Fact #1 - Nick is NOT a journeyman to Americans or international T&F FANATICS. The former esteem him for his OT wins, the latter esteem him for his rankings and high finishes.
Fact #2 - Nick IS a journeyman to the average British fan, who is the one being asked to shell out money for a seat to watch a world-class (which, as has been mentioned before, had BETTER have lots of UK names, including some of whom Ami fans have never even heard of (how's THAT for journeyman?)).
Conclusion - Y'all are using the word in two totally different contexts and disagreeing what it means. Well, duh!
Even more germane is what I pointed out 127 posts back: in meet-promoter speak, everybody but Rudisha is a journeyman in that event, and that's the crux of the whole thing here. To place him on that high a plane isn't demeaning to the rest, although some of you seem hell-bent on reading it that way.
A little meet-promoter 101 here: every one of them is a cold, calculating, bottom-line kind of guy. If he's not, he doesn't last long in the business. He fills his fields as he thinks is best (and since he's responsible for the bottom line, so should it be).
There are a few pieces on the chessboard that truly matter; most are simply interchangable parts. That includes many/most of your favorites. Sorry about that.
"Deserving" athletes don't make it into the bit meets every time they are held. Has always been that way and it always will be, until somebody invents a track with an infinite number of lanes.
Now whether Stewart (a prickly sort, to be sure) handled the Symmonds situation well in the PR department is totally another matter.
I do find it interesting that the Brit press, usually so hip to leaping on this kind of hoo-ha, seems to have ignored the story altogether.
This has brought a damning issue to the forefront in our sport. There is a fatal flaw in flumpy mump's point, this is NOT just about the audience where this meet so happens to be this week! This is a diamond league meet. It is televised. It is held as the standard of our sport on the international level. Keyword, international! That means all countries. The entire argument about journeyman and relevance is EXACTLY why Symmonds went public! This is not an isolated incident, nor is it the first time. And until the inmates start making more noise, this will continue to happen. We are talking money, a lot of money. Kaki dropped out of the race and look who won. Speculation says Symmonds had a more than good shot at winning this race. That is 15k! More importantly, this is the London DL meet, it is the ONLY meet that holds ALL the events. It is the biggest meet on the circuit, and this year it was a good place to test the weather and see the level of competition you will see in a months time. He is the US champ, one of the best in the world, yet he was black balled! It was not based on his performance, yet one man's feelings. All your other squabbling misses this valid and singular issue. THIS is what matters, not your personal opinion about if NS matters to the fans in a random country. With that logic, very few folks matter to any meet but we know this to be a falsehood
This complete crap about Symmonds being an also-ran is utterly beside the point since, we have ALL decided, only one 800m runner matters in the slightest. The real question then, if the "real" 800 guy didn't show up, why have the event at all? What a complete and hopeless bore watching cripples and imbeciles run twice around the track. Any moron could do that, couldn't they?
And I say all of this as a distinctly luke-warm Symmonds fan; he does nothing in particular for me.
bushop wrote:I just hope we don't become like boxing... but maybe we already are.
Maybe Don King and Bob Arum aren't around YET, but maybe we aren't far from it. The problem with Arum and King were, they were match promoters but also AGENTS of individual fighters too. Talk about a conflict of interest! I still lean toward a tennis ATP kind of thing, but I also realize each tennis tournament just has a number of entrants who progress through elimination rounds to a "final". In other words each tournament is just a single "event", while a track meet is a WHOLE BUNCH of events. That makes it a LOT more complicated, especially with equity of prize money distribution across the events. A union could go crazy trying to negotiate a profit sharing scheme without there being so much internal squabbling that they'd get nowhere.
Smoke wrote:There is a He is the US champ, one of the best in the world, yet he was black balled! It was not based on his performance, yet one man's feelings.
Do you think that Ian Stewart's "feelings" were impacted by his wife, Stephanie Hightower, Chairman & President of USATF, part of whose mandate is I assume to look after the best interests of US athletes?
Smoke wrote:There is a He is the US champ, one of the best in the world, yet he was black balled! It was not based on his performance, yet one man's feelings.
