t-and-f: Ill. Girls St: Jr-11.41/24.11/53.13/19-11; 13-3!
Illinois High School Association Girls State Track Meet Finals: Saturday, May 22, 2004 Eastern Illinois University Charleston, Ill. http://www.ihsa.org/activity/trg/tourney/2result2.htm Final team standings: Pl. School Points 1 Evanston (Twp.)76 2 Chicago (Morgan Park) 72 3 South Holland (Thornwood) 54 4 East St. Louis (Sr.) 50 Evanston and Morgan Park were tied with 70 points entering the final event, the 4x400. Evanston placed fourth and Morgan Park eighth. Alexandria Anderson, a junior at Chicago Morgan Park H.S., won four individual events. Anderson has represented the United States at the World Youth meet. She is coached by Derrick Calhoun, who also has been a USATF national team coach. Her marks Saturday: 100: 11.41 (state record) 200: 24.11 400: 53.13 LJ: 19-11 (Note: no senior in the finals field of 12. State record: 20-7 1/2, Jackie Joyner, East St. Louis Lincoln, 1979) Other events: Pole Vault Final Flight 1 Sarah Landau (Sr.), Geneva, 13-3 (State record, old record 12-6. Took three tries at 13-9 - national record 13-8) 300-Meter Low Hurdles Final Heat 1 Shalina Clarke (So.), Evanston H.S., 41.56 (State record. Set previous record of 41.92 in Friday's preliminaries, which broke the state record she set in the 2003 finals as a freshman.) 100-Meter High Hurdles Final Heat 1 Hillary Werth (Jr.), Chatham (Glenwood):13.99 2 Megan Thompson (Jr.), Joliet (Twp.):14.21 Triple Jump Final Flight 1 Casey Taylor (Jr.), Chicago Heights (Marian) 39' 9 1/4 2 Aleisha Leeper (Fr.), Freeport (H.S.) 39' 2 1/2 High Jump Final Flight 1 Nicole Williams (Jr.), Sterling (H.S.) 5' 7 2 Katrina Roper (Sr.), Rock Island (H.S.)5' 7 Williams set the state record of 5-10 3/4 at the 2003 finals. 3200 Final Section 1 Amy Laskowske (So.), Palatine (H.S.) 10:42.50 2 Caitlin Chrisman (Sr.), Carbondale 10:43.37 800-Meter Run Final Heat 1 Sequoia McKinney (So.), South Holland (Thornwood) 2:12.06 2 Bethany McCoy (Sr.), Metamora 2:15.30 4x800-Meter Relay Final Heat 1 Barrington 9:13.62 Natalie Piper (Fr.), Erin Robertson (Jr.), Erin Frommeyer (Sr.), Whitney Laurence (Sr.) 2 Lake Forest (H.S.) 9:14.47 Tiana O'Neill (Jr.), Kristine Gallagher (Sr.), Natalie Darraugh (Sr.), Rachel Asher (Jr.)
RE: t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .)
