA Championship race, we prevented many of you from the race experience you wanted."
Note that the sentence says "inclusive" -- not "orderly," or "safe," or whatever other word might be appropriate to convey your concern about "starting creep." In fact, to communicate what was actually done, a more appropriate word might be "exclusive," not "inclusive."
Evasive, obfuscating, and lawyerly to the end.
No, Kenah's choice of words was correct. Inclusive. No need to embellish further.
I didn't expect you to admit that you were wrong. I was happy to explain to you why I was "puzzled" by Kenah's sentence. In essence, Kenah is saying, "In an effort to ensure an inclusive USA Championship race, we excluded you from the championship race." Perhaps someone can make sense of that. It certainly doesn't give me much confidence in the speaker's willingness to provide a straightforward explanation.
I'm also not impressed by his willingness to speak to individual runners about the matter. Instead of vaguely referring to and apologizing about some unidentified "confusion," he could have explained to the entire group -- in writing -- what happened, why it happened, and what, if anything, is going to be done about it.
One aspect of this episode that really bothers me is the lack of sensitivity that appears to have been exhibited. It sounds as though some of these runners were excited just to be part of the elite race and all of its little amenities. Suddenly, in front of their fellow runners and (I assume) a large crowd of spectators, they were informed that they belonged in the fun run, because they just weren't good enough to run with the big dogs. Maybe there was a good reason for treating them in such a manner, but from what I've read thus far, it seems like a completely unnecessary exercise in humiliation that warrants more than a vague apology about some sort of "confusion" that may have deprived them of "the race experience [they] wanted."
Here's the problem The WOMENS race that started at 7:15(about) had the entire wave of women elite/masters/superseeded/take off together. Great example is Rhines - she came in 7th overall (gun time) and double dipped in prize money - first masters and 7th overall.
The MENs race that was 15 minutes later (7:29 and 7:30) was started with different rules than the women's race. The men with names on their bibs (about 20) got to take off at 7:29 and the men masters and super seeded - were held for 1:30. This eliminated their ability to double dip in prize money - Great Problem #1: Ty took 9th place over all chip time, but thanks to the gun time ruling the final results (as it should be typically) he is back buried behind a ton of folks and didn't get to be top 9 as he should be in the ATCs press release and other official race documents. Even if he can't take the prize money since he still has eligibility, this 2nd wave totally ruined his race. THere's a second between him and 10th place. If they'd run head to head to the line, vs 10th place (chip) having a minute head start... who knows.
Whats even more ridiculous, this whole "second wave" was not discussed at the technical meeting the night before. It was a surprise move by Rich right before the gun. And it was his call. Its unprofessional, its disgusting, and it deserves more than an email. to make it right.
I'm a hobby jogger, this didn't impact my race. But I'm an ATC member who is horrified. This needs to be dealt with publicly. Not with a lame email to a few people hoping it will blow over.
This thread has a lot more detail on the problems. http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5895284&page=3
Rich has a habit of offering to talk, and being impossible to actually talk to. I have contacted him about some concerns regarding track club, and he has offered to call, discuss, etc. It all sounds really open and upfront until you try to take him up on it. Impossible to actually get ahold of him to have the offered discussion. Just a different way of stonewalling in my opinion. In print, he sounds great, but that's all you'll ever get. It would be great if one of the athletes directly impacted by HIS decision (he can try to spread blame around, but it was all him making the final call).