Do you think that Ian Stewart's "feelings" were impacted by his wife, Stephanie Hightower, Chairman & President of USATF, part of whose mandate is I assume to look after the best interests of US athletes?
I think the Hightower conspiracies are overblown. I think Stewart would hate Symmonds either way, and I would imagine Hightower likes Lolo just fine. No one is going to be able to prove she had anything to do with any of this, and it would be inappropriate for USATF to be getting involved either way. The athletes have agents whose job it is to deal with this stuff.
Smoke wrote:There is a He is the US champ, one of the best in the world, yet he was black balled! It was not based on his performance, yet one man's feelings.
Do you think that Ian Stewart's "feelings" were impacted by his wife, Stephanie Hightower, Chairman & President of USATF, part of whose mandate is I assume to look after the best interests of US athletes?
How ironic would that be? Symmonds spends the better part of a year trying to get USATF out of his business and now we're getting suggestions he should turn to them to help him manage it?
This is the kind of personal detail that USATF should steer well clear of. If there's a systemic problem involving the country's athletes as a whole then yes by all means some formal movement should be made through channels.
Made by the almost-invisible CEO I would add, not by Hightower.
Tuariki wrote:At USA domestic level competitions Symmonds is clearly not a journeyman - he is the star attraction. But in 2012 in the 800m at Olympic level some of us consider Symmonds to be a journeyman, not because he is not a very, very good 800m - because he is - but because compared to Rudisha, some of us think he and all other 800m runners are journeymen.
By this measure, Gay and the WC champion Blake are journeymen and I have not seen you or anyone else use that term for them, so it is a comparison that is completely besides the point and, if anything, makes the point of how silly that characterization is, and now, since the author of that term seems intent on his full position, cannot seem to retreat from it but feels a need to defend it.
In contrast, I think that no one that is considered a likely OG Finalist is a journeyman. It is a completely useless term if it is.
Now you are getting stupid.
I have not used the term journeyman to describe Gay and Blake for the simple reason that they are not.
Gay and Blake are world champions in their own right. Symmonds? Don't think so.
Gay is 2nd fastest ever at 100m. Blake is 2nd fastest ever at 200m. Symmonds is #74.
Gay and Blake have both beaten Bolt. Has Symmonds beaten Rudisha?
To make it easier for him has he beaten Kaki? or Yego? or Mulaudzi? or Lalang? or Kiprop? or Aman?
Smoke wrote:There is a He is the US champ, one of the best in the world, yet he was black balled! It was not based on his performance, yet one man's feelings.
Do you think that Ian Stewart's "feelings" were impacted by his wife, Stephanie Hightower, Chairman & President of USATF, part of whose mandate is I assume to look after the best interests of US athletes?
OR the other way around, part of her mandate could be impacted by her husband's entrepeneurial pursuits? At the very LEAST it has the appearance of a potential conflict of interest. In most leadership jobs they push all over the place to avoid even the APPEARANCE of any conflicts of interest. I'm not saying run out and get a divorce.. LOL ..... but maybe one or the other of them should step down.
Tuariki wrote:... But in 2012 in the 800m at Olympic level some of us consider Symmonds to be a journeyman, not because he is not a very, very good 800m - because he is - but because compared to Rudisha, some of us think he and all other 800m runners are journeymen.
...
Now you are getting stupid.
I have not used the term journeyman to describe Gay and Blake for the simple reason that they are not.
26: Rudisha,everybody else, not Rudisha <=> Bolt, everybody else, not Bolt
Not really a stretch because that is exactly how you used it
To make it easier for him has he beaten Kaki? or Yego? or Mulaudzi? or Lalang? or Kiprop? or Aman?
My dictionary is complimentary about the word " journeyman" as it states that in this age it means a man who has learned his craft and is no longer an apprentice.
Clearly Simmonds is therefore a jouneyman with all the other experienced athletes around.
However it is all really a red herring to the essential point made on this thread by gh and others that if you start managing, controlling and dictating to Meet promoters I reckon that you will soon discover that the DL meets disappear in a few years if not quicker.
Did not the swiss courts ill advisedly interfere on behalf of the "charming" Dehiba and made the sport look stupid??
