From collinsja at me.com Tue Oct 6 14:28:09 2009 From: collinsja at me.com (collinsja at me.com) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:28:09 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [Masters] Team and Junior Trials (fwd) Message-ID: Minnesota Masters news... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:57:13 -0500 From: Lou Chouinard Subject: Team and Junior Trials To all - There appears to be some confusion regarding Master's participation in the World Senior and Junior Team Trials being held at Mt. Itasca on December 12, 13, 19, 20, and 22. There will be Master's events at all of these races. I will be working on details with Piotr and the Mt. Itasca folks in early November. I expect that all Masters courses will be "age appropriate" and that we will have start times that assure that we have great races without interfering with (or being interfered by) the other racers. I expect the courses to be very similar to the courses we raced at the 2008 Master's Nationals at Mt. Itasca. The man-made snow combined with December temperatures should make for excellent courses that hold up well. I'm also working on the rest of the MN Biathlon Winter racing schedule. When complete, I'll forward that to you as well. All are welcome at any of our MN Biathlon races. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. Lou From collinsja at me.com Wed Oct 21 15:34:04 2009 From: collinsja at me.com (collinsja at me.com) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:34:04 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [Masters] 2009 Report (fwd) Message-ID: Forwarding in the interest of spreading the Masters word... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:21:33 -0500 From: Lou Chouinard Subject: 2009 Report To all - At long last I found the time to complete the 2009 report. I'm sorry for the delay. I'm completely overbooked and just reeling from deadline to deadline:-( Since I wasn't actually at the Champs, I relied on information from a number of sources. Please feel free to get back to me with any changes, comments, suggestions, etc. Lou -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2009 Masters Champs Summary 8_12_09.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 41472 bytes Desc: Url : http://www.biathlonusa.com/pipermail/masters/attachments/20091021/f94265ac/attachment-0001.xls -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft 2009 Report to the USBA Masters Committee 10_6_09.doc Type: application/msword Size: 30720 bytes Desc: Url : http://www.biathlonusa.com/pipermail/masters/attachments/20091021/f94265ac/attachment-0001.doc From collinsja at me.com Wed Oct 21 16:09:09 2009 From: collinsja at me.com (collinsja at me.com) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:09:09 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [Masters] FW: 2009 Report (fwd) Message-ID: A followup conversation on the Masters report. Here are my comments to add to Bill and Lou's: - Re: Masters Championship location: According to my event T-shirt (and my memory), the 2008 Masters Championships were part of the *North American* Championships, not the US Senior Champs. I think this is a reasonable, and maybe even preferable, association. Building the Canadian Masters community along with our own would increase the potential event sizes. Whether we want to jump to a North American Masters Championship in addition to (or instead of) US and Canadian Masters Champs, I don't know. - I haven't been to Fort Kent, so I can't comment on whether it's the best venue in the US, but to me the best venue is the one I -- and the majority of my fellow competitors -- can get to economically and efficiently. Mt Itasca and West Yellowstone are close second and third places on my list because they are as centrally located for US competitors as we're going to get (Mt. Itasca) and have reliable snow (either courtesy of Mother Nature at West Yellowstone or courtesy of snow making at Mt Itasca). - Based on my observation of events in 2008, and reports from 2009, I have little confidence that the Masters community will ever rise above second class citizen rank in the eyes of the USBA. I would like the National Governing Body to recognize our championships, so I support working with the USBA to generate some guidelines that ensure a quality event. I would like the USBA to have a very *minimal* impact on the Masters Championships, however, unless they can commit to attending to some of Bill and Lou's comments below. Not having standardized courses or age groups well in advance of a national event (let alone for the rest of the season) speaks volumes about the USBA's attitude. Why should we need to follow the schedule and location for the Junior/Senior championships when the Masters events will be an afterthought? It may be better for the biathlon Masters community to align themselves with the AXCS Masters Championships when the venues support it. What better way to expose (and possibly recruit) hundreds of already committed nordic skiers than by putting on a biathlon event in the same spectator zone as the AXCS National Masters event? :-) Julia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:22:46 -0500 From: Lou Chouinard Subject: FW: 2009 Report To all - Bill Quinlan and I have been having an e-mail discussion about Masters Biathlon and the 2010 Championships. Since biathlon Masters are such a small group, we thought it might be constructive to send out the discussion below to see if anyone wants to comment. Please note that both Bill and I only want to make the sport stronger and better while growing the number of Masters competitors. Lou _____ From: Lou Chouinard [mailto:l_chouinard at visi.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:03 PM To: 'quinlan at comcast.net' Subject: RE: 2009 Report Bill - Please take a look at my comments below. _____ From: Bill Quinlan [mailto:quinlan at comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:17 PM To: Lou Chouinard Subject: Re: 2009 Report Lou, I wanted to run this by you. I know you were very busy this past year and i appreciate all your efforts. All, Lou, thank you very much for your work on behalf of the Masters and the Master Committee, and for being the main interface to the USBA in this matter. In Bill Lilly's report of the recommendations of the Masters Committee in 2008-9, it was entered into the USBA Board Of Directors May 07 2007 minutes that: "XIV. Club Development Committee Bill Lilly provided the BOD with a report recommending the development of a Master's Championship. A working group that was formed to address this issue made the following recommendations: A. Two masters classifications: Masters (40-49 years) and Veteran (50+ years). This would be a change from the current age groups listed in the Coaches Education program. B. The Masters Championship is a part of the single National Championship events that includes Juniors, Seniors, and Masters. C. The distances and event formats should be the same as the senior class. D. The site of the National Championships should be rotated. E. The National Championship should be held toward the end of the season. These recommendations do not require BOD approval." I believe some of this was officially changed in 2008 (e.g. to add the 30 - 39 age group etc., age appropriate courses, etc.) My criticisms of the Masters organization for 2010 are: 1) For this upcoming year of 2010, the rumored Masters Championships location will be again at Ft. Kent. This contradicts item D. But it is consistent with item B. As a result, I have heard a number of local masters lean towards opting out of the trip to Maine again in 2010. Ft Kent may be the best venue in the USA, however the feedback which I received said that Masters would prefer to race at more varied, and secondly, closer and more accessible venues. Fort Kent is, indeed, a bitch to get to. 2) The Jury Committee's decision regarding Masters course length left a sufficiently unpleasant impression which may result in even lower Masters participation levels than the downward trending 2008-2009 numbers, when coupled with item 1. I would hope, but am not convinced, that the Masters Coordinator would have some influence in this matter. I don't know about this. I only know that you and Piotr sent out e-mails asking for background and guidance which I provided. I think this kind of issue clearly shows the need for a Masters Coordinator (and maybe an assistant) be assigned to every champs. 