San Francisco (post-Houlihan's)

Following the Houlihan's to Houlihan's 12K
Buchanan St. Bar & Grill, San Francisco
March 25, 2001

Those present:
Tony Fong, masters LDR chair, WVTC; Jacob Michaels, XC co-chair, WVTC; Todd
Kelly, XC co-chair, WVTC; Dan Nelson, WVTC; Aaron Pierson, WVTC; Tyler
Abbott, men's LDR chair, Hoy's Excelsior; Chris Lundstrom, Hoy's Excelsior;
Chris Phipps, Hoy's Excelsior; Susan Beck, Hoy's Excelsior; Brian Richter,
Hoy's Excelsior; Yurik Riegel, Hoy's Excelsior;  Lloyd Stephenson, Hoy's
Excelsior; Bob Darling, Hoy's Excelsior; Bill McMorran, Adidas Transports;
Irene Herman, PA VP, PA Membership Committee chair, Impalas; Christine
Brighton, Impalas; Carol Keller, Impala; Dave Ahn, Reebok Aggies; Christian
Wagner, Empire; Phil Widener, Empire; Dan Preston, PA Web Submaster,
Empire; Walt VanZant, WVJS; Mark Winitz, WVJS; Cynci Calvin, LDR secretary,
PA Communications Committee chair, Buffalo Chips; Dave Creek, Buffalo
Chips; Tim Wason, Pamakids; Mary Fagan, Tamalpa; Phil Phythian, Tamalpa;
Anne Hardham, Tamalpa; Frank Ruona, Tamalpa.

Meeting called to order at 11:25 am

PA/USATF LDR Minutes from Jan. 7 LDR meeting at Cal 10 in Stockton were
unanimously approved.

Cross Country
Jacob Michaels presented the tentative fall, 2001 XC schedule
August 25, UC Santa Cruz, $500, New Race
Sept. 1, Empire, $500, Foothill Reg. Park in Windsor
Sept. 8, GG Park, $500, 5k dist for all groups
Sept. 15, Crystal Springs $500, Same fabled course in Belmont
Sept. 22, UC Davis, $500, New prize money
Sept. 29/30, No XC Race (10K in Paso Robles)
Oct. 6, Hoy's Excelsior $750, Location TBD - 1.5 points race
Oct. 13, Sierra College  $500, In Rocklin
Oct.  20/21, No XC Race (Humboldt 1/2 marathon)
Oct. 27, Shoreline Open  $500, In Mountain View
Nov. 3, Tamalpa,  $500, In San Rafael
Nov. 10/11, No XC Race (Clarksburg 30K)
Nov. 18, PA USATF Champs $500, double points, Sunday Race in GG Park
It was agreed that the 1.5 points for the Oct. 6 race  was acceptable
according to the PA  LDR guidelines. All races other than the Oct. 6 race
and Champs are single point under the new rules.

2002 LDR Banquet
Hoy's Excelsior agreed to be the host club. Location will probably be in
San Francisco.

Monterey LDR Training Center
Mark Winitz discussed tentative plans to establish a Team USA long
distance running training center in Monterey for the development of elite
and emerging elite long distance runners. This center would follow the
model of the three Team USA centers already opened by USATF in
conjunction with Running USA in Chuela Vista, CA, Rochester, NY, and
Rochester Hills, Michigan (a fourth center may be opened by the time that
you read this, in Minnesota). The proposed location for the center in
Monterey is California State University at Monterey Bay (on former Fort
Ord lands). Interested potential sponsors of this center besides the
university include the Big Sur International Marathon and RhodyCo
Productions. Mark is working with both the university and the Monterey
Bay Area Sports Association to secure additional sponsors. Chris Brighton
suggested having a donation box at races, or including a donation option
on entry forms.

Pacific Association Board of Athletics Women's LDR member Nancy Hobbs was
unanimously approved as a PA Board of Athletics member representing women's
LDR, to fill a vacancy.

Athlete Development Funds
The committee was reminded that Road Grand Prix long distance section
leaders after two events (male, female) will be assisted with travel funds
to run Parkersburg 1/2 Marathon in West Virginia in August. Road Grand Prix
short distance section leaders after Shriners 8K (male, female) will be
assisted with travel funds to run Delchamps 10K in November.

