Skip to main content

Recently Kevin Lucas wrote to David Reik, who shared with me:

I have been asked by Fred Finke, LDR Chair USATF, to set up 12 USATF Associations willing to take on the course certification program. Bob (ed: Letson) has agreed to work with the San Diego Association, myself in Niagara, and currently 6 others.
The first step is to ask if you would be interested to work with the Connecticut Association to review new course certification applications. Currently this is done by Jane Parks of NJ and not connected to the association. The one year test program is to determine if associations can manage the course certification program in house outside of the control of the RRTC, which allows for greater local determination over USATF programs.

Several of us in RRTC are wondering what Fred may have in mind, assuming Kevin’s statement is correct. Kevin has been doing whatever he is doing without our direct knowledge, so we are somewhat in the dark. We only recently learned of this situation, and several of us have written to Fred for clarification

RRTC already has a place in the USATF organization and is doing a good job, and we’re curious why Fred feels a one year trial of a different system is needed. The Lucas Amendment seems destined for defeat if present indicators are correct, and we in RRTC hoped the matter had been settled. Now it seems it has not.

There is no harm in a trial so long as it does not disrupt the ongoing work of course certification, but the potential for confusion exists. If the twelve Associations, with their in-house certifiers, begin to certify courses, how will this integrate with the present operation of RRTC? Will a different certificate be created and used? Will a new Associations Course Registrar be appointed or elected? Will two different lists of certified courses come into existence?

I do not understand the motivation for this, aside from the desire on the part of some for power. It is difficult to see how an Association-run certification system can serve the course measurers more efficiently than is presently being done.

I hope Fred will ask around. Check with some runners and race directors, and some measurers. They will have information he may find helpful. They are the people who we serve.

Also, it would be helpful if RRTC was to be kept in the loop.
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I'm a bit curious how this will work. Will we have six new lists of certified courses, six new registrars, each working independently with no centralized records?

For that matter, why not fifty, one for each state? Or one for each major metropolitan area, or telephone area code?

If somebody (anybody) needs a copy of any of the 27,000 certified courses now on file, all they need to do is get hold of me, send me two bucks to cover copying, and it's in the mail the next day. With the Associations handling the records, anyone seeking information will have to first figure out which Association they're dealing with, and then whether the course in question is certified by the Association or nationally. I foresee confusion. Presumably a new system of numbering courses will be conjured up to avoid duplicating nationally certified course numbers?

I can only assume the current crew of measurers and certifiers will be doing this new work for the Associations. Will they use RRTC guidelines for certification, or will each one decide what constitutes grounds for certification?

There are a lot of questions here, and each one seems to raise two more.
The Lucas/Finke proposal is not what it appeared to be. I had a phone conversation with Fred Finke and he stated "Kevin did this on his own". Fred never gave Kevin permission to find 12 Associations for a trial period to test his measuremnt/certification program in these Associations.

We at RRTC as Fred states are doing a fine job.
Kevin does not have the authority to do what he was trying to do and it will not be done!

Thanks for all your support and I'm glad we can put this to rest.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×