The DL sucks. Only 1/2 the events are held. As a result it's an insult to the sport of T&F. The only reason the IAAF has DL meets is to collect bribes from corrupt towns and cities. The DL is a disgrace.
I'd like to see the full format of Golden League meets brought back with
travel paid for athletes and one coach only, leaving the profits for the
athletes and zero for corrupt IAAF dildos
mypredictor wrote:
Has a Point to Make wrote:Most New Yorkers, even those who can see it across the East River if they tried, have no idea there Randall's Island is.
Agreed. It's a pain in the ass to get to from almost anywhere. I wish event organizers would set up "New York" events in northern NJ or Nassau county just like most pro teams. The city is a pain to get around.
Only three of New York's nine major league teams don't have their home venues within the city limits of New York City. I think the point you were trying to make is that the Garden, Barkley Center, Yankee Stadium and Citi Field are all much more easily accessible by both public transit and taxi.
One of the "jo's" said he doesn't believe a meet has to be in a big city and this is precisely it. I live in CT and the reason I don't go to the NYC meet is because it's in/near NYC!!! I don't want to deal with trains, traffic, Randall's, tolls, etc. You'd be better off putting a race like that in a major college town that has a decent track stadium. Heck, even some of the high schools have large capacities and could hold a track meet. The thought is always by plopping it in a major town you've made the event accessible, but for anyone who lives outside of said town, it becomes the opposite.
Pretty sad.[/quote]
Agree, it's another blow to track and field in the U.S. I went to a big Randall's Island meet, driving down from Boston, about 15 years ago, and several big name's were there (Carl Lewis in a tuxedo t-shirt comes to mind). Unfortunately, it was blazing hot and humid in that old concrete stadium and fans were actually passing out and cracking their heads open. (of course, the same could be said for most of NYC) Place sucks. I'd rather be in Rabat, sucking on a hookah or having one suck on me.[/quote]
You're a fine example of being a good American tourist abroad.
Moby Dick wrote:
Heck, even some of the high schools have large capacities and could hold a track meet.
There's not one high school in all of America that would qualify. Granted, I may be missing something, but could you tell me where within the confines of the Untied States I can find an athletics stadium with:
-10000 person capacity
-natural grass, leveled infield
-IAAF Level 1 track
Moby Dick wrote:
The thought is always by plopping it in a major town you've made the event accessible, but for anyone who lives outside of said town, it becomes the opposite.
This highlights the difference between the American and European meetings. London, Birmingham, Stockholm, Paris, Zurich, Lausanne, Oslo and Brussels all have their stadiums very much in the cities themselves and within easy access to transit. And I say that with both London and Birmingham's stadiums sitting about a mile from the rail station. I don't find that walk to be too off putting, but I can't speak for the average American.
Bronx kill wrote:
I doubt it mattered much from a financial standpoint whether fans were showing up at Randall's Island, just whether somebody like adidas was willing to subsidize the whole thing for the publicity. High level professional track meets seem to require heavy subsidies from sponsors or governments that are willing to pay to hold meets for the perceived prestige. I doubt the ticket sales in Rabat (Doha, etc.) bring in any more money than in New York - it's just that there must be a sponsor in Morocco with deep pockets willing to pay for the event.
I think this is the case.
EndofTrack wrote:
It's a huge blow for NYC and the sport in general. Any pro meet anywhere in the country can sell out at 3,000 seats but it's not easy to push 10,000 seats, especially when people can just sit at home and watch it on TV. That's about what the Millrose Games was selling the last couple years at MSG.
Track and field is essentially a nonentiy in America as a spectator sport. If this meet was super successful it would still go on.
The thing I posed to others at LRC is whether this is more an adidas issue or just track not being popular in the US. Maybe it doesn't matter.
If the adidas owned the meet and are just sick of dealing with the IAAF they can cancel which they did. If Global Athletics owned the meet, they presumably could try and find a new sponsor and continue on. If track were popular in the US they would do this. However, if track were popular in the US and the meet was a tremendous success then adidas wouldn't pull out even if they didn't like the IAAF, so maybe it doesn't matter.
