USATF does it again - They won't allow steeple qualifying time that Becky Wade ran in nationally televised meet

Having once waited for a rail to be installed before my race because a woman was going to be attempting a masters' world record in a mixed track 5000m, I have to say that athletes and meet directors alike should be prepared to speak up about the rail before the race. However, since her time, even with adjustments, would get her into the field if field size is not big enough, she should get to race without having to run another steeple to qualify just before the meet.

@TrackDiddy diddled while the ATL burned.

Miss Marked wrote:

this and this wrote:

If you want to qualify for Boston, make sure the course you run on to qualify is certified.

And how would you go about that? Measure the course yourself? What if your chip is defective and stops working halfway through?

Is it a steeple runner's responsibility to set up the hurdles in the proper place? How about making sure the timing system is working right before wasting a run?

It is easy to check to see if a road course is certified.

go to

You could ask the meet director in advance if their track event is going to be set up properly for qualification purposes. This serves two purposes:

1) Meet director may read the rules and/or double check with event staff and with USATF that everything is good to go and

2) Gives the athlete some grounds for compensation/appeal if the event director or USATF said things are good to go and they turned out not to be.

I am just saying that athletes should not blindly assume anything.

well sadly she just bombed out tonight with an 10:08 at Stumptown.

Usatf sucks wrote:

She also ran that time with an extra barrier. Watch the meet. They had a barrier on track too early. So she should have got the time

Link, please. That is a total joke.

USATFidiots wrote:

Chet Manly wrote:

So depending on where the water jump was and where the race started Bush probably ran between 4.5 and 5 meters too short (14 or 16 curves). So she didn't run a 3000m Steeplechase and I'm not sure why USATF (or anyone for that matter) should accept converted times (especially converted to a longer distance) for an official time.

Sure sounds logical...Except for the fact that the water pit means you don't get any advantage for the majority of half the curves (noone aims to hit the pit hurdle right on the rail) and the fact that she ran an extra hurdle. Those two factors all but cancel out any "shortcut" but the main problem is the fact that A USATF OFFICIAL WAS ON SITE (AS REQUIRED) AND USATF CERTIFIED AND ACCEPTED THE RESULTS FOR 3 WEEKS UNTIL THEY REVERSED THEMSELVES RIGHT BEFORE THE WINDOW CLOSED.

Who cares where the runners try to clear the barriers? What matters is that she didn't run a 3000m steeplechase, it was too short. If I ran an 800 entirely in Lane 8 but started 27m ahead of the starting line (basically the Lane 8 stagger) would you consider that I ran an 800m?

SlowFatMaster wrote:

From a LetsRun article about the 2009 World Championships Women's 10000, where some gals in the outer alley cut in too soon:

Other notes: Elvan Abeylegesse, last year's double silver medallist, dropped out around 3k to go and was pointing at her leg. Some of the women who started in the outside corral (including Masai) cut in too early, as there were no cones around the turn. No protest was filed, so no one could be disqualified. An IAAF spokesperson said even if a protest had been filed, no one would have been disqualified since it was an official's mistake.

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/2009/womens10k0815.php#ixzz4CSEsiMR4

Buy your shoes from LetsRun and save 15% everday

http://www.letsrun.com/save

Note: Masai won the race!

Great point.

For the record, Wade ran 10:08 tonight or something awful so because of Paul Doyle's mistake - a man who is putting on track meets on national tv which is something USATF struggles to do - she won't be at the Trials most likely.

At Worlds, where the winner clearly ran less than 10k, she still got the gold medal.

And I wonder how much it cost Becky Wade to fly out there.

My god. I'm going to start a petition.

Yeah, of course I would consider that you ran 800m--since you did run 800m.

But I wouldn't consider you to have quallified for anything since you randomly and knowingly chose to start way ahead of where you're supposed to. That's on you, shitferbrains.

Whoa, I've been put in my place!

Is there a certifying organization for a track? Are there different standards for certification for say high school, ncaa, usatf, iaaf?

So when measuring a track with a curb it is measured 30cm from the rail meaning the rail is less than 400m?

And a track with no curb is measured differently? Be ause why?

Where can i find the certication rules/requirements?

Google it ya nimrod

jjjjjj wrote:

However, since her time, even with adjustments, would get her into the field if field size is not big enough, she should get to race without having to run another steeple to qualify just before the meet.

