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

Street word wrote:

Why go to the trials just to be eliminated.

Is this a serious post?

Read the standards for qualification for the Trials and you will change your opinion on that last point....or should.

Having ran on tracks with and without rails, I always laughed at the measuring difference. I have all stepped on the rail in the past and never had any issue running as close to it as a non-rail track. Now the old rail at the Shell in Madison, which was round PVC pipe, was a little different.

Please realize that 99% of the tracks out there that are designed to have a rail - NEED to remove the rail on basically 25% of the running surface when the steeple chase is contested...

I always find it interesting on how much emphasis is put on lane one and distance races, when the biggest violators are sprinters running on or INSIDE THEIR lane line in the 200, 400, 400R, etc.

Shouldn't you be prepping for the trials, Nick?

what on gods earth are you saying?

In addition to the points mentioned before, four of the seven runners ran the following week in Portland (across the country) and they respectively ran 20 seconds faster, 19 seconds faster, 16 seconds faster and 13 seconds faster. The conditions in Atlanta (with an extra barrier as well) were not conducive to fast steeple times.

Two things:

1 - I'm a meet director, and went through a lot of time and expense to ensure our track conformed to standards for qualifying purposes. During this process, David Katz was an incredibly helpful and thoughtful resource. He, like most people affiliated with USATF, is on the side of the athletes, and will work to come up with fair, reasonable, and positive solutions. Almost to a person, the folks I've worked with at USATF want to create positive opportunities for athletes.

2 - USATF does indeed makes its share of mistakes. This is not one of them. This mistake is on the meet director. The rules are pretty clear. And to counter PVPower, marks may be accepted for record purposes (esp master's records) on a coned track, but not for qualifying purposes.

3 - Over the years of putting on a meet, I have had coaches ask me directly if the track was certified for qualifying purposes. So coaches need to check as well, and I guess I'm a little surprised that no one had asked about the ATL track prior to the meet.

oldenuf wrote:

2 - USATF does indeed makes its share of mistakes. This is not one of them. This mistake is on the meet director. The rules are pretty clear. And to counter PVPower, marks may be accepted for record purposes (esp master's records) on a coned track, but not for qualifying purposes.

3 - Over the years of putting on a meet, I have had coaches ask me directly if the track was certified for qualifying purposes. So coaches need to check as well, and I guess I'm a little surprised that no one had asked about the ATL track prior to the meet.

2 - That's definitely possible. Duffy did not answer my question when I specifically asked him about this last week.

3 - It's entirely possible that people did ask about the ATL track and were told it was fine. Given that the non-curbed Portland marks counted last year, and the wording regarding legal meets has not changed (the Trials site links to the 2015 doc), why would people suspect Paul Doyle was giving them bad info?

Chet Manly wrote:

Basically if a track is measured for a curb - it's 400m on a line measured 30cm away from the rail in Lane 1. All the other lanes are measured 20cm in. This is because you can run closer to the lane line without a rail than with one. So the inside edge of the track isn't 400m around, it's roughly 188cm shorter (pie times 30cm times two).

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.

I haven't read the whole thread but two things.

One key point missing here is measuring the track close to the curb makes it LONGER not shorter.

Some of you are assuming the track was measured 30cm from the curb. If the track did not have a rail then when it was setup it was most likely measured 20 cm from the curb not 30. You all are assuming this was measured at 30cm.

If the track is measured 20 cm from the line and I run 20 cm from the line I run 400m.

If a rail was then put on this track the start lines should be moved FORWARD. David Katz noted this to me. If the track is measured 20cm from the curb (tracks with no rails) and a rail is then installed, the start lines need to be moved forward because the athlete is going to be running (3.14*2*10centimers)= 64cm longer each time around than 400m (that's about 2 feet).

So it's my thinking with a meet with officials there is no evidence she ran short. For official Olympic qualifying and records a rail has to be there but who says a rail has to be there to have a meet? I don't see what unfair advantage she had. Especially in the steeple.

At the Brooks PR meet where they set up a temporary curb with plastic piping David noted all the distances run for the long events were likely wrong because most likely the track was measured for a track without a curb. They 400m started at the finish. It should have started 64 centimers in front of it. 800m should have started 128 centimers in front. The mile should have been 256 centimters in front. So the kids at Brooks ran LONG if the track had been measured 20 cm from the curb.

Maybe another way to put this is if a track is measured 30cm from the curb (rails) and you can run right next to the rail say 20cm, then you will run less than 400m. That is allowed.