3) I believe L.Chouinard's report statement that "One of the challenges we discussed last year was that we didn't want the Masters Championships to become a "Regional Championships" based on location. As you can see from the attached spreadsheet, I estimate that 78% of the competitors "flew in", up from 56% in 2008." is overly rosy since it wasn't the lack of 'fly-ins' but rather the lack of east coast participants that made the numbers seem to support long travel times to the competition. It was a de-facto western USA regional Championship in spite of the location. Yep, I think location will have a large impact on turn out. 4) Additionally, the Masters Committee was to discuss the following issues resulting from the 2009 Masters Championships, but no discussion has been held, yet. (statements of fact, and my comments based on CO and WA feedback): a) standardize Masters courses on senior womens courses. ( originally proposed and mentioned in L.Chouinard's report above. Overidden by the Jury Committee in Ft. Kent in 2009, over the objections of the majority of Masters competing and present at the Coaches Meeting). b) reinforce Masters age classification ( corrected mid-event in 2009, and mentioned in L.Choinard's report above). My hope is that by emphasizing these issues in this year's report that they are not an issue in the future. c) advocate for more advanced notice for masters courses and venues for US Masters Championships. (so far everyone 'assumes' it is in Ft. Kent but no official announcement has been made. Masters need to do advance planning around the rest of their life, unlike full-time dedicated athletes.) d) fewer surprises and local autonomous decision making. (The 2009 event details were not specified until very late. Masters courses were decided upon at the event.) Ditto e) encourage participation of more masters from more areas than just CO & WA. East coast representation was surprisingly low.( addressed in L.Chouinard's Closing Comments of his report) I really need to jack up the MN team as well. f) obtain input from all regions and from the masters most likely to participate. (no action on this point in 2009). 5) The World Masters Winter Games in Bled, Slovenia, is siphoning off the majority of possible CO participants to Ft. Kent in 2010 due to a repeat venue, long travel times to Ft Kent, and limited travel resources. I haven't been to a WMWGs before. If you are going, perhaps you could be a "cheerleader" for getting US participation. 6) I propose that the US Masters Championships be held in (order of preference) West Yellowstone MT, AK, MN, Lake Placid, Jericho, another East Coast venue. A WY venue would generate a large number of CO attendees. If necessary, hold it separately from the US National Championships. This is a tough one. I'll talk with Piotr and see what he thinks. Sincerely, Bill Quinlan Colorado Biathlon Club PS - I am more than willing to have a number of these issues be openly discussed with the Master's Committee. Feel free to fire off an e-mail. If necessary, I'll forward it to everyone. Lou Chouinard wrote: To all - At long last I found the time to complete the 2009 report. I'm sorry for the delay. I'm completely overbooked and just reeling from deadline to deadline:-( Since I wasn't actually at the Champs, I relied on information from a number of sources. Please feel free to get back to me with any changes, comments, suggestions, etc. Lou No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.7/2422 - Release Date: 10/08/09 06:39:00 From collinsja at me.com Fri Oct 23 11:50:41 2009 From: collinsja at me.com (collinsja at me.com) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:50:41 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [Masters] FW: FW: 2009 Report (fwd) Message-ID: Continuing the integration of the off-list conversation... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:24:23 -0500 From: Lou Chouinard Subject: FW: [Masters] FW: 2009 Report (fwd) To all - I have forwarded some interesting comments from Julia. I would like to make it clear that USBA in general and Max Cobb in particular are very supportive of Masters. However, with their limited resources, they have asked that we "run with the ball" and do all the leg work to make things happen. When we average about 30% of the competitors at the Champs, we are, indeed, a major part of the event. In 2008, I acted as both the National Masters Rep and the Local Masters Rep (with help from Piotr Bednarski and Tony Carter). In 2009, in large part due to my not being available, we had neither. Both are important to making things run well for Masters. It is going to take some time to get all this working smoothly. We'll have a few bumps in the road. However, I'm convinced that a large Masters population participating in biathlon races will be very good for the sport. Lou -----Original Message----- From: masters-bounces at biathlonusa.com [mailto:masters-bounces at biathlonusa.com] On Behalf Of collinsja at me.com Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:09 PM To: masters at biathlonusa.com Subject: [Masters] FW: 2009 Report (fwd) A followup conversation on the Masters report. Here are my comments to add to Bill and Lou's: - Re: Masters Championship location: According to my event T-shirt (and my memory), the 2008 Masters Championships were part of the *North American* Championships, not the US Senior Champs. I think this is a reasonable, and maybe even preferable, association. Building the Canadian Masters community along with our own would increase the potential event sizes. Whether we want to jump to a North American Masters Championship in addition to (or instead of) US and Canadian Masters Champs, I don't know. - I haven't been to Fort Kent, so I can't comment on whether it's the best venue in the US, but to me the best venue is the one I -- and the majority of my fellow competitors -- can get to economically and efficiently. Mt Itasca and West Yellowstone are close second and third places on my list because they are as centrally located for US competitors as we're going to get (Mt. Itasca) and have reliable snow (either courtesy of Mother Nature at West Yellowstone or courtesy of snow making at Mt Itasca). - Based on my observation of events in 2008, and reports from 2009, I have little confidence that the Masters community will ever rise above second class citizen rank in the eyes of the USBA. I would like the National Governing Body to recognize our championships, so I support working with the USBA to generate some guidelines that ensure a quality event. I would like the USBA to have a very *minimal* impact on the Masters Championships, however, unless they can commit to attending to some of Bill and Lou's comments below. Not having standardized courses or age groups well in advance of a national event (let alone for the rest of the season) speaks volumes about the USBA's attitude. Why should we need to follow the schedule and location for the Junior/Senior championships when the Masters events will be an afterthought? It may be better for the biathlon Masters community to align themselves with the AXCS Masters Championships when the venues support it. What better way to expose (and possibly recruit) hundreds of already committed nordic skiers than by putting on a biathlon event in the same spectator zone as the AXCS National Masters event? :-) Julia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:22:46 -0500 From: Lou Chouinard Subject: FW: 2009 Report To all - Bill Quinlan and I have been having an e-mail discussion about Masters Biathlon and the 2010 Championships. Since biathlon Masters are such a small group, we thought it might be constructive to send out the discussion below to see if anyone wants to comment. Please note that both Bill and I only want to make the sport stronger and better while growing the number of Masters competitors. Lou _____ From: Lou Chouinard [mailto:l_chouinard at visi.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:03 PM To: 'quinlan at comcast.net' Subject: RE: 2009 Report Bill - Please take a look at my comments below. _____ From: Bill Quinlan [mailto:quinlan at comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:17 PM To: Lou Chouinard Subject: Re: 2009 Report Lou, I wanted to run this by you. I know you were very busy this past year and i appreciate all your efforts. All, Lou, thank you very much for your work on behalf of the Masters and the Master Committee, and for being the main interface to the USBA in this matter. In Bill Lilly's report of the recommendations of the Masters Committee in 2008-9, it was entered into the USBA Board Of Directors May 07 2007 minutes that: "XIV. Club Development Committee Bill Lilly provided the BOD with a report recommending the development of a Master's Championship. A working group that was formed to address this issue made the following recommendations: A. Two masters classifications: Masters (40-49 years) and Veteran (50+ years). This would be a change from the current age groups listed in the Coaches Education program. B. The Masters Championship is a part of the single National Championship events that includes Juniors, Seniors, and Masters. C. The distances and event formats should be the same as the senior class. D. The site of the National Championships should be rotated. E. The National Championship should be held toward the end of the season. These recommendations do not require BOD approval." I believe some of this was officially changed in 2008 (e.g. to add the 30 - 39 age group etc., age appropriate courses, etc.) My criticisms of the Masters organization for 2010 are: 1) For this upcoming year of 2010, the rumored Masters Championships location will be again at Ft. Kent. This contradicts item D. But it is consistent with item B. As a result, I have heard a number of local masters lean towards opting out of the trip to Maine again in 2010. Ft Kent may be the best venue in the USA, however the feedback which I received said that Masters would prefer to race at more varied, and secondly, closer and more accessible venues. Fort Kent is, indeed, a bitch to get to. 2) The Jury Committee's decision regarding Masters course length left a sufficiently unpleasant impression which may result in even lower Masters participation levels than the downward trending 2008-2009 numbers, when coupled with item 1. I would hope, but am not convinced, that the Masters Coordinator would have some influence in this matter. I don't know about this. I only know that you and Piotr sent out e-mails asking for background and guidance which I provided. I think this kind of issue clearly shows the need for a Masters Coordinator (and maybe an assistant) be assigned to every champs. 