Is it fair?? , well all i can say that life aint fair, especially when you pick up an injury at the wrong time. BTW, it happens every week here in Soccer where guys think they should have been selected for the team, but they are on the bench for either not performing in training, out of form or otherwise displeasing the manager. The decision about Symmonds was "personal" obviously but he may well have made a rod for his own back with certain behaviour.
Symmonds will not get invited to any Meets here the longer this silly spat goes on. He might try shutting up.
since people here seem more interested in pissing on each other's shoes than addressing what's truly important, I've split off the posts about how one might actually better fill lanes. Please go to that thread for discussions along that line.
We are giving a very bad impression, insulting and authoritarian. To American readers: I apologise for my British countrymen on this thread.
fromage. Do not ever tell anyone, let alone a world-class American athlete like Nick Symmonds, to "shut up."
Tuariki. It is not alright for an athletics officer from a position of superiourity to insult a dependent athlete, provided that nobody else hears it.
And there can be no doubt that it happened. British meet director Ian Stewart not only called American athlete Nick Symmonds a "liability," he also called American lady athlete Lolo Jones a "liability." Too much to ignore. Very unfortunate.
This spat - the insult - originated with Ian Stewart. Accordingly meet director Ian Stewart should apologize. Then the spat would end. As simple as that. It would do wonders for his image and official relations with the athletes generally.
Last edited by Anthony Treacher on Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tuariki wrote:To make it easier for him has he beaten Kaki? or Yego? or Mulaudzi? or Lalang? or Kiprop? or Aman?
Career Statistics Symmonds vs. Kaki: 1-9 Symmonds vs. Yego: 8-6 (Symmonds has won their last six meetings) Symmonds vs. Mulaudzi: 0-11 (no meetings since 2010) Symmonds vs. Lalang: 3-5 Symmonds vs. Kiprop: 1-3 Symmonds vs. Aman: 1-1
GH, by far the top seed in the conversation/s has been good enough to enlighten some of us on the reality of the processes, a contribution toward transparency and accountability.
also this thread puts on the table the idea that the meet promoters in question may not be acting in the best interests of the meet. and that an individual in the USTAF may be acting out of less than altruistic interests.
don't underestimate the impact of these forums, max siegel quite probably is reading, many players as well.
i think all is good, hightower is going to be asked some questions, like what are you doing? are you sabotaging US athletes???
Given how many US athletes ARE invited to UK meets, shouldn't the question be "are you sabotaging Symmonds and Jones?" as a LOT of Americans make those meets - and of differing abilities...
Anthony Treacher wrote:Tuariki. It is not alright for an athletics officer from a position of superiourity to insult a dependent athlete, provided that nobody else hears it.
And there can be no doubt that it happened. British meet director Ian Stewart not only called American athlete Nick Symmonds a "liability," he also called American lady athlete Lolo Jones a "liability." Too much to ignore. Very unfortunate.
This spat - the insult - originated with Ian Stewart. Accordingly meet director Ian Stewart should apologize. Then the spat would end. As simple as that. It would do wonders for his image and official relations with the athletes generally.
I have never said it is OK for Stewart to insult Symmonds. What I have said is that I have never seen any evidence of it other than what Symmonds has been reported as saying.
You say "there can be no doubt". On what evidence to you make that claim?
I haven't read anything about Lolo Jones crying all through the social media. Maybe I missed it?
If Symmonds chooses to make very public a private conversation then that is his right.
However,getting ones knickers in a twist because his feelings are hurt because someone said he was a liability is laughable.
on Ian Stewart selection's based on HIM - see quotes
Stewart selected an unranked "B" 800m runner to go to the olympics ... Seems Stewart is trying to collect B athletes for his competitions whether it be for one of his track meets or one of his olympic games.
THE selection of Lynsey Sharp as our only competitor in the women’s 800 metres at the Olympics has been the big talking point since the team was announced on Tuesday, particularly as international rules meant that if she was chosen, no-one else could be selected with her.