Proposal  for Out of Association Athlete (OOAA)  policy in Pacific
Association Grand Prix events
The  OOAA subcommittee included the 3-LDR chairs, Mark Winitz, Irene
Herman, Christine Brighton, Dave Ahn, Dan Preston, Ben Turman, Chris
Phipps, Frank Ruona, Dan Nelson, and Brian McGuire. The committee also
consulted with USATF
President Bill Roe, and PA Exec. Director John Mansoor  who both have
strong LDR backgrounds. Proposal discussions ranged from a completely
closed door policy to a completely open door policy. Six proposals were
developed and voted on by the OOAA subcommittee and proposal #6 was
approved by
a 2/3 majority of the subcommittee and presented at this meeting. Proposal
#6 has two parts: 1) Self-regulation among clubs concerning OOAAs, based on a
mission statement which will be developed and voted on at a future LDR
2) Review of self-regulation at the Humboldt LDR meeting (Oct. 20), with a
vote on whether to institute case by case review of OOAAs. Proposal #6 was
passed with one dissent and, as mentioned above, will be
reviewed/discussed again at the Humboldt meeting.
Note: For a complete copy of the proposals or of proposal #6, see below.

Meeting adjourned, 1:05 p.m.


The premise of this proposal is to retain our current open door policy
while addressing the hot topic of "ringers" and flagrant violations of
the spirit and intent of our Grand Prix programs. The purpose is to
reinforce the basic LDR G.P structure and purpose that we already have,
which has been fundamentally successful since the establishment of our
LDR G.P in the early '80s. If the first provisions do not go far enough
in curbing practices some members find objectionable, the proposal
allows for the creation of a panel to adjudicate the petitions of


It is recommended that the LDR Committee:

1. Create a mission statement delineating the purpose and function of the
LDR grand prixs.
2. Define "association level developmental athlete."
3. Encourage voluntary compliance with the mission statement among clubs.
4. Require prior notification to all clubs of the participation of a
non-resident athlete in team competition.
5. Increase the "PA program contribution fee" withheld from prize money
from non-resident athletes.
6. Evaluate at its annual meeting whether the above policies are working
and decide then whether to recommend that the Membership Committee create
a panel to evaluate the petitions of non-resident athletes for membership.


The Out-of-Association Subcommittee/Non-Resident Task Force recommends
that the LDR Committee:

1.  Clarify the intent and purpose of our LDR Grand Prixs (based on
historical purpose), in a written mission statement that will be drafted
and submitted to all LDR clubs for approval. This mission statement will
be used as a model for participation in the LDR Grand Prixs--and all LDR
clubs will be asked to uphold its intent and spirit in G.P. competition.
The mission statement will be based on the following three elements
have been basic to our road G.P. since its inception):

    (a) Our LDR Grand Prixs are intended for the  development of
sub-elite and emerging elite athletes to provide them an opportunity to
rise to national and world-class levels, and to ultimately be successful
in international competition, including the Olympic Games.

    (b) Our LDR Grand Prixs are intended to offer an organized
competitive program  in which ANY PA member or club may compete and rise
to the level of their own potential and best efforts.


     (c) Our LDR Grand Prixs are intended to offer an organized
competitive program in which local clubs may compete against each
other in the spirit of good sportsmanship.

2.  Establish a recommended guideline that defines "association level
developmental athlete," as defined by the USATF national LDR Committees
for the USATF Association Athlete Development Program (AADP). These
guidelines will be distributed to PA LDR clubs along with the mission
statement.  PA clubs may use these guidelines, at their discretion,
especially when signing on OOAAs as new club members that will compete in
PA G.P. competition.  These guidelines will reinforce and compliment the
"developmental" aspect of PA G.P. competition.  (See end of this proposal
for current AADP guidelines.)

Note: The intent of this clause is not to prevent longtime PA members who
have "broken through" beyond the AADP level from continuing to compete in
the PA G.P.s. While these athletes naturally gravitate beyond PA G.P.
competition--often they continue to compete in occasional G.P. events,
especially as low-key or tune-up efforts. We recognize that these
athletes continue to provide inspiration and motivation for others, and
enhance, rather than detract from, our G.P. events.

3. Encourage awareness, self-regulation, and courteous peer pressure
among clubs to preserve the intent and purpose of the Grand Prixs (as
agreed upon by all and stated in the mission statement)--and to direct
clubs to "self monitor and police" any flagrant disregard of this
purpose. [OPTIONAL LANGUAGE: It is commonly understood that a team
scoring without a  majority of team members being resident will generally/
usually constitute such a disregard.]
Note: If LDR clubs become involved in disputes concerning the
G.P. mission (specifically in the use of athletes for team scoring) which
they cannot resolve themselves, they may bring the dispute before the LDR
Chairs. The Chairs may, at their discretion, appoint an ad-hoc 5-person
PA LDR arbitrations board to resolve the matter.

4. Introduce a notification method so all LDR clubs are notified well in
advance when new OOAAs join a PA club--with, perhaps, some bio
information. This notification should be distributed by the LDR e-mail
list (by the LDR secretary or e-mail list keeper) no less than three
weeks prior to the first G.P. race in which the OOAA athlete competes.