3) I believe L.Chouinard's report statement that "One of the challenges we discussed last year was that we didn't want the Masters Championships to become a "Regional Championships" based on location. As you can see from the attached spreadsheet, I estimate that 78% of the competitors "flew in", up from 56% in 2008." is overly rosy since it wasn't the lack of 'fly-ins' but rather the lack of east coast participants that made the numbers seem to support long travel times to the competition. It was a de-facto western USA regional Championship in spite of the location. Yep, I think location will have a large impact on turn out. 4) Additionally, the Masters Committee was to discuss the following issues resulting from the 2009 Masters Championships, but no discussion has been held, yet. (statements of fact, and my comments based on CO and WA feedback): a) standardize Masters courses on senior womens courses. ( originally proposed and mentioned in L.Chouinard's report above. Overidden by the Jury Committee in Ft. Kent in 2009, over the objections of the majority of Masters competing and present at the Coaches Meeting). b) reinforce Masters age classification ( corrected mid-event in 2009, and mentioned in L.Choinard's report above). My hope is that by emphasizing these issues in this year's report that they are not an issue in the future. c) advocate for more advanced notice for masters courses and venues for US Masters Championships. (so far everyone 'assumes' it is in Ft. Kent but no official announcement has been made. Masters need to do advance planning around the rest of their life, unlike full-time dedicated athletes.) d) fewer surprises and local autonomous decision making. (The 2009 event details were not specified until very late. Masters courses were decided upon at the event.) Ditto e) encourage participation of more masters from more areas than just CO & WA. East coast representation was surprisingly low.( addressed in L.Chouinard's Closing Comments of his report) I really need to jack up the MN team as well. f) obtain input from all regions and from the masters most likely to participate. (no action on this point in 2009). 5) The World Masters Winter Games in Bled, Slovenia, is siphoning off the majority of possible CO participants to Ft. Kent in 2010 due to a repeat venue, long travel times to Ft Kent, and limited travel resources. I haven't been to a WMWGs before. If you are going, perhaps you could be a "cheerleader" for getting US participation. 6) I propose that the US Masters Championships be held in (order of preference) West Yellowstone MT, AK, MN, Lake Placid, Jericho, another East Coast venue. A WY venue would generate a large number of CO attendees. If necessary, hold it separately from the US National Championships. This is a tough one. I'll talk with Piotr and see what he thinks. Sincerely, Bill Quinlan Colorado Biathlon Club PS - I am more than willing to have a number of these issues be openly discussed with the Master's Committee. Feel free to fire off an e-mail. If necessary, I'll forward it to everyone. Lou Chouinard wrote: To all - At long last I found the time to complete the 2009 report. I'm sorry for the delay. I'm completely overbooked and just reeling from deadline to deadline:-( Since I wasn't actually at the Champs, I relied on information from a number of sources. Please feel free to get back to me with any changes, comments, suggestions, etc. Lou No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.7/2422 - Release Date: 10/08/09 06:39:00 _______________________________________________ Masters mailing list Masters at biathlonusa.com http://www.biathlonusa.com/mailman/listinfo/masters No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.25/2450 - Release Date: 10/21/09 16:44:00 From collinsja at me.com Fri Oct 23 11:51:19 2009 From: collinsja at me.com (collinsja at me.com) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:51:19 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [Masters] FW: FW: 2009 Report (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:12:28 -0400 From: Kevin Brooker Subject: Re: FW: [Masters] FW: 2009 Report (fwd) Hello All, After reading the email regarding a Master?s National Championships, there appears to be two main gripes. The first being race distance; the second being location. With the open-ended ?run with it? support from USBA it appears we have the ability to control our own destiny. If we can distill a set of guidelines into a one-page document to be added to the racing rules we will have made a contribution to the sport and our enjoyment of it. The race distances are (should be) simple. So far, it appears the Masters would accept race distances and courses the same as the elite women. Does this hold true for both master genders? Let?s decide what they will be and write them up. I?m certain race promoters will be overjoyed by having guidelines which will eliminate any grousing on this subject during pre-race meetings. If we designate categories and distances the promoters can insert this into the race plans. As a group we should also be willing to offer commentary after the event is complete with the intent of making everyone?s race experience better. The race location is another headache altogether. I believe the National championships should all be run together at the same location. Even though the Masters are a large percentage of the participants we have very little financial value to USBA as a whole. We do not generate sponsorship dollars but our entry fees do help offset the cost of hosting an event. Having said this, the Nationals will go on with or without the Masters contingent. Any threat of hosting our own champs at a separate venue is pretty lightweight. The costs (cash and labor) for running an event with 300 does not incur a ten fold increase over 30 participants. Unless the masters group has the cash to support a separate event we will need very high entry fees or sponsors. We still require a large event staff to run the race. Right now, the logistics of splitting off the Nationals and enjoying a world class event are too large. Very often the location of the Nationals is determined by who bids for the race. If no venue besides Ft. Kent put in a bid for the champs, the event returns to Ft. Kent. This can happen in perpetuity if there are no other suitors submitting bids. If we want the champs to be held in West Yellowstone or elsewhere, then we, the Masters group, better make the effort to pitch in and win the bid. I agree Ft. Kent is an inconvenient venue for travel. I drive there from Vermont and the trip takes 9 hours depending on the border hassles since I cut through Canada. Its a shorter drive than remaining state side. Flying to Mt. Itasca took the same amount of time as driving to northern Maine. If I must fly to an event the costs are not too much different between venues. I enjoy racing at different places around the country and would like to see the venue move around. In order for the Masters to be taken more seriously we must take control of our destiny. We must become involved. If we wait for USBA to include us, we are doomed to remain ?second class citizens.? When we are active, we lead by example and have only ourselves to blame if we have no fun. When the Masters have become a significant positive voice of biathlon racing in the US and North America, we will have more ability to steer what happens. If we just complain we will be treated as spoiled brats. To accomplish credibility the Masters should become recognized as an affiliate group within USBA. This recognition will give us a legitimate and officially recognized voice. Let?s keep it simple. If you?re old enough to be included in the Masters age group, your automatically a member. We meet at each nationals, drink beer and discuss the past years success and areas in need of improvement. Any raging debates should be settled prior to the meeting so we have more of a reunion than anything else. As stated above, we should put together a document specific to Masters for inclusion into the race director?s guidelines and be willing to answer questions this will generate. We should also be grateful Masters are included as separate classes. I?ve promoted enough racing events to know I don?t want to do it anymore. I want to race but don?t mind adding in a bit as assistance if my efforts will help build better events. Enough of my diatribe. What are race distances we would like to see included at biathlon events held in the US? Thanks, Kevin Brooker On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Lou Chouinard wrote: > To all - > > I have forwarded some interesting comments from Julia. > > I would like to make it clear that USBA in general and Max Cobb in > particular are very supportive of Masters. However, with