Emma Coburn only learned her AR wouldn't be ratified from postings on the Letsrun Message board

True But... wrote:

spinning records wrote:

Record certification is not a passive process. Federations can only approve applications they receive. It is the athlete's responsibility (or that of the coach, agent, club, etc.) to actually apply.

Not hard to find a form. Go to usatf.org, click on "stats", then "records", then "applications for record".

It's done all the time, and seems to work pretty well.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. I think that most are saying that if the USATF knew about this and didn't receive the proper materials, someone could have contacted her in time. It would only benefit the sport this way. It's not like they didn't know she got the record.

She ultimately is responsible but nothing wrong with getting help from those in the know.

I guess we're talking about two separate issues. USATF does reach out, eventually, if they haven't received any paperwork. But in Coburn's case, it's a moot point, because even if she had applied for the record, it would have been turned down, because she didn't have a drug test.

USATF has a woeful sense of public relations. It's like they're trying to hide. It certainly seems like they tried to hide this information about Emma not getting the record, which appears only in a PDF from the Annual Meeting. No news release of any kind about it.

The more I hear about this case, the less I blame Emma. USATF really just does not get the word out, and it's like they're proud of remaining anonymous and even adversarial. Is this actually a federation for athletes? You could have fooled me.

While I'm at it, I might as well point the continuing disaster that is USATF's website. The IAAF, for whatever other faults they have, manages to update their stats lists almost instantly. We're getting near the end of Thursday and the USATF indoor lists still don't include anything from Boston's New Balance Indoor Grand Prix. A high school kid could do better. Give it to a high school kid to DO.

You'd think they'd fix something as basic as this just to give the impression they know what they're doing.

Emma reads the boards!!! Oooh, I'm off to the bathroom.

spinning records wrote:I guess we're talking about two separate issues. USATF does reach out, eventually, if they haven't received any paperwork. But in Coburn's case, it's a moot point, because even if she had applied for the record, it would have been turned down, because she didn't have a drug test.

Apparently, Coburn did submit the paperwork but the records committee rejected her application and no one with USATF ever bothered to tell her that her that the application had been rejected.

As I said before, I don't fault the committee for the ultimate decision. It just seems like there should have been some communication with her from the USATF and she shouldn't have had to find out because someone posts stuff on the Letsrun message board.

In the podcast I linked, Coburn is very mature and doesn't complain or blame anyone and take responsibility for her mistake. For myself, I think the USATF needs to learn how to communicate with athletes. They did a good job putting out a press release saying she set the AR. They needed to keep communicating afterwards.

There are a bunch of different groups at play.

The people putting out press releases are paid employees of USATF. They are not involved with the ratification process. No records are ratified until the Annual Meeting, so ALL mentions of records throughout the year are subject to ratification. It is implied. Always.

Because Emma set the record at a major legitimate meet, and is a professional athlete, it is reasonable that the National Office staffers would assume that there were no issues.

I didn't listen to the podcast, but obviously someone submitted the paperwork because she was on the agenda for record ratification. It was denied for no drug test.

What happens next? The records committee submits their report. It is posted on the USATF website under Annual Meeting documents. I don't think any special effort is made to notify the National Office staffers. They know where to find the info. And it's actually not official until the closing session.

Whose job is it to tell the athlete their record was denied? I would pin that on AAC. There are supposed to be AAC reps in every meeting, and their job is to report stuff like this back to AAC. I don't know if athletes were in the room or not, but ideally, you would have athletes in there who could tell Emma that the Records Committee is genuinely very sorry, but it did not meet the criteria to be ratified.

Remember that the people on the Records Committee are volunteers and are busy in other meetings. Most of them probably don't know Emma and may not even be able to pick her out in a crowd. While the National Office High Performance Staff may have the phone numbers and emails for all of these elite athletes, these volunteers don't.

I find it worse that Jeff Hartwig's Indoor American Record in the Pole Vault was never ratified. You know why? Because he didn't submit the paperwork. Because he didn't know he had to. No one told him, and I believe at that point in his career he had decided to forgo having an agent (I'm not positive about that).

He jumped the record, everyone knew it, he thought he was good. How many elite athletes even know anything about the ratification process? You just assume it is automatic and that someone will contact you if there are any questions. This was before drug testing was a requirement.