This could be an adidas issue but I think it's also a stark reminder of where track and field is in the US in an Olympic year.
Left Said Fred wrote:
Moby Dick wrote:Heck, even some of the high schools have large capacities and could hold a track meet.
There's not one high school in all of America that would qualify. Granted, I may be missing something, but could you tell me where within the confines of the Untied States I can find an athletics stadium with:
-10000 person capacity
-natural grass, leveled infield
-IAAF Level 1 track
Moby Dick wrote:
The thought is always by plopping it in a major town you've made the event accessible, but for anyone who lives outside of said town, it becomes the opposite.
This highlights the difference between the American and European meetings. London, Birmingham, Stockholm, Paris, Zurich, Lausanne, Oslo and Brussels all have their stadiums very much in the cities themselves and within easy access to transit. And I say that with both London and Birmingham's stadiums sitting about a mile from the rail station. I don't find that walk to be too off putting, but I can't speak for the average American.
What are you having a laugh, mate? Check out Ratliff Stadium in Odessa, TX. It seats 19,000. Farrington Field in Fort Worth holds 18k, Alamo Stadium holds 18.5k, All have tracks. So that's not even mentioning the ones that float in around 10k, or the ones that hold 20k but are football fields and could easily drop a track on.
I 100% agree with you about the European cities. They are easy to get to, from within the city itself, and more importantly, from outside.
Moby Dick wrote:
Left Said Fred wrote:There's not one high school in all of America that would qualify. Granted, I may be missing something, but could you tell me where within the confines of the Untied States I can find an athletics stadium with:
-10000 person capacity
-natural grass, leveled infield
-IAAF Level 1 track
This highlights the difference between the American and European meetings. London, Birmingham, Stockholm, Paris, Zurich, Lausanne, Oslo and Brussels all have their stadiums very much in the cities themselves and within easy access to transit. And I say that with both London and Birmingham's stadiums sitting about a mile from the rail station. I don't find that walk to be too off putting, but I can't speak for the average American.
What are you having a laugh, mate? Check out Ratliff Stadium in Odessa, TX. It seats 19,000. Farrington Field in Fort Worth holds 18k, Alamo Stadium holds 18.5k, All have tracks. So that's not even mentioning the ones that float in around 10k, or the ones that hold 20k but are football fields and could easily drop a track on.
I 100% agree with you about the European cities. They are easy to get to, from within the city itself, and more importantly, from outside.
The biggest issue isn't the stadium size, its the level 1 IAAF track. I'm sure very few in any high school tracks in the US are mondo. I can tell you there isn't one track in the state of Michigan for a HS team that has a mondo track. Sure we have hs football stadiums that hold 15,000 people, but not with a great track surface on it.
Moby Dick wrote:
What are you having a laugh, mate? Check out Ratliff Stadium in Odessa, TX. It seats 19,000. Farrington Field in Fort Worth holds 18k, Alamo Stadium holds 18.5k, All have tracks. So that's not even mentioning the ones that float in around 10k, or the ones that hold 20k but are football fields and could easily drop a track on.
I looked at all three on google and all three appear to have synthetic infields. Those would have to be torn out and replaced by grass. And none appear to be equipped for the steeplechase, and the Forth Worth stadium only has seven lanes around the track. All of that would need to be remedied before they could be considered.
Left Said Fred wrote:There's not one high school in all of America that would qualify. Granted, I may be missing something, but could you tell me where within the confines of the Untied States I can find an athletics stadium with:
-10000 person capacity
-natural grass, leveled infield
-IAAF Level 1 track
You can look this up on the IAAF site. The IAAF Level 1 tracks in the US are:
Auburn University, Alabama
Hayward Field, Eugene Oregon
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Ark.
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kan.
Icahn Stadium, NYC
University of Texas at San Antonio
That's it.
http://www.iaaf.org/about-iaaf/documentsYou have to apply for certification, and I expect there are D1 university tracks that could get certified as Level 1 that haven't bothered to apply, but the choices are still pretty limited.