their limited > resources, they have asked that we "run with the ball" and do all the leg > work to make things happen. > > When we average about 30% of the competitors at the Champs, we are, indeed, > a major part of the event. > > In 2008, I acted as both the National Masters Rep and the Local Masters Rep > (with help from Piotr Bednarski and Tony Carter). In 2009, in large part > due to my not being available, we had neither. Both are important to > making > things run well for Masters. > > It is going to take some time to get all this working smoothly. We'll have > a few bumps in the road. However, I'm convinced that a large Masters > population participating in biathlon races will be very good for the sport. > > Lou > > -----Original Message----- > From: masters-bounces at biathlonusa.com > [mailto:masters-bounces at biathlonusa.com] On Behalf Of collinsja at me.com > Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:09 PM > To: masters at biathlonusa.com > Subject: [Masters] FW: 2009 Report (fwd) > > A followup conversation on the Masters report. Here are my comments to add > to Bill and Lou's: > > - Re: Masters Championship location: According to my event T-shirt (and my > memory), the 2008 Masters Championships were part of the *North American* > Championships, not the US Senior Champs. I think this is a reasonable, > and maybe even preferable, association. Building the Canadian Masters > community along with our own would increase the potential event sizes. > Whether we want to jump to a North American Masters Championship in > addition to (or instead of) US and Canadian Masters Champs, I don't know. > > - I haven't been to Fort Kent, so I can't comment on whether it's the best > venue in the US, but to me the best venue is the one I -- and the > majority of my fellow competitors -- can get to economically and > efficiently. Mt Itasca and West Yellowstone are close second and third > places on my list because they are as centrally located for US > competitors as we're going to get (Mt. Itasca) and have reliable snow > (either courtesy of Mother Nature at West Yellowstone or courtesy of > snow making at Mt Itasca). > > - Based on my observation of events in 2008, and reports from 2009, I have > little confidence that the Masters community will ever rise above second > class citizen rank in the eyes of the USBA. I would like the National > Governing Body to recognize our championships, so I support working with > the USBA to generate some guidelines that ensure a quality event. I would > like the USBA to have a very *minimal* impact on the Masters > Championships, > however, unless they can commit to attending to some of Bill and Lou's > comments below. Not having standardized courses or age groups well in > advance of a national event (let alone for the rest of the season) speaks > volumes about the USBA's attitude. Why should we need to follow the > schedule and location for the Junior/Senior championships when the > Masters events will be an afterthought? It may be better for the biathlon > Masters community to align themselves with the AXCS Masters Championships > when the venues support it. What better way to expose (and possibly > recruit) hundreds of already committed nordic skiers than by putting on > a biathlon event in the same spectator zone as the AXCS National Masters > event? :-) > > Julia > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:22:46 -0500 > From: Lou Chouinard > Subject: FW: 2009 Report > > To all - > > > > Bill Quinlan and I have been having an e-mail discussion about Masters > Biathlon and the 2010 Championships. > > > > Since biathlon Masters are such a small group, we thought it might be > constructive to send out the discussion below to see if anyone wants to > comment. > > > > Please note that both Bill and I only want to make the sport stronger and > better while growing the number of Masters competitors. > > > > Lou > > > > _____ > > From: Lou Chouinard [mailto:l_chouinard at visi.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:03 PM > To: 'quinlan at comcast.net' > Subject: RE: 2009 Report > > > > Bill - > > > > Please take a look at my comments below. > > > > _____ > > From: Bill Quinlan [mailto:quinlan at comcast.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:17 PM > To: Lou Chouinard > Subject: Re: 2009 Report > > > > Lou, > I wanted to run this by you. I know you were very busy this past year and > i > appreciate all your efforts. > > All, > Lou, thank you very much for your work on behalf of the Masters and the > Master Committee, and for being the main interface to the USBA in this > matter. > > In Bill Lilly's report of the recommendations of the Masters Committee in > 2008-9, it was entered into the USBA Board Of Directors May 07 2007 minutes > that: > "XIV. Club Development Committee > Bill Lilly provided the BOD with a report recommending the development of a > Master's Championship. A working group that was formed to address this > issue > made > the following recommendations: > A. Two masters classifications: Masters (40-49 years) and Veteran (50+ > years). This would be a change from the current age groups listed in > the Coaches Education program. > B. The Masters Championship is a part of the single National > Championship events that includes Juniors, Seniors, and Masters. > C. The distances and event formats should be the same as the senior > class. > D. The site of the National Championships should be rotated. > E. The National Championship should be held toward the end of the > season. > These recommendations do not require BOD approval." > > > > I believe some of this was officially changed in 2008 (e.g. to add the 30 - > 39 age group etc., age appropriate courses, etc.) > > > > My criticisms of the Masters organization for 2010 are: > 1) For this upcoming year of 2010, the rumored Masters Championships > location will be again at Ft. Kent. This contradicts item D. > > > > But it is consistent with item B. > > > > As a result, I have heard a number of local masters lean towards opting out > of the trip to Maine again in 2010. Ft Kent may be the best venue in the > USA, however the feedback which I received said that Masters would prefer > to > race at more varied, and secondly, closer and more accessible venues. > > > > Fort Kent is, indeed, a bitch to get to. > > 2) The Jury Committee's decision regarding Masters course length left a > sufficiently unpleasant impression which may result in even lower Masters > participation levels than the downward trending 2008-2009 numbers, when > coupled with item 1. I would hope, but am not convinced, that the Masters > Coordinator would have some influence in this matter. > > > > I don't know about this. I only know that you and Piotr sent out e-mails > asking for background and guidance which I provided. I think this kind of > issue clearly shows the need for a Masters Coordinator (and maybe an > assistant) be assigned to every champs. > > > 3) I believe L.Chouinard's report statement that "One of the challenges we > discussed last year was that we didn't want the Masters Championships to > become a "Regional Championships" based on location. As you can see from > the attached spreadsheet, I estimate that 78% of the competitors "flew in", > up from 56% in 2008." is overly rosy since it wasn't the lack of 'fly-ins' > but rather the lack of east coast participants that made the numbers seem > to > support long travel times to the competition. It was a de-facto western > USA > regional Championship in spite of the location. > > > > Yep, I think location will have a large impact on turn out. > > 4) Additionally, the Masters Committee was to discuss the following issues > resulting from the 2009 Masters Championships, but no discussion has been > held, yet. (statements of fact, and my comments based on CO and WA > feedback): > a) standardize Masters courses on senior womens courses. ( originally > proposed and mentioned in L.Chouinard's report above. Overidden by the > Jury > Committee in Ft. Kent in 2009, over the objections of the majority of > Masters competing and present at the Coaches Meeting). > b) reinforce Masters age classification ( corrected mid-event in 2009, > and mentioned in L.Choinard's report above). > > > > My hope is that by emphasizing these issues in this year's > report that they are not an issue in the future. > > > c) advocate for more advanced notice for masters courses and venues for > US Masters Championships. (so far everyone 'assumes' it is in Ft. Kent > but > no official announcement has been made. Masters need to do advance > planning > around the rest of their life, unlike full-time dedicated athletes.) > d) fewer surprises and local autonomous decision making. (The 2009 event > details were not specified until very late. Masters courses were decided > upon at the event.) > > > > Ditto > > > e) encourage participation of more masters from more areas than just CO > & WA. East coast representation was surprisingly low.