He didn't find out until many years later. Submitted the paperwork, but it was so far after the fact, there was no way to get all of the information they needed.

spinning records wrote:

Record certification is not a passive process. Federations can only approve applications they receive. It is the athlete's responsibility (or that of the coach, agent, club, etc.) to actually apply.

Not hard to find a form. Go to usatf.org, click on "stats", then "records", then "applications for record".

It's done all the time, and seems to work pretty well.

So when Payton Manning sets a record for most TDs in a season, does he have to contact anyone to ratify that record? Didn't think so. Just another case where Track & Field pretends to be a professional sport.

I'd hit that

This poor girl needs an agent. Does giving up 15% suck? Sure. But she would make more and she'd an an American record holder right now if she had one.

Blind pig finds acorn wrote:

I agree. On the podcast, Coburn is very classy and takes responsibility for not knowing the rule and doesn't whine about it.

I know people don't like the USATF and do like Coburn, but I'm still surprised that so many seem to be giving her a pass on this or take the position that "Yeah, but the USATF!"

I don't think she really took responsibility for dropping the ball here. On the podcast she complains that the requirement for the drug test is on page 145 of 186 as if it were somehow hidden from her. Well, it's on page 82 of the Elite Athlete Handbook, under the heading "Protocol for Athletes Who Establish American Records" That's pretty easy to identify. And complaining that the Handbook is long is absurd. If you are going to forego using an agent, you damn well better read the handbook.

As to people saying the USATF should have told her sooner so she could do something, it doesn't matter. Once she was outside the 24 hour window her chance to have the record ratified was lost. The USATF is just a governing body, it's not her advocate. If someone should have talked to her about the requirements, it was her sponsor or coaches or teammates, who've all had American records ratified before. I guess the USATF could have informed her sooner, but for Christ's sake, the rumor was on LetsRun within a couple days of the meeting closing. And that's a pretty minor failure in the long history of incompetence at the USATF.

And finally, I find the tenor of this conversation very strange. If it wasn't Coburn, if it was some Kenyan or a member of the NOP, people would be all over them for having avoided a drug test. Even if the circumstances were the same, people would have suggested that not getting tested was malicious and evidence of cheating. But instead, it's "poor Emma" and people actually blaming the USATF. It's insane.

I don't see people giving Coburn a pass here.

Yes, she is at fault for not taking the proper steps for the record to be ratified.

You say "The USATF is just a governing body, it's not her advocate."

Not her advocate but it is an advocate for the sport, right?

USTAF should work in the best interest of itself.

And the best interest for USATF would be if the record was ratified.

To me, this would be like Galep Rupp or Leo Manzano not doing the correct paperwork to compete in the Olympic Trials.

USATF could say "too bad" and keep them out or say "hey it is in the best interest for us if they run" and let them in.

Homunculus wrote:

And finally, I find the tenor of this conversation very strange. If it wasn't Coburn, if it was some Kenyan or a member of the NOP, people would be all over them for having avoided a drug test. Even if the circumstances were the same, people would have suggested that not getting tested was malicious and evidence of cheating. But instead, it's "poor Emma" and people actually blaming the USATF. It's insane.

Can you imagine if Justin Gatlin broke the American Record in the 100, didn't get tested, and was upset his record didn't get ratified?

This situation sucks for Emma. It's sad to see a very legitimate performance not ratified. But the rules are there for a reason and have to be applied consistently and fairly.

In addition to being buried in various handbooks, there is also a web page that has the info:

That makes no sense wrote:

spinning records wrote:

Record certification is not a passive process. Federations can only approve applications they receive. It is the athlete's responsibility (or that of the coach, agent, club, etc.) to actually apply.

Not hard to find a form. Go to usatf.org, click on "stats", then "records", then "applications for record".

It's done all the time, and seems to work pretty well.

So when Payton Manning sets a record for most TDs in a season, does he have to contact anyone to ratify that record? Didn't think so. Just another case where Track & Field pretends to be a professional sport.

Repost for clarity. Our sport is a joke.

Alan

The issue with USATF is that, like the NFL, they don't have policies and procedures in place on how to handle certain events. And where they do, those policies and procedures make no sense.

Almost everything they've ran into in 2014 would have been a non-issue had they had the appropriate policies and procedures in place. For instance, when Emma broke the record, someone in their office needs to pull out the form on what to do if you just watched an American set a record. These policies would include contacting the runner and chatting with them or emailing them what they must do to have it certified by UASTF (If the athlete even wants it certified by them).