It was because Lynsey only has a B time that we were unable to select anyone else to join her in the 800m. I feel sorry for Jenny Meadows, who has been an excellent competitor for Great Britain, but she has been struggling with injury and at present it looks unlikely that she will run at Crystal Palace next week in the Aviva London Grand Prix.
Her coach Dave Sunderland has done a great job with her so far, and I think we could have a major talent on our hands if she keeps developing in the way she has been doing this season.
because i'm convinced that steward's selections are not necessarily based on quality, I'm wondering if coach sunderland has some advice on what the criterion is? and how nick should have behaved?
i'd bet my bottom dollar that if sunderland was coaching nick, he'd would have been in the meet even if 1:46 (B) was his best time.
@ tuariki You are kidding, yes? Only a very select person, or couple, or few, are anything other than journey-persons? And that's not meant to be a negative? You must be just trying to stir the pot, or you are illiterate beyond belief, which is it? Perhaps you may choose to enlighten us by clarifying which fields of human endeavour do you need to be ranked in the top few in the World, before you can honour them with a title "above" journeyman. It sounds to me that you are representing one of the real issues in our sport, which is that seriously world-level athletes are labelled with some sort of pejorative, and dismissed even by the few of us who really should know and understand what it takes to get anywhere near that level. Very sad!
rsb2 wrote:@ tuariki You are kidding, yes? Only a very select person, or couple, or few, are anything other than journey-persons? And that's not meant to be a negative? You must be just trying to stir the pot, or you are illiterate beyond belief, which is it? Perhaps you may choose to enlighten us by clarifying which fields of human endeavour do you need to be ranked in the top few in the World, before you can honour them with a title "above" journeyman. It sounds to me that you are representing one of the real issues in our sport, which is that seriously world-level athletes are labelled with some sort of pejorative, and dismissed even by the few of us who really should know and understand what it takes to get anywhere near that level. Very sad!
In my use of the term journeyman it is being used to define from what I believe is the perspective of the DL meet directors.
And I happen to believe that, whether you like it or not, that the examples I used are pretty reflective of the commercial marketing realities that meet directors base their decisions on.
As the 5th fastest sprinter in history Nesta Carter is a great athlete. He is a great sprinter. But in terms of his commercial marketing value to DL meet promoters I believe he qualifies as a journeyman. As good an athlete that Nesta Carter is, he is not someone who will put bums on seats. And I don't say that to denigrate Nesta Carter. It is just commercial reality.
However, if Nesta Carter comes to run in New Zealand he will be the star attraction and be a very commercially attractive proposition. So in terms of competing in a low level track meet in New Zealand he will not be a journeyman - he will be promoted as a super star.
Tuariki wrote:In my use of the term journeyman it is being used to define from what I believe is the perspective of the DL meet directors.
Exactly how I've perceived your take on things from the get go. The fact that one of the few people to show sound reasoning is being called illiterate beggars belief.
Second only, of course, to how long this thread has gone on for. Like Flumpy, I'm out of this one but felt Tuariki deserved credit for his work on this topic
Anyone that thinks that 'journeyman' is not being used pejoratively here in the majority of its applications is fooling themselves rather badly. After people of reacted to the use of the term repeatedly they should have rejected that use and said that they meant something else. In terms of communication, its use was distinctly a knock on Symmonds.
Tuariki wrote:In my use of the term journeyman it is being used to define from what I believe is the perspective of the DL meet directors.
I totally agree. If I was a meet director of a DL meet their would be 5 types of athletes I would want at my meet. 1. Athletes known by the general population 2. Defending Olympic and world championship medalists 3. World Record holders and current World Leaders (and anyone who has a shot at at WL/WR) 4. Any athletes that represent a meet sponsor. 5. Any local athletes that are competitive on a national scale.
And after that I would pick "Journeyman" athletes that fit well into my meet.
Symmonds was ranked #10 in 2009, #6 in 2010 and 2011. Over the last two years he is the THIRD ranked 800 runner in the World (using linear points across the years) behind only Rudisha and Kaki.
Now, I suppose that you should use journeyman for any athlete not ranked in the top two. On the other hand, you an admit that you are needlessly ignorant about the true state of the event.