Hi All. Some comments related to several impressions voiced here by the youngsters at the time. 1) Adrian Paulen was not the head of IAAF at that time. Lord Burgley (the 1924 400m hurdles Olympic Champion) was. Adrian Paulen served as IAAF president later, between 1976 and 1981 and in fact did a good job. Just to remind those who do not know (but might care): Paulen was an outstanduing 400-800m runner in the 1920 and in World War 2 risked his life more than once in resistance to the Nazi conquest. 2) There was certainly no scheming to leave Seagren without any poles. Adrian Paulen would not dream of scheming anything like that. Unfortuantely, preventing Seagren from using his own pole did almost definitely coast him the gold. 3) The really annoying part of this all - to the best of my recollection as someone who attended the competition in the stands - still one can always err- was that in the Bru-ha-ha that erupted, Issakson (the Swede who studied and competed in the US, former world record holder, but no more in the shape he had been earlier) did in fact compete using the same kind of pole that has been taken away from Seagren! That, if I remember corrcetly, was the real travesty there. In all, Adrian Paulen, whom I got to know well during the late 1970s and early 1980s, was a man of integrity, who in the Munich case overplayed it and unfortunately ended up hurting only one man, Bob Seagren. UG === Quoting Ray Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED]: OK...I was only 10, but hadn't the USA won every pole vault gold prior to Munich with the exception of 1906? OH...and every basketball gold prior to Munich? And I remember our coach in high school telling us they had the poles in 1972 so they were readily available. It sure sounds like the fix was in to me. Seriously though I'm not a conspiracy theorist but it does make for an interesting thread. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Ruth Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 5:56 PM To: t-and-f Subject: t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .) On 2004-05-16 20:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Bob Seagren's poles. I'm trying to remember the particulars. Of all the rulings in '72 this was the one I had the most problem with. It had to do with the pole Seagren was using being on the approved list. There was something about the pole having to have been available worldwide at least 12 months prior to the Games (so as to theoretically ensure an equal playing field). There was a big on-the-field argument about whether the 12 month requirement had been met- something that probably needed some analysis about just HOW widely it had been available in those 12 prior months. But my problem was with how it was enforced. There was every indication that with Seagren being the 'hottest vaulter in the world', the Games officials decided beforehand that they were gonna go after Seagren on the pole rule, but they kept it a secret. Then when all the vaulters were out on the field warming up with their poles, they made a big live-on-TV to-do about declaring Seagren a 'cheater' and demanded that he surrender the poles right there. Obviously had the concern been communicated to him months earlier, he could have trained on other poles and brought them with him. After a big argument he surrended the poles to IAAF head Adrian Paulen, borrowed an unfamiliar one from another vaulter, and still got the silver after being a huge gold medal favorite beforehand. So my problem may not be so much with the basis for the ruling, but the procedure which the officials chose to follow. It was an obvious case of intentionally holding back a ruling until the worst possible time, in order to embarass an athlete and make it almost impossible for the athlete to to find a way to comply and compete. They intended to force Seagren to drop out by taking away his poles and leaving him 'pole-less' with no time left for Seagren to find an alternative means of competing. That another vaulter came to his help is something they didn't figure on.. It was obviously 'targeting Seagren' in my book- but it might be more because he was 'on top' rather than just because he was an American. Fortunately, SOME lessons were learned- many of the implement approval procedures we have today seem exceedingly bureaucratic and complicated, but they're a direct result of the Seagren fiasco. I think until after '72, while the rule said something about 12-month prior availability, the IAAF was not in the business of publishing an official approved list, making possible on-the-field dirty dealing like happened to Seagren. Now we have approved lists up the kazoo. Randy concludes his post with I was 16 at the time, perhaps giving it somewhat more believability than Ray Cook's, since Ray admitted to being only 10 at the time.
Re: t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .)