USatf has a history of not filling field sizes.

Chet Manly wrote:

Who cares where the runners try to clear the barriers? What matters is that she didn't run a 3000m steeplechase, it was too short. If I ran an 800 entirely in Lane 8 but started 27m ahead of the starting line (basically the Lane 8 stagger) would you consider that I ran an 800m?

She didn't cut any lanes.

There were cones, and she didn't knock any of them over.

She ran the full distance, plus hurdled an extra barrier.

Chet Manly appears to be the only person on this thread who actually knows what they are talking about...

I don't want to go digging through the rulebook, but my experience has been that if a track is surveyed to have no curb, and the cones are placed properly per USATF rules, then marks have been accepted by USATF. I've had Masters Records ratified at my non-curbed high school, I had to submit a certificate from the surveyor that very specifically said how the track was measured.

If the track was surveyed to have a curb, then it is never ever OK to take the curbing off and use cones instead.

My GUESS is that the track in Portland was surveyed to have no curb. Paul asked David about it and David said that would be fine if it was coned properly. As far as I can recall, the marks from that Portland meet last year were accepted?

I didn't watch the Atlanta meet, but my guess is the track has a curb that was removed? And Paul thought cones were fine since they used cones last year and most USATF officials are far from experts in this stuff and didn't know any better... just my guess.

I can't say for certainty if properly surveyed non-curbed tracks that are properly coned are acceptable to USATF for qualifying purposes at the moment because I emailed Duffy and specifically asked him that question (in reference to one of our local meets, not the subject of this thread) and he never replied to my email.

This is a huge issue in the pole vault as it relates to runways at street meets. The rule book is dense and hard to understand and most athletes/meet directors/officials have no clue. I hire a surveyor for my beach vaults to survey the runway with a transit and produce a certificate if needed.

It's good to see USATF being consistent. Who was the girl that did it make the aragon trials because Detroit Marathon did not pay sanctioning fees?

Actually, USATF Rule 160.2 appears to allow tracks without a curb, as long as they are properly measured for same. And in fact, the Lakewood Stadium track in Atlanta appears to have its striping done correctly for a no-curb situation, based upon the lane staggers.

But then USATF Rule 160.3 appears to require a curb. Huh? Typical USATF.

Then we've got USATF Rule 263.10 (a) ii. which appears to clearly state that it is okay to use a no-curb track for an American Record as long as it is measured correctly, which I think the Atlanta track is.

So if a no-curb track is okay for an AR, why not for a qualifying time? That is just silly.

You can look at the 2016 USATF Rules for free right here. I don't know why people keep referring to IAAF rules. They have no bearing on qualifying for the U.S. Trials.

http://www.usatf.org/About/Competition-Rules.aspx

Her 10:08 NOW proves that she doesn't belong. She should be on an incline going into the trials. Why go to the trials just to be eliminated.

A petition to get in the trials needs to prove why YOU COULD MAKE THE TEAM, not why you are as good as others eliminated in the first round.

Street word wrote, in part:

Why go to the trials just to be eliminated.

One answer is so you can have the experience of running in the Olympic Trials. Maybe in 2020 you won't be eliminated.

Suppose it turns out to be your first and only Olympic Trials? That certainly qualifies as a once in a lifetime experience! It can be a source of pride, or something to give you a sense of accomplishment, or something to tell your grandkids, or something to put on your resume.

Street word wrote:

rojo wrote:

Great point.

For the record, Wade ran 10:08 tonight or something awful so because of Paul Doyle's mistake - a man who is putting on track meets on national tv which is something USATF struggles to do - she won't be at the Trials most likely.

At Worlds, where the winner clearly ran less than 10k, she still got the gold medal.

And I wonder how much it cost Becky Wade to fly out there.

My god. I'm going to start a petition.

Her 10:08 NOW proves that she doesn't belong. She should be on an incline going into the trials. Why go to the trials just to be eliminated.

A petition to get in the trials needs to prove why YOU COULD MAKE THE TEAM, not why you are as good as others eliminated in the first round.

No idea what her chances would have been at the trials but we also can't tell much from a slow time run on two days notice (I'm assuming she would have be training hard early in the week to peak for OTs) in the driving rain in Portland last night.