In terms of prep for London, he ran his SB of 1:43.91 in cool and rainy conditions in Eugene -- maybe he is ready for the other meet in London. Given that Kaki can be a bit erractic (dropping out at 450 earlier, etc) he might even beat Kaki.
Tuariki wrote:In my use of the term journeyman it is being used to define from what I believe is the perspective of the DL meet directors.
Exactly how I've perceived your take on things from the get go. The fact that one of the few people to show sound reasoning is being called illiterate beggars belief.
Second only, of course, to how long this thread has gone on for. Like Flumpy, I'm out of this one but felt Tuariki deserved credit for his work on this topic
That's exactly right. Tuariki has consistently and coherently described his positioning of the word and the context in which it belongs. That others chose to keep ignoring his posts, and prattle on regardless, should beggar belief, but when you've been around here awhile, it doesn't. I'm in full agreement with all his points as they relate to the real world of international athletics.
Tuariki wrote:..... You say "there can be no doubt". On what evidence to you make that claim?
tuariki. What 'evidence' do I have that meet director Ian Stewart told athlete Nick Symmonds he was a "liability?" None at all, of course. Like everyone, I read the news and I make my judgement based on the credibility of the parties and my experience. My experience unfortunately is that athletics officers believe it their privilege - their right - to comment on the athletes in this nasty way. Athletics officers will lie, dissemble and stonewall rather than own up to the truth. So I believe in the athlete Nick Symmonds. Nick did the athletics community a service by bringing this to our attention.
May I reverse the burden of proof tuariki? What evidence do you have that Ian Stewart did not tell Nick Symmonds that he was a liability?
and tuariki:
Tuariki wrote:..... However,getting ones knickers in a twist because his feelings are hurt because someone said he was a liability is laughable.
Wrong again. Judging from his red-blooded TV appearance, Nick Symmonds is what the Cousins call a "jock." These guys field jockstraps, not knickers.
Instead it seems that it was meet director Ian Stewart who got his knickers into a twist, if you insist on that metaphore. Like most track and field authoritarians, he could not tolerate an athlete speaking out. And he probably wet his knickers at being able to insult the athlete from a safe distance. With all respect tuariki, rather like you.
Anthony Treacher wrote: tuariki. What 'evidence' do I have that meet director Ian Stewart told athlete Nick Symmonds he was a "liability?" None at all, of course. Like everyone, I read the news and I make my judgement based on the credibility of the parties and my experience. My experience unfortunately is that athletics officers believe it their privilege - their right - to comment on the athletes in this nasty way. Athletics officers will lie, dissemble and stonewall rather than own up to the truth. So I believe in the athlete Nick Symmonds. Nick did the athletics community a service by bringing this to our attention.
May I reverse the burden of proof tuariki? What evidence do you have that Ian Stewart did not tell Nick Symmonds that he was a liability?
Of course you are so right. I apologise. Athletes never lie. How dare that officials accused Marion Jones of lying, and countless others of lying.
Hitler, Stalin and Mao also subscribed to your standards of justice. "We say you did it now you prove you didn't".
And by the way I am NOT implying Symmonds is a liar. But I am saying you don't know if he is telling the truth. But what i do know is that Stewart has acted professionally by refusing to buy into Symmonds little tirades.
If Stewart called Symmonds a liability, what did he mean? Did Stewart, for example, feel that Symmonds might do something to compromise the events relationship/agreements with its sponsors? Can anyone put the "liability" comment - if it happened, in context.
portsea57 wrote:If Stewart called Symmonds a liability, what did he mean? Did Stewart, for example, feel that Symmonds might do something to compromise the events relationship/agreements with its sponsors? Can anyone put the "liability" comment - if it happened, in context.
And therein lies the problem - not one of those "people with nothing better to do than waste time commenting on Nick Symmonds"' can put Symmonds' comments in context. Because none of us were there.
We have only heard Symmonds point of view and because he is an athlete Anthony Treacher has stipulated we must believe Mr Symmonds.
However, the only person who can give the context that you crave is Ian Stewart - and he clearly isn't talking. I guess he has better things to do than those "people with nothing better to do than waste time commenting on Nick Symmonds".
