<<< Simple solution, have him come, do luncheons, a clinic or 2, and some
autograph
time. People would come in flocks still. The track fan is going to be at
the meet regardless, but that person, kid that wants the opportunity to meet
Maurice, Michael, Marion, Stacy, Gail will jump at the chance. >>>
I think that most of what you are saying is fine to debate ... and most
people feel
the same as you I would imagine. However, nobody should have the idea that
having an athlete show up for clinics, luncheons, autograph sessions, or the
like is somehow equivalent in entertainment value to watching the athlete
compete.
If this is your point of view, then I understand why you feel the way you
wrote below.
Me? I want to see the athletes compete. I wouldn't walk across the street
to talk to most of the athletes, nor would I spend money or time to observe
them when they are making an "appearance". I WOULD pay good money to see
them compete though. Some of the huge-star-level athletes have been
supportive of this, and competed in Nationals accordingly, some have not.
Am I wrong about this? It seems clear-cut that some competed and were no
worse for the experience.
I don't think it is unreasonable to allow the athlete a bye into the WC, but
also require them to make a good-faith effort to compete.
It could be a lot worse ... they could be required to qualify in every event
they need to run. for the guy's situation you keep bemoaning, that would be
8 races vs. the ONE he ran, no? I say, "Don't look a gift horse in the
mouth." Be thankful that the IAAF was progressive enough to change the rule
and understand the USATF's point of View on wanting to maintain some
spectator appeal for Nationals.
The big test of the athlete's commitment will be next year, when Nationals
is not a WC or OG qualifier.
Brian McEwen
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 1:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: t-and-f: Competing at NATS- was "a huge loss to the sport"
Very nice analogy, but still ineffective. Not the same sport and not even
close to being similar.
It is actually a bad idea to compare this thing to other sports.
What I see is a bunch of people ignoring the reality of the situation, those
athletes had byes! Period. Who is has the right to deny them that once
granted? And furthermore, is it justified just for the stake of money, TV,
and marketing? No, it is not.
As I have previously stated, it is a lazy solution to a very complicated
problem. Let's take MJ for example. They denied him the relay spot, and he
told them he would be at nationals regardless, which he was. Simple
solution, have him come, do luncheons, a clinic or 2, and some autograph
time. People would come in flocks still. The track fan is going to be at
the meet regardless, but that person, kid that wants the opportunity to meet
Maurice, Michael, Marion, Stacy, Gail will jump at the chance. Cameo's are
great marketing tools, that track has the chance to exploit to no end.
You cannot compare watching a few seconds of a star, to sitting next to
him/her in the stands, running around the track with them at a clinic, and
having the genuine opportunity to talk to these people.
Forcing them to run does nothing except create resentment, very counter
productive.
DGS
Faith is a road seldom traveled
Let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus,
the author and finisher of our faith" Hebrews 12: 1-2