If a rail is so important it should be clear to USATF officials at these meets and directors. Clearly it's not. I still haven't seen anyone site where a track has to have a rail.

Ok I hadn't read all the thread before I'm posting. You get it. If the track was measured without a curb and their are cones I don't see how she ran short. If it was measured for a curb and there wasn't one then I get it.

But can you explain what you mean by this:

I think somehow the 30cm in lane 1 vs 20cm in lane 2-8 makes a difference with the staggers but don't get it.

polevaultpower wrote:

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

My GUESS blah blah blah

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 blah blah

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

Two experts, who don't know what you're blabbing about.

A track built and properly measured and striped for no-curb will have equal staggers from Lane 1 to Lane 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 4, etc.

A track built and properly measured for having a curb will have a shorter stagger from Lane 1 to Lane 2 than for all the other staggers (2 to 3, 3 to 4, etc.). This difference is 0.63m (63cm) for the 400m start lines, or half that at the 200m start lines, enough so carefully eyeballing the stripes from a high enough row in the stands can sometimes reveal the answer.

Since you are a clarifying human being, can you please cite the USATF Rule No. or provide a link to the standards for qualification that you mentioned?

SHE RAN 10:08 LAST NIGHT. Let it go, she doesn't belong in the Meet. I will bet the farm she doesn't make finals.

I know I am as guilty as everyone else but this is a ridiculous amount of discussion for a nobody.

She is young and may be something special in 4'years but at this point in her career she does not belong. Everyone doesn't have to receive a trophy or medal or a spot on the starting line. Learn from the disappointment and move on.

WeJo,

There is one other problem with the steeple run in Atlanta. USATF Rule 160.3 requires cones or flags along the route to the inside water jump of at least 20cm in height (about 8 inches). In Atlanta, they used dome-shaped markers that were obviously lower in height, they looked like the Botts' dots you see on some highways.

Another problem in Atlanta didn't affect the steeple, but unlike the first turn which had a lot of tall cones on it, the second turn had no cones or markers of any kind.

Good for Paul Doyle trying to hold track meets, but major failure on his part to get things set up legally. He screwed the athletes.

Rulebook wrote:

Since you are a clarifying human being, can you please cite the USATF Rule No. or provide a link to the standards for qualification that you mentioned?

It's on the USATF.org OT qualifying link. Research it yourself. Just as I did.

Do we have a photo of the Atlantic track so we can tell it was measured for NOT having a curb?

Facts:

1) USATF rules clearly talk about tracks being allowed to measured for not having a curb

2) USATF rules says American records can not have a curb.

3) IAAF rules only talk about meets having a curb.

4) USATF qualifying guidelines say the meet does not have to be on IAAF, "The meet/event must be held on a legal facility per USATF and/or IAAF rules & regulations."

Notice the "or"

5) The qualifying page says they allow marks at high school meets, etc which many clearly aren't going to have curbs.

6) No where does it say a mark to be a Trials mark has to be an Olympic elegible mark. The closest I could find to that is: this

http://www.usatf.org/Events---Calendar/2015/USATF-Outdoor-Championships/Qualifying-Standards/Meet-Criteria.aspx

In order for a mark(s) from a meet or single event to be accepted for qualifying for the USATF Indoor or Outdoor Championships, USATF Junior Championships or U.S. Olympic Trials for track & field, AND for USATF to be able to verify to the IAAF and various track & field ranking agencies the validity of the mark(s) for Olympic Games or IAAF World Championships qualifying purposes, the following criteria apply:

***

Needs confirmation of the following

7) The track was setup and measured not to have a curb. This would show Becky ran the proper distance as prescribed by USATF rules.

8) Did USATF allow qualifying last year at a Portland meet without a curb? If so add #8) USATF has a precedent for this.

These meets hire USATF certified officials right? Shouldn't these officials know what the rules are an insist on the proper cones etc?

Also unrelated but how can all the indoor world record marks count for a meet that didn't have a curb. Stockholm didn't have one from that video I saw.

clarifying human being wrote:

Rulebook wrote:

Since you are a clarifying human being, can you please cite the USATF Rule No. or provide a link to the standards for qualification that you mentioned?

It's on the USATF.org OT qualifying link. Research it yourself. Just as I did.

I'll take that as "I got nuthin' " until you can cite a URL or Rule No. that mentions the curb thing.