( addressed in > L.Chouinard's Closing Comments of his report) > > > > I really need to jack up the MN team as well. > > > f) obtain input from all regions and from the masters most likely to > participate. (no action on this point in 2009). > > 5) The World Masters Winter Games in Bled, Slovenia, is siphoning off the > majority of possible CO participants to Ft. Kent in 2010 due to a repeat > venue, long travel times to Ft Kent, and limited travel resources. > > > > I haven't been to a WMWGs before. If you are going, perhaps you > could be a "cheerleader" for getting US participation. > > > > 6) I propose that the US Masters Championships be held in (order of > preference) West Yellowstone MT, AK, MN, Lake Placid, Jericho, another East > Coast venue. A WY venue would generate a large number of CO attendees. If > necessary, hold it separately from the US National Championships. > > > > This is a tough one. I'll talk with Piotr and see what he > thinks. > > > > Sincerely, > Bill Quinlan > Colorado Biathlon Club > > > > PS - I am more than willing to have a number of these issues be > openly discussed with the Master's Committee. Feel free to fire off an > e-mail. If necessary, I'll forward it to everyone. > > > > > Lou Chouinard wrote: > > To all - > > > > At long last I found the time to complete the 2009 report. I'm sorry for > the delay. I'm completely overbooked and just reeling from deadline to > deadline:-( > > > > Since I wasn't actually at the Champs, I relied on information from a > number > of sources. > > > > Please feel free to get back to me with any changes, comments, suggestions, > etc. > > > > Lou > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.7/2422 - Release Date: 10/08/09 > 06:39:00 > > > _______________________________________________ > Masters mailing list > Masters at biathlonusa.com > http://www.biathlonusa.com/mailman/listinfo/masters > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.25/2450 - Release Date: 10/21/09 > 16:44:00 > > From collinsja at me.com Fri Oct 23 11:51:41 2009 From: collinsja at me.com (collinsja at me.com) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:51:41 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [Masters] FW: FW: 2009 Report (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:05:06 -0500 From: Lou Chouinard Subject: RE: FW: [Masters] FW: 2009 Report (fwd) We have pretty much settled on - Masters Men race Senior Women's courses Masters Women race Youth Women's courses However, the Masters Coordinator and the local organizing committee can, if necessary to make the courses "age appropriate", change these course designations. Lou _____ From: Kevin Brooker [mailto:kevin6q at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 8:12 AM To: Lou Chouinard Cc: Bill Lilly; Bill Quinlan; Ed Soto; Jay Bender; Julia Collins; Marc Sheppard; Nancy Thibodeau; Piotr Bednarski; Seth Downs Subject: Re: FW: [Masters] FW: 2009 Report (fwd) Hello All, After reading the email regarding a Masters National Championships, there appears to be two main gripes. The first being race distance; the second being location. With the open-ended run with it support from USBA it appears we have the ability to control our own destiny. If we can distill a set of guidelines into a one-page document to be added to the racing rules we will have made a contribution to the sport and our enjoyment of it. The race distances are (should be) simple. So far, it appears the Masters would accept race distances and courses the same as the elite women. Does this hold true for both master genders? Lets decide what they will be and write them up. Im certain race promoters will be overjoyed by having guidelines which will eliminate any grousing on this subject during pre-race meetings. If we designate categories and distances the promoters can insert this into the race plans. As a group we should also be willing to offer commentary after the event is complete with the intent of making everyones race experience better. The race location is another headache altogether. I believe the National championships should all be run together at the same location. Even though the Masters are a large percentage of the participants we have very little financial value to USBA as a whole. We do not generate sponsorship dollars but our entry fees do help offset the cost of hosting an event. Having said this, the Nationals will go on with or without the Masters contingent. Any threat of hosting our own champs at a separate venue is pretty lightweight. The costs (cash and labor) for running an event with 300 does not incur a ten fold increase over 30 participants. Unless the masters group has the cash to support a separate event we will need very high entry fees or sponsors. We still require a large event staff to run the race. Right now, the logistics of splitting off the Nationals and enjoying a world class event are too large. Very often the location of the Nationals is determined by who bids for the race. If no venue besides Ft. Kent put in a bid for the champs, the event returns to Ft. Kent. This can happen in perpetuity if there are no other suitors submitting bids. If we want the champs to be held in West Yellowstone or elsewhere, then we, the Masters group, better make the effort to pitch in and win the bid. I agree Ft. Kent is an inconvenient venue for travel. I drive there from Vermont and the trip takes 9 hours depending on the border hassles since I cut through Canada. Its a shorter drive than remaining state side. Flying to Mt. Itasca took the same amount of time as driving to northern Maine. If I must fly to an event the costs are not too much different between venues. I enjoy racing at different places around the country and would like to see the venue move around. In order for the Masters to be taken more seriously we must take control of our destiny. We must become involved. If we wait for USBA to include us, we are doomed to remain second class citizens. When we are active, we lead by example and have only ourselves to blame if we have no fun. When the Masters have become a significant positive voice of biathlon racing in the US and North America, we will have more ability to steer what happens. If we just complain we will be treated as spoiled brats. To accomplish credibility the Masters should become recognized as an affiliate group within USBA. This recognition will give us a legitimate and officially recognized voice. Lets keep it simple. If youre old enough to be included in the Masters age group, your automatically a member. We meet at each nationals, drink beer and discuss the past years success and areas in need of improvement. Any raging debates should be settled prior to the meeting so we have more of a reunion than anything else. As stated above, we should put together a document specific to Masters for inclusion into the race directors guidelines and be willing to answer questions this will generate. We should also be grateful Masters are included as separate classes. Ive promoted enough racing events to know I dont want to do it anymore. I want to race but dont mind adding in a bit as assistance if my efforts will help build better events. Enough of my diatribe. What are race distances we would like to see included at biathlon events held in the US? Thanks, Kevin Brooker On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Lou Chouinard wrote: To all - I have forwarded some interesting comments from Julia. I would like to make it clear that USBA in general and Max Cobb in particular are very supportive of Masters. However, with their limited resources, they have asked that we "run with the ball" and do all the leg work to make things happen. When we average about 30% of the competitors at the Champs, we are, indeed, a major part of the event. In 2008, I acted as both the National Masters Rep and the Local Masters Rep (with help from Piotr Bednarski and Tony Carter). In 2009, in large part due to my not being available, we had neither. Both are important to making things run well for Masters. It is going to take some time to get all this working smoothly. We'll have a few bumps in the road. However, I'm convinced that a large Masters population participating in biathlon races will be very good for the sport. Lou -----Original Message----- From: masters-bounces at biathlonusa.com [mailto:masters-bounces at biathlonusa.com] On Behalf Of collinsja at me.com Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:09 PM To: masters at biathlonusa.com Subject: [Masters] FW: 2009 Report (fwd) A followup conversation on the Masters report. Here are my comments to add to Bill and Lou's: - Re: Masters Championship location: According to my event T-shirt (and my memory), the 2008 Masters Championships were part of the *North American* Championships, not the US Senior Champs. I think this is a reasonable, and maybe even preferable, association. Building the Canadian Masters community along with our own would increase the potential event sizes. Whether we want to jump to a North American Masters Championship in addition to (or instead of) US and Canadian Masters Champs, I don't know. - I haven't been to Fort Kent, so I can't comment on whether it's the best venue in the US, but to me the best venue is the one I -- and the majority of my fellow competitors -- can get to economically and efficiently. Mt Itasca and West Yellowstone are close second and third places on my list because they are as centrally located for US competitors as we're going to get (Mt. Itasca) and have reliable snow (either courtesy of Mother Nature at West Yellowstone or courtesy of snow making at Mt Itasca). - Based on my observation of events in 