If this group of people don't want to certify an AR, then they should pull out the policy and procedures on that event (which would include notifying the applicant that their new AR was not certified by them, but congratulating them on setting new AR).

If someone protests a race, they need to pull out the sheet on what to do if someone protests a race and simply go down the checklist.

See? It's all about policies and procedures in order to avoid you liking like JV team.

In an event where the policies and procedures say they can ignore 80% of the constituents and disfranchise them, well, that sheet ought to be changed to say, always vote with your constituency.

runningart2004 wrote:

That makes no sense wrote:

So when Payton Manning sets a record for most TDs in a season, does he have to contact anyone to ratify that record? Didn't think so. Just another case where Track & Field pretends to be a professional sport.

Repost for clarity. Our sport is a joke.

Alan

I wish NFL players had to take a drug test after setting a record. The league would lose about half its roster.

That makes no sense wrote:

So when Payton Manning sets a record for most TDs in a season, does he have to contact anyone to ratify that record? Didn't think so. Just another case where Track & Field pretends to be a professional sport.

There are a lot of differences between NFL "records" and track and field records. One of the biggest is that the NFL controls all of their games. Payton Manning is not playing in some random game in some random country or obscure US location and setting records under questionable circumstances.

In track, records can (theoretically) be set anywhere. I can set up a pole vault runway anywhere and have a pole vault competition that is eligible for a World Record if I jump through enough hoops.

We have to have a bunch of criteria because of this freedom to set records anywhere. Of course we want to make sure that the shot put was the right weight or the pole vault runway was not downhill or the track was not actually a 395m track. Drug testing has become part of the same equation.

I know some people have suggested waiving a bunch of these rules if the record is set at USAs or a Diamond League Meet or whatever, but that quickly gets messy as far as deciding what meets should be exempt and what ones aren't.

Does Payton Manning have an agent?

Does the pretty blonde have an agent?

Thought so.

What is EXTRA strange is that she knew she was knocking on the door of the AR long before her 9:11.

She ran (in chrono order - just this season) 9:19, 9:17, 9:19, 9:14 ... before uncorking the 9:11. So she was obviously zeroing in on the record.

She has run at a high level since 2009 and was arguably at the world class level by 2010. So this would have been her 5 season running in big meets. She has two coaches and is close friends with the American girl who ran 9:12.50. Also, her coaches COACH the previous AR holder.

How would someone not know this? I am not blaming her, or her coaches, or criticizing, I am sincerely incredulous that she was not drug-tested in this day and age.

Clearly they had drug testing available at the Glasgow meet. Aren't National Records set fairly often? Especially in an event like the Women's Steeple? Wouldn't you be able to request a test to certify an NR?

She was 1st, 3, 1, 2, 2 in the five races leading up to the "AR" 9:11 (inclusive). Wouldn't you think that she was drug-tested for all of those? I am not a Euro-circuit insider but I would hope that if you finish up that high (and therefore if money is involved) you would at least have urinalysis required?

I know it is very likely that she will run 9:11 or faster this year, but I hope she can still collect her bonus from NB. If not, that was a very expensive oversight.

9:19.80 Emma Coburn USA 19.10.90 1 Shanghai 18.05.2014

9:17.84 Emma Coburn USA 19.10.90 3 Eugene 31.05.2014

9:39.26 Emma Coburn USA 19.10.90 1h2 Sacramento 26.06.2014

9:19.72 Emma Coburn USA 19.10.90 1 Sacramento 28.06.2014

9:14.12 Emma Coburn USA 19.10.90 2 Saint-Denis 05.07.2014

9:11.42 Emma Coburn USA 19.10.90 2 Glasgow 12.07.2014

9:20.31 Emma Coburn USA 19.10.90 3 Stockholm 21.08.2014

9:23.89 Emma Coburn USA 19.10.90 5 Zürich 28.08.2014

9:50.67 Emma Coburn USA 19.10.90 1 Marrakech 14.09.2014

USATF has a records committee. What do they do? Sit around a table and deny AR records because a drug testing rule isn't followed? Why can't USATF have an athletes advocacy committee. They could sit around a table and discuss things like Diamond League events that have AR potential athletes competing at the meet. And then....perhaps they could contact the athlete with a heads up regarding the AR ratification process. Or they could advise all AR potential athletes prior to the big meets in Europe about the AR ratification process by ......... I don't know? ......maybe an email. Anyway it doesn't happen because the athletes aren't respected or cared for.