5. Raise the 5% "PA program contribution fee" presently required by PA
athletes who earn G.P. prize money to 10% of prize earnings. The raise
would apply to OOAAs ONLY to: (1) compensate for the partial loss of
association membership fees from OOAAs who join the PA, and (2) partially
offset the lesser level of participatory support that might be generally
expected by these athletes in non-G.P. events sanctioned by the PA.

Note: Under national USATF policy, an OOAAs membership fee is split
between the association of membership, the association where the athlete
resides (in Reg 7-B agreements between associations), and the national
federation. Also, the fact that the PA sanctions over 400 events annually
(many of which are LDR events) largely contributes to the association's
revenue, which, in turn, assists us in offering season-end G.P. prize
money, to have an operating Association office, and, in general, to offer
strong G.P. programs. The strength of long distance running within our
association boundaries--supported by a large base of runners
participating in locally sanctioned events--is a driving force behind our
revenue derived from sanctions.

6. At the next official annual meeting (scheduled for Humboldt, 2001),
vote on whether the following additional policies and recommendations are

Make the following policies and recommendations regarding non-resident

    (a) Recommend to the Membership Committee that non-resident membership
be granted only to athletes who:
           (i) were once residents and members of the PA and who have
continued to
be members of the PA during their entire period of non-residency; OR
           (ii) petition to and receive permission from the Membership
Committee to allow them to become members. The petition process should
incorporate the following guidelines:
                    (1) Petitions should be considered in a timely
                    (2) A subcommittee or panel (Panel) should be
appointed by the Membership Committee to adjudicate these petitions. For
adjudicating the petitions of LDR athletes, the Panel should consist of a
majority of representatives from LDR. As an alternative, the Membership
Committee may delegate adjudication of petitions of LDR athletes to the
LDR Committee, which may in turn delegate this to a subcommittee or panel.
                    (3) The Panel should grant membership when it decides
that it would be in the best interests of the sport and of the athlete.
(Note: This is the criteria that an appeals board would use in the case of
the appeal of an athlete who has been denied membership.) It should create
its own standards for evaluating this criteria and for balancing the
potentially competing interests of the sport and of the athlete, and in
close cases should value the interests of the sport above the interests of
the athlete. When considering the best interest of the athlete, the Panel
should consider, among other factors, other competitive opportunities
available to the athlete. It should also consider the athlete's potential
to develop into an international-class athlete and, where that potential
exists, the role of the PA grand prixs in that development. When
considering the best interest of the sport, the Panel should consider,
among other factors, the effect of the athlete on grand prix individual
competition and especially team competition. It should also consider the
best interest of the sport in the context of the grand prix mission
statement. It is anticipated that most petitions will be approved. The
Panel should create a checklist of questions regarding the athlete's
circumstances against which the petition will be evaluated. Questions on
this list might include:
                            (a) Why do you want to join the PA?
                            (b) What competitive opportunities do you
currently have?
                            (c) Do you consider membership in the PA a key
part of your development into an athlete able to compete internationally?
                            (d) If you are planning to compete for a team,
how do you know the other members of this team?
                            (e) What are your PRs in the following
distances? (Question would list distances at which AADP has created
There might also be questions about recruitment and financial incentives.

    (b) Each year these policies are in place, evaluate whether to
continue this petition process at the LDR Committee's official annual
meeting (usually held at Humboldt in October).

COMMENTS: It is my view that this proposal will be received well by our
clubs since it places the responsibility of competition in "good spirit
which is consistent with our G.P. intent" firmly in their own hands, but
the same time allows for an escalation procedure. It
should be well received by the PA Board since it does not fundamentally
change our current open door policy, and does not impose an
administrative burden, or additional responsibility on the PA office
staff. It is consistent with the emerging view of USATF, in general, that
we MUST do MORE for our developing distance runners to assist them to
break through and be more competitive on the international scene.



Specifically, athletes that have NOT  bettered any of the following times
in USATF sanctioned events,  either on certified record-quality road
courses or at standard distances on the track, are considered
"association level":

Women - Fastest Time (Current USATF Women's AADP Guidelines)
5K              16:18
4 miles 21:15
8K              26:47
10K             34:00
12K             41:15
15K             52:25
10 mile 56:35
20K             1:11:30
Half Mar        1:15:10
25K             1:30:15
Marathon        2:39:00

Men- Fastest Time
(Interpolated guidelines--until USATF establishes official men's AADP
time guidelines)
5k  13:53
4 miles  18:08
8K  22:51
10K 29:00
12K  35:05
15K  44:40
10 miles  48:08
20K  1:01:00
Half Marathon  1:04:05
25K  1:16:50
Marathon  2:15:35