2008, and reports from 2009, I have little confidence that the Masters community will ever rise above second class citizen rank in the eyes of the USBA. I would like the National Governing Body to recognize our championships, so I support working with the USBA to generate some guidelines that ensure a quality event. I would like the USBA to have a very *minimal* impact on the Masters Championships, however, unless they can commit to attending to some of Bill and Lou's comments below. Not having standardized courses or age groups well in advance of a national event (let alone for the rest of the season) speaks volumes about the USBA's attitude. Why should we need to follow the schedule and location for the Junior/Senior championships when the Masters events will be an afterthought? It may be better for the biathlon Masters community to align themselves with the AXCS Masters Championships when the venues support it. What better way to expose (and possibly recruit) hundreds of already committed nordic skiers than by putting on a biathlon event in the same spectator zone as the AXCS National Masters event? :-) Julia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:22:46 -0500 From: Lou Chouinard Subject: FW: 2009 Report To all - Bill Quinlan and I have been having an e-mail discussion about Masters Biathlon and the 2010 Championships. Since biathlon Masters are such a small group, we thought it might be constructive to send out the discussion below to see if anyone wants to comment. Please note that both Bill and I only want to make the sport stronger and better while growing the number of Masters competitors. Lou _____ From: Lou Chouinard [mailto:l_chouinard at visi.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:03 PM To: 'quinlan at comcast.net' Subject: RE: 2009 Report Bill - Please take a look at my comments below. _____ From: Bill Quinlan [mailto:quinlan at comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:17 PM To: Lou Chouinard Subject: Re: 2009 Report Lou, I wanted to run this by you. I know you were very busy this past year and i appreciate all your efforts. All, Lou, thank you very much for your work on behalf of the Masters and the Master Committee, and for being the main interface to the USBA in this matter. In Bill Lilly's report of the recommendations of the Masters Committee in 2008-9, it was entered into the USBA Board Of Directors May 07 2007 minutes that: "XIV. Club Development Committee Bill Lilly provided the BOD with a report recommending the development of a Master's Championship. A working group that was formed to address this issue made the following recommendations: A. Two masters classifications: Masters (40-49 years) and Veteran (50+ years). This would be a change from the current age groups listed in the Coaches Education program. B. The Masters Championship is a part of the single National Championship events that includes Juniors, Seniors, and Masters. C. The distances and event formats should be the same as the senior class. D. The site of the National Championships should be rotated. E. The National Championship should be held toward the end of the season. These recommendations do not require BOD approval." I believe some of this was officially changed in 2008 (e.g. to add the 30 - 39 age group etc., age appropriate courses, etc.) My criticisms of the Masters organization for 2010 are: 1) For this upcoming year of 2010, the rumored Masters Championships location will be again at Ft. Kent. This contradicts item D. But it is consistent with item B. As a result, I have heard a number of local masters lean towards opting out of the trip to Maine again in 2010. Ft Kent may be the best venue in the USA, however the feedback which I received said that Masters would prefer to race at more varied, and secondly, closer and more accessible venues. Fort Kent is, indeed, a bitch to get to. 2) The Jury Committee's decision regarding Masters course length left a sufficiently unpleasant impression which may result in even lower Masters participation levels than the downward trending 2008-2009 numbers, when coupled with item 1. I would hope, but am not convinced, that the Masters Coordinator would have some influence in this matter. I don't know about this. I only know that you and Piotr sent out e-mails asking for background and guidance which I provided. I think this kind of issue clearly shows the need for a Masters Coordinator (and maybe an assistant) be assigned to every champs. 3) I believe L.Chouinard's report statement that "One of the challenges we discussed last year was that we didn't want the Masters Championships to become a "Regional Championships" based on location. As you can see from the attached spreadsheet, I estimate that 78% of the competitors "flew in", up from 56% in 2008." is overly rosy since it wasn't the lack of 'fly-ins' but rather the lack of east coast participants that made the numbers seem to support long travel times to the competition. It was a de-facto western USA regional Championship in spite of the location. Yep, I think location will have a large impact on turn out. 4) Additionally, the Masters Committee was to discuss the following issues resulting from the 2009 Masters Championships, but no discussion has been held, yet. (statements of fact, and my comments based on CO and WA feedback): a) standardize Masters courses on senior womens courses. ( originally proposed and mentioned in L.Chouinard's report above. Overidden by the Jury Committee in Ft. Kent in 2009, over the objections of the majority of Masters competing and present at the Coaches Meeting). b) reinforce Masters age classification ( corrected mid-event in 2009, and mentioned in L.Choinard's report above). My hope is that by emphasizing these issues in this year's report that they are not an issue in the future. c) advocate for more advanced notice for masters courses and venues for US Masters Championships. (so far everyone 'assumes' it is in Ft. Kent but no official announcement has been made. Masters need to do advance planning around the rest of their life, unlike full-time dedicated athletes.) d) fewer surprises and local autonomous decision making. (The 2009 event details were not specified until very late. Masters courses were decided upon at the event.) Ditto e) encourage participation of more masters from more areas than just CO & WA. East coast representation was surprisingly low.( addressed in L.Chouinard's Closing Comments of his report) I really need to jack up the MN team as well. f) obtain input from all regions and from the masters most likely to participate. (no action on this point in 2009). 5) The World Masters Winter Games in Bled, Slovenia, is siphoning off the majority of possible CO participants to Ft. Kent in 2010 due to a repeat venue, long travel times to Ft Kent, and limited travel resources. I haven't been to a WMWGs before. If you are going, perhaps you could be a "cheerleader" for getting US participation. 6) I propose that the US Masters Championships be held in (order of preference) West Yellowstone MT, AK, MN, Lake Placid, Jericho, another East Coast venue. A WY venue would generate a large number of CO attendees. If necessary, hold it separately from the US National Championships. This is a tough one. I'll talk with Piotr and see what he thinks. Sincerely, Bill Quinlan Colorado Biathlon Club PS - I am more than willing to have a number of these issues be openly discussed with the Master's Committee. Feel free to fire off an e-mail. If necessary, I'll forward it to everyone. Lou Chouinard wrote: To all - At long last I found the time to complete the 2009 report. I'm sorry for the delay. I'm completely overbooked and just reeling from deadline to deadline:-( Since I wasn't actually at the Champs, I relied on information from a number of sources. Please feel free to get back to me with any changes, comments, suggestions, etc. Lou No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.7/2422 - Release Date: 10/08/09 06:39:00 _______________________________________________ Masters mailing list Masters at biathlonusa.com http://www.biathlonusa.com/mailman/listinfo/masters No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.25/2450 - Release Date: 10/21/09 16:44:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.27/2453 - Release Date: 10/23/09 06:56:00 From collinsja at me.com Fri Oct 23 11:52:01 2009 From: collinsja at me.com (collinsja at me.com) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:52:01 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [Masters] FW: FW: 2009 Report (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:46:28 -0400 From: Kevin Brooker Subject: Re: FW: [Masters] FW: 2009 Report (fwd) Let's agree these distances are the defaults. The rub is with "age appropriate" changes. Who makes the call? A Master's designee or the race organizer? Let's not leave it up to chance. What I feel is age appropriate might not wash and we have the same disappointments felt in Ft. Kent. For now, it might be simpler to skip any interpretations and go with already accepted race course settings by utilizing the senior and youth women's distances. Any attendee to the nationals is a decent athlete and should be capable of racing these courses. On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Lou Chouinard wrote: > We have pretty