In a message dated Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:23:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
"Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<< So are you saying that these athletes do not deserve a competitive
destination ?? That only if one becomes elite does he/she deserve to
continue competing .. So should he/she sit around waiting to become a
Masters competitor and then begin training again ?? Why can't track and
field be the "life time" sport that it should be ??>>
Let me play devil's advocate here. "A sport for life" is a wonderful
catchphrase, and USATF should be commended for using it. But should it really
be taken seriously?
Using personal anecdotes rarely proves anything, but I can't help but note
that in the 30+ years since i left college and started working in the t&f
industry, I've seen absolutely nothing to convince me that there is the
market for any broad base of competition for post-collegiate athletes in this
country.
I think I can state with a pretty good sense of assurance than in these last
3-plus decades, throwing out people I've actually met at all-comer's meets, I
don't think I've met A SINGLE PERSON between the ages of say, 22 and 40, who
competes in, or has any interest in, competing in a track & field meet. I
hasten to assure you I've met lots of distance runners, or people who
characterize themselves as such, and they run road races. But sprinters,
throwers, jumpers? Nah.
People in that age group who play basketball, softball, soccer?
Dozens/hundreds/thousands. Meet 'em every day. But no trackies.
IMHO, there simply aren't enough people out there who care about track &
field (again, as opposed to road-based running) to justify even thinking
about a viable club system. It's a terrible thing to have to say, but I'm
afraid it reflects reality.
gh