Level1 wrote:
Left Said Fred wrote:There's not one high school in all of America that would qualify. Granted, I may be missing something, but could you tell me where within the confines of the Untied States I can find an athletics stadium with:-10000 person capacity
-natural grass, leveled infield
-IAAF Level 1 track
You can look this up on the IAAF site. The IAAF Level 1 tracks in the US are:
Auburn University, Alabama
Hayward Field, Eugene Oregon
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Ark.
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kan.
Icahn Stadium, NYC
University of Texas at San Antonio
That's it.
http://www.iaaf.org/about-iaaf/documentsYou have to apply for certification, and I expect there are D1 university tracks that could get certified as Level 1 that haven't bothered to apply, but the choices are still pretty limited.
Damn. None of those listed L1's have an inter-continental airport close by.
2 Mile Runways required wrote:
Damn. None of those listed L1's have an inter-continental airport close by.
One of them does.
Left Said Fred wrote:
Moby Dick wrote:What are you having a laugh, mate? Check out Ratliff Stadium in Odessa, TX. It seats 19,000. Farrington Field in Fort Worth holds 18k, Alamo Stadium holds 18.5k, All have tracks. So that's not even mentioning the ones that float in around 10k, or the ones that hold 20k but are football fields and could easily drop a track on.
I looked at all three on google and all three appear to have synthetic infields. Those would have to be torn out and replaced by grass. And none appear to be equipped for the steeplechase, and the Forth Worth stadium only has seven lanes around the track. All of that would need to be remedied before they could be considered.
OMG your wife must hate you.
Augusto E. Perez wrote:
2 Mile Runways required wrote:Damn. None of those listed L1's have an inter-continental airport close by.
One of them does.
;) . . . and only about 3.4 kilometers away as the javelin flies
When Icahn was built it was the first complex in the United States to meet IAAF certification. A few more have been added since. The Ocean Breeze faculty in Staten Island is the first indoor facility in the United States to be certified. At least NYC is investing in the sport.
wejo wrote:
The thing I posed to others at LRC is whether this is more an adidas issue or just track not being popular in the US. Maybe it doesn't matter.
If the adidas owned the meet and are just sick of dealing with the IAAF they can cancel which they did. If Global Athletics owned the meet, they presumably could try and find a new sponsor and continue on. If track were popular in the US they would do this. However, if track were popular in the US and the meet was a tremendous success then adidas wouldn't pull out even if they didn't like the IAAF, so maybe it doesn't matter.
This could be an adidas issue but I think it's also a stark reminder of where track and field is in the US in an Olympic year.
Why do people think adidas has a problem with the IAAF?
I bought 4 tickets and took two friends that know nothing about track to the meet in 2015 because I wanted to see Brenda Martinez, Usain Bolt, and David Rudisha, in that order and I was using their place as a hotel. One of the friends is in marketing. Knowing nothing about track and field, he intently watched the USATF commercial they showed on the screen. When it was over he asked, "Why are they showing a Nike commercial at an adidas track meet?"
I was there! wrote:Why do people think adidas has a problem with the IAAF?
I bought 4 tickets and took two friends that know nothing about track to the meet in 2015 because I wanted to see Brenda Martinez, Usain Bolt, and David Rudisha, in that order and I was using their place as a hotel. One of the friends is in marketing. Knowing nothing about track and field, he intently watched the USATF commercial they showed on the screen. When it was over he asked, "Why are they showing a Nike commercial at an adidas track meet?"
It's pretty funny that an outsider would think a USATF commercial is a Nike commercial. Or maybe not.
People think adidas has a problem with the IAAF because of this:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/35385415adidas since backed off:
http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1035044/adidas-denies-ending-iaaf-sponsorship-deal-over-doping-scandalIf I can make it there,
I'll make it anywhere.
It's up to you, Rabat, Rabat!
opposite effects wrote:
well, at least it's going to a clean and deserving nation with no history of drug use.
Thank god the US has no dopers. I mean Gatlin and Gay are saints.
The IAAF has long been looking to add a DL meet in Africa. Rabat has wanted to host a DL meet for quite some time now. Maybe it's an adidas thing. Maybe it's just giving the meet to an African city and dropping the consistently worst ranked DL meet on circuit. NYC was awful in the eyes of athletes and the IAAF and apparently fans.