much settled on ? > > > > Masters Men race Senior Women?s courses > > Masters Women race Youth Women?s courses > > > > However, the Masters Coordinator and the local organizing committee can, if > necessary to make the courses ?age appropriate?, change these course > designations. > > > > Lou > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Kevin Brooker [mailto:kevin6q at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, October 23, 2009 8:12 AM > *To:* Lou Chouinard > *Cc:* Bill Lilly; Bill Quinlan; Ed Soto; Jay Bender; Julia Collins; Marc > Sheppard; Nancy Thibodeau; Piotr Bednarski; Seth Downs > *Subject:* Re: FW: [Masters] FW: 2009 Report (fwd) > > > > Hello All, > > After reading the email regarding a Masters National Championships, there > appears to be two main gripes. The first being race distance; the second > being location. With the open-ended run with it support from USBA it appears > we have the ability to control our own destiny. If we can distill a set of > guidelines into a one-page document to be added to the racing rules we will > have made a contribution to the sport and our enjoyment of it. > > The race distances are (should be) simple. So far, it appears the Masters > would accept race distances and courses the same as the elite women. Does > this hold true for both master genders? Lets decide what they will be and > write them up. Im certain race promoters will be overjoyed by having > guidelines which will eliminate any grousing on this subject during pre-race > meetings. > > If we designate categories and distances the promoters can insert this into > the race plans. As a group we should also be willing to offer commentary > after the event is complete with the intent of making everyones race > experience better. > > The race location is another headache altogether. I believe the National > championships should all be run together at the same location. Even though > the Masters are a large percentage of the participants we have very little > financial value to USBA as a whole. We do not generate sponsorship dollars > but our entry fees do help offset the cost of hosting an event. Having said > this, the Nationals will go on with or without the Masters contingent. Any > threat of hosting our own champs at a separate venue is pretty lightweight. > > The costs (cash and labor) for running an event with 300 does not incur a > ten fold increase over 30 participants. Unless the masters group has the > cash to support a separate event we will need very high entry fees or > sponsors. We still require a large event staff to run the race. Right now, > the logistics of splitting off the Nationals and enjoying a world class > event are too large. > > Very often the location of the Nationals is determined by who bids for the > race. If no venue besides Ft. Kent put in a bid for the champs, the event > returns to Ft. Kent. This can happen in perpetuity if there are no other > suitors submitting bids. If we want the champs to be held in West > Yellowstone or elsewhere, then we, the Masters group, better make the effort > to pitch in and win the bid. > > I agree Ft. Kent is an inconvenient venue for travel. I drive there from > Vermont and the trip takes 9 hours depending on the border hassles since I > cut through Canada. Its a shorter drive than remaining state side. Flying to > Mt. Itasca took the same amount of time as driving to northern Maine. If I > must fly to an event the costs are not too much different between venues. I > enjoy racing at different places around the country and would like to see > the venue move around. > > In order for the Masters to be taken more seriously we must take control of > our destiny. We must become involved. If we wait for USBA to include us, we > are doomed to remain second class citizens. When we are active, we lead by > example and have only ourselves to blame if we have no fun. When the Masters > have become a significant positive voice of biathlon racing in the US and > North America, we will have more ability to steer what happens. If we just > complain we will be treated as spoiled brats. > > To accomplish credibility the Masters should become recognized as an > affiliate group within USBA. This recognition will give us a legitimate and > officially recognized voice. Lets keep it simple. If youre old enough to be > included in the Masters age group, your automatically a member. We meet at > each nationals, drink beer and discuss the past years success and areas in > need of improvement. Any raging debates should be settled prior to the > meeting so we have more of a reunion than anything else. > > As stated above, we should put together a document specific to Masters for > inclusion into the race directors guidelines and be willing to answer > questions this will generate. > > We should also be grateful Masters are included as separate classes. Ive > promoted enough racing events to know I dont want to do it anymore. I want > to race but dont mind adding in a bit as assistance if my efforts will help > build better events. > > Enough of my diatribe. > > What are race distances we would like to see included at biathlon events > held in the US? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Kevin Brooker > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Lou Chouinard > wrote: > > To all - > > I have forwarded some interesting comments from Julia. > > I would like to make it clear that USBA in general and Max Cobb in > particular are very supportive of Masters. However, with their limited > resources, they have asked that we "run with the ball" and do all the leg > work to make things happen. > > When we average about 30% of the competitors at the Champs, we are, indeed, > a major part of the event. > > In 2008, I acted as both the National Masters Rep and the Local Masters Rep > (with help from Piotr Bednarski and Tony Carter). In 2009, in large part > due to my not being available, we had neither. Both are important to making > things run well for Masters. > > It is going to take some time to get all this working smoothly. We'll have > a few bumps in the road. However, I'm convinced that a large Masters > population participating in biathlon races will be very good for the sport. > > Lou > > -----Original Message----- > From: masters-bounces at biathlonusa.com > [mailto:masters-bounces at biathlonusa.com] On Behalf Of collinsja at me.com > Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:09 PM > To: masters at biathlonusa.com > Subject: [Masters] FW: 2009 Report (fwd) > > A followup conversation on the Masters report. Here are my comments to add > to Bill and Lou's: > > - Re: Masters Championship location: According to my event T-shirt (and my > memory), the 2008 Masters Championships were part of the *North American* > Championships, not the US Senior Champs. I think this is a reasonable, > and maybe even preferable, association. Building the Canadian Masters > community along with our own would increase the potential event sizes. > Whether we want to jump to a North American Masters Championship in > addition to (or instead of) US and Canadian Masters Champs, I don't know. > > - I haven't been to Fort Kent, so I can't comment on whether it's the best > venue in the US, but to me the best venue is the one I -- and the > majority of my fellow competitors -- can get to economically and > efficiently. Mt Itasca and West Yellowstone are close second and third > places on my list because they are as centrally located for US > competitors as we're going to get (Mt. Itasca) and have reliable snow > (either courtesy of Mother Nature at West Yellowstone or courtesy of > snow making at Mt Itasca). > > - Based on my observation of events in 2008, and reports from 2009, I have > little confidence that the Masters community will ever rise above second > class citizen rank in the eyes of the USBA. I would like the National > Governing Body to recognize our championships, so I support working with > the USBA to generate some guidelines that ensure a quality event. I would > like the USBA to have a very *minimal* impact on the Masters > Championships, > however, unless they can commit to attending to some of Bill and Lou's > comments below. Not having standardized courses or age groups well in > advance of a national event (let alone for the rest of the season) speaks > volumes about the USBA's attitude. Why should we need to follow the > schedule and location for the Junior/Senior championships when the > Masters events will be an afterthought? It may be better for the biathlon > Masters community to align themselves with the AXCS Masters Championships > when the venues support it. What better way to expose (and possibly > recruit) hundreds of already committed nordic skiers than by putting on > a biathlon event in the same spectator zone as the AXCS National Masters > event? :-) > > Julia > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:22:46 -0500 > From: Lou Chouinard > Subject: FW: 2009 Report > > To all - > > > > Bill Quinlan and I have been having an e-mail discussion about Masters > Biathlon and the 2010 Championships. > > > > Since biathlon Masters are such a small group, we thought it might be > constructive to send out the discussion below to see if anyone wants to > comment. > > > > Please note that both Bill and I only want to make the sport stronger and > better while growing the number of Masters competitors. > > > > Lou > > > > _____ > > From: Lou Chouinard [mailto:l_chouinard at visi.