Iowa Union Bullies HS runner

I hope you wake up in a better mood tomorrow. I've seen it called a stupid rule. I've seen references to it (running in a college meet) being perfectly fine in other states. But I haven't seen anyone on this thread saying, "Yeah, it's really cool she broke a rule."

The consensus here isn't that she should be breaking rules, but that it's a stupid rule and an artifact from a bygone era that should be changed.

It is the kind of rule that begs people to test the boundaries. Don't be surprised at all if there's a court case on this one and the state union loses. It's really tough to defend a rule like this, and all the more so when other states have dropped their version of the rule. If a kid can run against professionals in a road race just about any weekend of the year, it makes little sense to quibble about entering a college meet.

Fan of following rules wrote:

The fact is you all support breaking rules. The parents knowingly broke the rule to what end? Taught their kid well don't you think?

Actually, I don't support breaking rules. But I also don't support draconian punishment when someone breaks an unjustifiable rule. In fact, I haven't heard anyone say that. Nice straw man.

I notice that you still haven't given us any reason to think that racing against collegiate runners gave her an *unfair* advantage. Perhaps because that would require thinking. You don't seem into that.

Go ahead and keep on saying "follow the rules" to your mediocre children without bothering to tell them that rules can be questioned and changed. Great work.

The unfair advantage is difficult to determine unless you focus on the rules in place that allow level participation for all teams. Remember, there are plenty of elite “sanctioned” track and field meets this athlete could have participated in such as the New Balance Indoor Nationals, Kansas Relay’s, Texas AM invitational and many others. Other elites in Iowa participate in these events which are encouraged by the association. It’s up to the athlete and the HS coach to communicate these out of State events and simply contact the association for approval or to avoid any conflicts.

What happened here (IMO) is the athlete is running with Derek Thompson (who is Ajee Wilson’s coach at Juventus track club in Philly) who took over control of her workouts and schedule. The collegiate meets in question were not even high end meets; the elite HS events mentioned above had better competition. The issue I believe is Derek Thompson had her run these collegiate events as he was attending them with his other athletes. The parents made a conscious decision to break the rules and participate at these collegiate meets so Derek Thompson could gauge her fitness level.

The HS coach has a responsibility to communicate with their athletes, especially the elites who have personal coaches. There has to be a collaboration to make it work or you end up in the situation we have here in Iowa. The only winner her is the private coach, he can now enter her into any meet next year and earn his coaching fee.

The rule exists to discourage kids from participating in club sports in lieu of the varsity sports their highschool offers. If the association had known of the violation prior to the state meet the results would have been the same, (the team wouldn't have won). The rule actually has a purpose, and gives kids the ability to participate in sports they otherwise wouldn't be able to. Especially in the club sports..Golf, Tennis and Soccer, without the rule several schools wouldn't have a big enough squad size to field a team. If the family did in fact know of the violation, and chose to break the rule anyway than the punishment fits the crime. We don't live in a society where we only follow the rules we agree with, and it's a shame that her parents taught her that it was o.k. to do so.

Thank you! Finally someone gets it. "Ours is not to reason why"

Railsplitter wrote:

The rule exists to discourage kids from participating in club sports in lieu of the varsity sports their highschool offers. If the association had known of the violation prior to the state meet the results would have been the same, (the team wouldn't have won). The rule actually has a purpose, and gives kids the ability to participate in sports they otherwise wouldn't be able to. Especially in the club sports..Golf, Tennis and Soccer, without the rule several schools wouldn't have a big enough squad size to field a team. If the family did in fact know of the violation, and chose to break the rule anyway than the punishment fits the crime. We don't live in a society where we only follow the rules we agree with, and it's a shame that her parents taught her that it was o.k. to do so.

Railsplitter wrote:

The rule exists to discourage kids from participating in club sports in lieu of the varsity sports their highschool offers. If the association had known of the violation prior to the state meet the results would have been the same, (the team wouldn't have won). The rule actually has a purpose, and gives kids the ability to participate in sports they otherwise wouldn't be able to. Especially in the club sports..Golf, Tennis and Soccer, without the rule several schools wouldn't have a big enough squad size to field a team. If the family did in fact know of the violation, and chose to break the rule anyway than the punishment fits the crime. We don't live in a society where we only follow the rules we agree with, and it's a shame that her parents taught her that it was o.k. to do so.

Huh? Competing at a college meet is more typically not a club activity. High school athletes who compete in a college meet tpyically compete as unattached, not as a club athlete. Do you have college and USATF/AAU meets confused here?

The purpose of the rule is to encourage kids to participate in sports they otherwise wouldn't be able to how???

To the contrary, the rule is to discourage them (and their parents) from thinking outside of the state association box. Some states have figured out that being that nearsighted in their policies is going to lose as many athletes as it keeps. Iowa is slow to see that light, apparently. Sometimes, the tighter you squeeze something, the more it slips through your fingers.

My state allows athletes to participate in college events. Interscholastic track and field participation is growing by leaps and bounds here. We don't see many schools having trouble fielding teams unless they're tiny schools that would have that problem, anyway.

Fan of following rules wrote:

The fact is you all support breaking rules. The parents knowingly broke the rule to what end? Taught their kid well don't you think?

Now I know how Hitler got so many Germans to follow his rules.

Are Iowa high school runners allowed to run road races during the off season(summer or winter)?

I love you, but adults are talking. Like I said the rule wasn't created with T/F in mind, but without it several schools wouldn't have club sports.In track and field it encourages kids to compete in team competitions rather than going to an all comers meet at Iowa State to try to get exposure to collegiate coaches. This has been an issue in the past, and other states, Indiana for example are following suit. The point is, it's a rule, it has merit, she broke it and now her team has to pay the consequence. She chose to put herself before her teammates. Too bad it was caught too late, there was another girl who didn't get to compete at state because someone who was ineligible was taking her spot. Look what happened when Tyson Gay was found ineligible after the fact, and Arkansas lost a team national title. This is the way sport works.

Dazed and Conuzed wrote:

Are Iowa high school runners allowed to run road races during the off season(summer or winter)?

Of course, it's not a college sanctioned event, the bix 7 and other large iowa road races have many high schoolers.

ok4u wrote:

[quote]2:07 wrote:As 'punishment' the Iowa State Athletic Union stripped her team of their state track title. It was asked that the consequences be given to her alone, not the team but the Athletic Union refused. [/quote

According to the article, they only took away her points, but that dropped the team out of first.

Stupid rule. The girl who inherited the 800 title after the DQ herself is ineligible for XC because of a similar offense.

Does sound like the family knew.

Also sounds like something that would happen in a state that would vote for someone like Santorum or Romney or Huckabee, et al

Stupid and backwards.

Again, for all of you who feel you should just be able to do whatever you want, whenever you want, you don't understand that if you don't agree with a current policy that there are proper procedures to get them changed. In the meantime you are expected to abide by the rules made for everyone until policy is changed. Typical leftwinger name calling going on here because you want to scream louder to get your way. Maybe the rule should be reviewed but it's the ever common disdain by the far left types here to just follow the rules that fit you best while creating controls for those that don't agree with you bypassing policy changing procedures that include a democratic process. Typical "New America" attitude that will not sustain itself over time.

Railsplitter wrote:

I love you, but adults are talking.

Wow, how mature of you to say that.

Railsplitter wrote:Like I said the rule wasn't created with T/F in mind, but without it several schools wouldn't have club sports. In track and field it encourages kids to compete in team competitions rather than going to an all comers meet at Iowa State ... The point is, it's a rule, it has merit, she broke it and now her team has to pay the consequence. She chose to put herself before her teammates. Too bad it was caught too late, there was another girl who didn't get to compete at state because someone who was ineligible was taking her spot. Look what happened when Tyson Gay was found ineligible after the fact, and Arkansas lost a team national title. This is the way sport works.

So, you have club sports and you have "club" sports? By not allowing someone to run club track and field at an Iowa State all comers meet, they're more likely to go out for "club" golf or tennis or soccer with their home school? And golf, tennis, and soccer are winter sports in Iowa (you must to be referring to winter because otherwise the person in question would seemingly be out for cross country or track and not involved in any other school "club" teams)?

The net result of your rule is that you're going to drive the Kaley Ciluffos of your state out of scholastic competition. Certainly, there's suddenly a lot less motivation under your plan for anyone else to aspire to run 2:07. I think that's a net loss, though clearly you differ. If you want 2:14 to win your state 800, I guess that's a choice you folks can make for yourselves. I think Washington and Colorado, however, were probably pretty excited to have Alexa Efraimson and Elise Cranny run in their state meets. B

I've never said (you've presented yourself as an adult, so presumably you can read for yourself) that she shouldn't have been ruled ineligible based on the rule and what happened. I just think you're watering down your own sports there in Iowa by insisting on that rule.

While you're at it, there are some more peculiar Iowa track and field rules:

1. Why is it that you count local high school meets against the allowable limit of meets run but not the Drake Relays? So, the exemption there has everything to do with athlete welfare and nothing to do with politics, right?

2. Why do you run boys hurdles at the same height as girls hurdles? The temptation to comment here is enormous, but I'll let you field this one on your own.

That's a quote about soldiers going mindlessly to their deaths in service of a colossally stupid set of orders which should never have been given. Not a good model to follow.

The quad cities are all over the news this week, saw a story on the same area a few days ago http://sportpoliticsrockandroll.com/2014/07/24/my-iowa-hometown-is-torn-on-adopting-57000-hispanic-kids-just-like-the-rest-of-us/ lots of issues all around there

This is asinine. Some rules are meant to be broken and should be broken. Hard for me to stomach the ignorance of the "rules are rules" crowd.

What's hard to stomach are those that talk tough but don't have the balls to back up their complaints with action within the accepted procedures. Rather just sit back and complain and ridicule.

Fan of following rules wrote:

Again, for all of you who feel you should just be able to do whatever you want, whenever you want, you don't understand that if you don't agree with a current policy that there are proper procedures to get them changed. In the meantime you are expected to abide by the rules made for everyone until policy is changed. Typical leftwinger name calling going on here because you want to scream louder to get your way. Maybe the rule should be reviewed but it's the ever common disdain by the far left types here to just follow the rules that fit you best while creating controls for those that don't agree with you bypassing policy changing procedures that include a democratic process. Typical "New America" attitude that will not sustain itself over time.

The United States has had slavery laws (upheld by the supreme court of the time), jim crow racial segregation laws, laws against Jews owning property, laws against certain sexual acts between consenting adults. The list goes on.

You sir, are an ignorant blowhard, and are not an example of the kind of individual who makes our country great.