A word on Kirk Bryde's message; He can clearly recall without any doubt That Adrian Paulen (possibly an East german according to him) was very pro-German, while in fact the Dutch mines engineer Adrian Paulen all but was executed by Germans during World war II. Shows that you can compete in Olympic Games and have not the vaguest idea who are the individuals functioning there. Just erase all these imaginary pro-German motives from the error that Paulen did ceratinly commit UG = Quoting Roger Ruth [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Interesting, how much our memories of this occasion vary, after 32 years. Thanks to Ed Grant for chipping in. I think I've switched sides on the authority of recollection as a function of age at the time. It just may be that those who have responded as teen-agers at the time have a few more brain cells still alive than I do. Firstly, I think I may have been wrong about the pole that was banned. In a parallel thread on the VaultCanada mailing list, Doug Ross commented: I was 15 at the time and at that point I was still buying into the whole Olympic Ideal. So I had an interest in the whole scam. My memory is that the pole in question was the Green Catapole 550+. Okay, only another teen-ager, so I could ignore that; but Gérard Dumas, who was in attendance, describes the pole in question as perches vertes, which would be the Catapole 550+. I can hardly ignore Dumas' authority, since his qualifications as vaulter include at least one competitive result every year since 1948 and his qualifications as vault statistician are unmatched. I'll copy his full post below, but for now I'll try to understand my mistake. At the 1976 USA Olympic Trials, I had conversations with the designers of both Catapole and Pacer. Both were vehemently disgusted with Paulen. In retrospect, that probably would have been Catapole objecting to the ad hoc bench tests that were finally advanced as reason for banning the 550+, when it was clear that the argument of unavailability of the pole for all competitors wouldn't wash. For Pacer, the disgust would have centered on Paulen's similarly ad hoc ruling, shortly before the Trials, that the usual practice of western vaulters of placing a towel in the box to absorb some of the impact of planting was illegal, because it changed the dimensions of the box. Pacer thought the absorption of impact by the towel permitted a better transfer of energy in the plant and decreased the chances of pole breakage. Okay, mea culpa. I'd like to copy one other VaultCanada post in addition to Gérard's. This one is from a competitor in the Munich vault, Kirk Bryde of Canada, whose memory may help to clarify the sequence of events, although apparently he remembers the pole in question as the Pacer Carbon, as I did. Incidentally, the thing that was different about the 550+ was that it was manufactured with a slight pre-bend that permitted most vaulters a smoother take-off. Apparently this was not an advantage for Nordwig. Bryde wrote, I have a very keen interest in this thread, since I competed in the qualifying round, and in several meets leading up to the 1972 Olympics. I did not qualify for the Olympic Final, but I was certainly in on the buzz, as I watched from the stands. This story probably gets stretched by people every time it's retold. I can offer a first-hand perspective, but I caution you that I too may not recollect the entire sequence of events. It was 32 years ago! Certainly, there was an Olympic rule requiring that all poles must be available to all athletes world-wide, or else they would be declared an unfair advantage. I cannot recall whether the carbon poles made by Pacer were available 12 months before Munich. I used them, and so did most other North American vaulters. Wolfgang Nordwig preferred the older pure fibreglass poles that he'd been using for many years. In my experience, there was really no appreciable difference between the carbon poles and the pure fibreglass poles. The availability of carbon poles was in fact world-wide in that any Olympic calibre vaulter - including Nordwig - could get free poles from Pacer for the asking. My recollection was that Adrian Paulen was East German, but I may be wrong about that. I'm trying to recall the exact year that East and West Germany competed as separate Olympic teams. I'm thinking that they competed separately in Munich, but I might be off by a few years. However, what I clearly recall without a doubt is that Paulen was very PRO-Germany. There was no indication in the buzz amongst us vaulters that he was ANTI-American. Isaakson actually didn't compete in Munich. He was either injured or eliminated in Sweden's trials. (The other big 'surprise' that year was that both Dave Roberts and Steve Smith lost in the US trials - they all cleared 5.50 at the US Trials. Tough break! The pundits had predicted that it would be
Re: t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .)
re: Paulen being almost executed by the Germans in World War II Politicians who did something meritorious four decades prior should be commended, but should not get a free pass for the rest of their life solely because of it with regard to their current ability to lead. The primary consideration for effective leadership should be what have you done for me lately. [yes, there is a parallel American message here- sorry, couldn't resist... :) ] I personally don't think that Paulen had any particular favoritism toward Nordwig, and I doubt that he had it in for any particular nation or region. I just think that he did not exhibit the leadership qualities which were needed in the 1970's in the areas of reform and progressive movement toward making Athletics a professional sport in all the best senses of the word. He was a cog in the amateur sports bureaucracy which prevailed at the time and which were determined to mantain the sham status quo of amateurism, Olympic movement, etc., at all costs, which really served to maintain the elitist top end of sports administration for many many years. RT
Re: t-and-f: Re: 1972 Vaulting Pole Snafu (formerly Eddie Hart . .)
The thing I most remember Paulen for was at the 1980 Olympics. The Moscow crowd around one corner of the stadium was roaring on Konstantin Volkov and jeering Wladyslaw Kozakiewicz. The officials were cheating too; holding up flags for the Soviet vaulter to judge the wind but not for Kozakiewicz. Paulen, as President of the IAAF, went down to the vaulting area and sat there to make sure that fair play was done to all. Randall Northam On 24 May 2004, at 18:23, Randy Treadway wrote: re: Paulen being almost executed by the Germans in World War II Politicians who did something meritorious four decades prior should be commended, but should not get a free pass for the rest of their life solely because of it with regard to their current ability to lead. The primary consideration for effective leadership should be what have you done for me lately. [yes, there is a parallel American message here- sorry, couldn't resist... :) ] I personally don't think that Paulen had any particular favoritism toward Nordwig, and I doubt that he had it in for any particular nation or region. I just think that he did not exhibit the leadership qualities which were needed in the 1970's in the areas of reform and progressive movement toward making Athletics a professional sport in all the best senses of the word. He was a cog in the amateur sports bureaucracy which prevailed at the time and which were determined to mantain the sham status quo of amateurism, Olympic movement, etc., at all costs, which really served to maintain the elitist top end of sports administration for many many years. RT
t-and-f: Are they trying to get Jones...
...on a non-analytical positive? You decide. The meeting: Marion Jones was presented with evidence of her possible steroid use by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency on Monday, but none of it was compelling enough to ban the country's top female sprinter from this summer's Olympics, her lawyer said. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/05/24/sports1842EDT0112.DTL The USADA press release: I am aware of Mr. Burrtons comments following todays meeting. It is clear from those comments that Mr. Burton rejects the idea of a non-analytical positive and contends that only athletes who test positive or admit to a violation can be sanctioned, Tygart stated. Without commenting on the specifics of any case, USADA confirms that that Mr. Burton is absolutely incorrect in his position. http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/tfn/displayArticle.jsp?id=260
t-and-f: Non-analytical positive???
On 5/24/04 4:32 PM, Martin J. Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are they trying to get Jones ...on a non-analytical positive? You decide. The USADA press release: I am aware of Mr. Burrtons comments following todays meeting. It is clear from those comments that Mr. Burton rejects the idea of a non-analytical positive and contends that only athletes who test positive or admit to a violation can be sanctioned, Tygart stated. Without commenting on the specifics of any case, USADA confirms that that Mr. Burton is absolutely incorrect in his position. Please, can someone from USADA who can speak coherent English define non-analytical positive? As best I can tell, if I can get beyond the USADA statement's using two different spellings of Jones' lawyer within a single paragraph, non-analytical positive means that although every laboratory test for steroids was negative, this USADA is none-the-less positive there must be a violation. Would USADA/Tygart care to put some parameters on the meaning of non-analytical positive? Does it mean, for example, that if a female athlete has a baby and returns to previous t-and-f accomplishment levels, one should feel positive that she must be accomplishing this through use of anabolic steroids? Does it mean that because Beaman never approached his Mexico City world record LJ before or after those Olympics, one can be positive that this could only have been accomplished with drug assistance? Does it mean that since Bubka now has held the world pole vault record for a longer period (20 years) than the magnificent Cornelius Warmerdam (17 years), that should be positive evidence, despite lack of laboratory analysis in support, that Bubka must have been cheating? Or Warmerdam must have been cheating just slightly less? Ultimately, maybe the very worst of this non-analytical positive crap is that some U.S. athlete who qualifies for the Olympics may have to stay home in order to finance the salary of the moron who promulgated this concept. And that's just my initial reaction while I'm in a good mood . . . Cheers, Roger
Re: t-and-f: Non-analytical positive???
Please, can someone from USADA who can speak coherent English define non-analytical positive? As best I can tell, if I can get beyond the USADA statement's using two different spellings of Jones' lawyer within a single paragraph, non-analytical positive means that although every laboratory test for steroids was negative, this USADA is none-the-less positive there must be a violation. Presumably non-analytical positive means based on evidence other than a drug test. Like the murderer convicted because he had motive, no alibi and two eyewitnesses who placed him near the killing at the time, but no smoking gun. It strikes me as an awfully slippery slope unless USADA is going to build in the safeguards of a jury system (which would be all but impossible). I wouldn't have a problem with suspending someone who was convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for trafficking in a banned substance. But to go any further would swing the balance too far. - Ed Parrot