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:03 PM > To: 'quinlan at comcast.net' > Subject: RE: 2009 Report > > > > Bill - > > > > Please take a look at my comments below. > > > > _____ > > From: Bill Quinlan [mailto:quinlan at comcast.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:17 PM > To: Lou Chouinard > Subject: Re: 2009 Report > > > > Lou, > I wanted to run this by you. I know you were very busy this past year and i > appreciate all your efforts. > > All, > Lou, thank you very much for your work on behalf of the Masters and the > Master Committee, and for being the main interface to the USBA in this > matter. > > In Bill Lilly's report of the recommendations of the Masters Committee in > 2008-9, it was entered into the USBA Board Of Directors May 07 2007 minutes > that: > "XIV. Club Development Committee > Bill Lilly provided the BOD with a report recommending the development of a > Master's Championship. A working group that was formed to address this > issue > made > the following recommendations: > A. Two masters classifications: Masters (40-49 years) and Veteran (50+ > years). This would be a change from the current age groups listed in > the Coaches Education program. > B. The Masters Championship is a part of the single National > Championship events that includes Juniors, Seniors, and Masters. > C. The distances and event formats should be the same as the senior > class. > D. The site of the National Championships should be rotated. > E. The National Championship should be held toward the end of the > season. > These recommendations do not require BOD approval." > > > > I believe some of this was officially changed in 2008 (e.g. to add the 30 - > 39 age group etc., age appropriate courses, etc.) > > > > My criticisms of the Masters organization for 2010 are: > 1) For this upcoming year of 2010, the rumored Masters Championships > location will be again at Ft. Kent. This contradicts item D. > > > > But it is consistent with item B. > > > > As a result, I have heard a number of local masters lean towards opting out > of the trip to Maine again in 2010. Ft Kent may be the best venue in the > USA, however the feedback which I received said that Masters would prefer > to > race at more varied, and secondly, closer and more accessible venues. > > > > Fort Kent is, indeed, a bitch to get to. > > 2) The Jury Committee's decision regarding Masters course length left a > sufficiently unpleasant impression which may result in even lower Masters > participation levels than the downward trending 2008-2009 numbers, when > coupled with item 1. I would hope, but am not convinced, that the Masters > Coordinator would have some influence in this matter. > > > > I don't know about this. I only know that you and Piotr sent out e-mails > asking for background and guidance which I provided. I think this kind of > issue clearly shows the need for a Masters Coordinator (and maybe an > assistant) be assigned to every champs. > > > 3) I believe L.Chouinard's report statement that "One of the challenges we > discussed last year was that we didn't want the Masters Championships to > become a "Regional Championships" based on location. As you can see from > the attached spreadsheet, I estimate that 78% of the competitors "flew in", > up from 56% in 2008." is overly rosy since it wasn't the lack of 'fly-ins' > but rather the lack of east coast participants that made the numbers seem > to > support long travel times to the competition. It was a de-facto western USA > regional Championship in spite of the location. > > > > Yep, I think location will have a large impact on turn out. > > 4) Additionally, the Masters Committee was to discuss the following issues > resulting from the 2009 Masters Championships, but no discussion has been > held, yet. (statements of fact, and my comments based on CO and WA > feedback): > a) standardize Masters courses on senior womens courses. ( originally > proposed and mentioned in L.Chouinard's report above. Overidden by the Jury > Committee in Ft. Kent in 2009, over the objections of the majority of > Masters competing and present at the Coaches Meeting). > b) reinforce Masters age classification ( corrected mid-event in 2009, > and mentioned in L.Choinard's report above). > > > > My hope is that by emphasizing these issues in this year's > report that they are not an issue in the future. > > > c) advocate for more advanced notice for masters courses and venues for > US Masters Championships. (so far everyone 'assumes' it is in Ft. Kent but > no official announcement has been made. Masters need to do advance planning > around the rest of their life, unlike full-time dedicated athletes.) > d) fewer surprises and local autonomous decision making. (The 2009 event > details were not specified until very late. Masters courses were decided > upon at the event.) > > > > Ditto > > > e) encourage participation of more masters from more areas than just CO > & WA. East coast representation was surprisingly low.( addressed in > L.Chouinard's Closing Comments of his report) > > > > I really need to jack up the MN team as well. > > > f) obtain input from all regions and from the masters most likely to > participate. (no action on this point in 2009). > > 5) The World Masters Winter Games in Bled, Slovenia, is siphoning off the > majority of possible CO participants to Ft. Kent in 2010 due to a repeat > venue, long travel times to Ft Kent, and limited travel resources. > > > > I haven't been to a WMWGs before. If you are going, perhaps you > could be a "cheerleader" for getting US participation. > > > > 6) I propose that the US Masters Championships be held in (order of > preference) West Yellowstone MT, AK, MN, Lake Placid, Jericho, another East > Coast venue. A WY venue would generate a large number of CO attendees. If > necessary, hold it separately from the US National Championships. > > > > This is a tough one. I'll talk with Piotr and see what he > thinks. > > > > Sincerely, > Bill Quinlan > Colorado Biathlon Club > > > > PS - I am more than willing to have a number of these issues be > openly discussed with the Master's Committee. Feel free to fire off an > e-mail. If necessary, I'll forward it to everyone. > > > > > Lou Chouinard wrote: > > To all - > > > > At long last I found the time to complete the 2009 report. I'm sorry for > the delay. I'm completely overbooked and just reeling from deadline to > > deadline:-( > > > > > Since I wasn't actually at the Champs, I relied on information from a > number > of sources. > > > > Please feel free to get back to me with any changes, comments, suggestions, > etc. > > > > Lou > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.7/2422 - Release Date: 10/08/09 > 06:39:00 > > _______________________________________________ > Masters mailing list > Masters at biathlonusa.com > http://www.biathlonusa.com/mailman/listinfo/masters > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.25/2450 - Release Date: 10/21/09 > 16:44:00 > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.27/2453 - Release Date: 10/23/09 > 06:56:00 > From collinsja at me.com Fri Oct 23 11:52:59 2009 From: collinsja at me.com (collinsja at me.com) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:52:59 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [Masters] FW: FW: 2009 Report (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:50:56 -0600 From: Bill Quinlan Subject: Re: FW: [Masters] FW: 2009 Report (fwd) Yes, this 'age appropriate' course change clause was exercised over the protests of the vast majority(~80%) of the Masters present at the 2009 Ft Kent event Race Officials and Coaches Mtg one day prior to the first race. In the end the Jury and the TD decided that we got the pitifully short courses that we did. I can tell you that most of the Masters were pretty disillusioned with the organization. So basically, the courses are subject only to the whims of the 'Masters Coordinator' and the 'local organizing committee' (whatever that definition means). And even worse, at the last minute. There is no defined process for voting, appeal, arbitration, etc. And frankly Lou, you argued for a shorter course in Mt Itasca in 2008, again over some Masters protests for a official length course. And in again 2008, this was decided at the last minute at the venue and not stated in the race invitation. The masters from Colorado feel we need a hard decision, in advance at invitation time, that will not be overridden so Masters can weigh the factors and make an informed decision on whether the very expensive trip is worth the cost and effort. Even the invitation notice is too late for most masters to juggle their jobs, family, vacation schedule and commit by purchase air tickets for an unknown race experience. I would like to propose striking the 'age appropriate' modification clause. Bill Quinlan Colorado Biathlon Club Lou Chouinard wrote: We have pretty much settled on ? Masters Men race Senior Women?s courses Masters Women race Youth Women?s courses However, the Masters Coordinator and the local organizing committee can, if necessary to make the courses ?age appropriate?, change these course designations. