I have to say that I have mixed feelings on this topic ... I watched during
the late 80' early 90's when Carl Lewis and the other members of the Santa
Monica Track Club boycott the National championships in those years when
there were no international championships to qualify for ... I understand
what they were "fighting" for, but have a philosophical problem with
individuals wanting to be "paid" to qualify for National teams ... Be that
as it may ... It did hurt meets in my opinion when some of the best in the
world did not attend nor participate in the meet ...
I look upon this issue as separate from the one that MO and Marion and the
others had to deal with ... These individuals have already "qualified" for
the World's by virtue of being defending champions - which hold merit
because the Worlds are held so often ... However, I too would miss their
participation if none were to appear at Nationals ...
I am curious as to how the athletes might feel (and USATF) if instead of
just saying that the athletes had to show and run "a race" in order to be on
the National team, those individuals that had World byes were granted entry
into the final of their event instead of having to run through the rounds
??? Are most tracks that hold championships 8 or 9 lane tracks ??? If 9 then
it is simply done ... You pass the athletes in lane races to the final and
let them run ... Understanding that no matter where they place they go to
the Worlds ... Everyone wins ... The athlete is not taxed by running several
rounds ... The general public wins because they get to see the best not just
on the track but in the finals against the best that the US can muster to
compete ... And USATF and television have their stars in the best possible
position - on the track competing for championships in prime time
(relatively speaking) for all to see ...
Am I missing something ?????
Conway Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kurt Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: t-and-f: a huge loss to the sport
> > And far to often the
> >athlete is left holding the bag. Perfect example was Maurice this past
> >weekend. I am sitting in the stands about to watch the first round, and
a
> >fan turns to me and ask why is he only running one round. As I began to
> >explain 5 other fans turned to hear my explanation. USATF should have
made
> >it clear about the rule change and that Maurice was fulfilling his
> >requirement.
>
> If Maurice was left holding the bag in this instance, it's only because he
> grabbed hold of it with both hands. It's admirable that he fulfilled his
> commitment by running at least one round, but he shot himself in the foot
by
> running ONLY one round. Fans (and I'm sure the network too) wanted to see
> him in the final. That's why some fans were annoyed and he was criticized
> in the press.
>
> I thought Maurice was being rather disingenuous in his interview on TV
when
> he kept saying that he ran only one round because of USATF rules, as
though
> they had somehow forced him to stop competing after the first round, and
> that's why the fans weren't seeing him compete more. When actually the
> truth is, without the USATF rule, the fans wouldn't have seen him compete
at
> all. He would have taken his WC bye and sat out the meet. (Did you
explain
> THAT to those five fans who turned around?) How is having the defending
> World Champion sit out the national meet any good for the sport?
>
> Don't get me wrong - I think Maurice Greene is a great guy, an amazing
> athlete, terrific with the fans, and wonderful for the sport. But let's
> call it the way it actually is when it comes to these USATF rules.
>
> Kurt Bray
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
