We just got back from the press conference. It was pretty exciting. A reporter asked Craig Masback if they would consider making Eugene the permanent site. He answered only in Eugene would someone ask that question when they has just been awarded the 3 meets.
Given Masbacks dismal record on abiding by USA Track and Field's own rules, taking USATF to the brink of decertification, do you think that Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, might be better qualified to determine if irregularities occurred in the process?
Des Moines Register says (small story on front page) that Drake has the 2010 nationals. Story says, in part <<Officials from the USATF evaluated Drake last month>> so apparently USATF did have at least some elemental sort of selection process working.
From the ERG "We didn’t actually talk to any other cities,” Masback said. “We believed in what was being proposed and the spirit behind it. ... We awarded the 2004 Trials to Sacramento shortly after the 2000 Trials without any bid process, and Eugene was aware of this. There is no pattern (to the process) and this continues that tradition.”
This means that 4 of the next 5 national championships will be in Eugene, and that is all of the championships that will select national teams for major international championships . . . until at least 2013.
In recent Olympiads, I don't think USATF was able to get a city to bid for a non-trials year (2002 & 2006) without also giving them one of the adjacent "trials" years.
Eugene is the Track Capital and Hayward Field is the Track Capitol. I hope that the editor approves of my spelling here.
I wrote to a muckymuck in Sacramento, asking if Sacto had been in the mix for 2012 Trials and other nationals, and the honcho replied:
Never heard anything about the formal bids for 2009-10-11 U.S. Outdoor Championships which we submitted on the Aug. 30 deadline. Smelled a funny odor when we never received any response and when they failed to follow through on the process.
Never was a RFP submitted on the Trials and not sure we would have bid knowing the games that have been going on between Eugene, Beaverton and Indy. Funny USATF would award this to Nike (whoops) Eugene before staging the '08 Trials - it must have been a hell of a deal they couldn't refuse?
We'll know for sure when we try to enter Hayward Field and they ban anyone wearing adidas.
Probably fine decision for the sport as contested on the field, but yet another absolutely terrible decision for the public/media visibility of the sport and its future. USATF comes off looking and acting minor league - and short-sighted and "small thinking" and like a capriciously run fiefdom - yet again.
You're right, trig. I recall that during the bidding for the 2000 Trials, one of the requirements was an air-conditioned press box. Hayward Field didn't qualify. Now ask the guys who sit in the press box if the one at Hornet Stadium is air-conditioned (it isn't). Hmmm . . .
I remember donor Alex Spanos standing up during the 2000 Trials and promising to do something about the lack of shade in the stands before the 2004 Trials.
Sac State is now free to make improvements to their football stadium without any worries about dust, dirt, sightlines, restrooms, shade, or their track which has tighter turns than the IAAF recommended international standard. Fat chance that they were ever going to fix any of these things anyway.
If Sacramento cares so much about T&F, why can't I find any article or column about losing the Trials in today's Bee? The City of Sacramento can bid to host some bowling tournaments; they'll be just as happy with that.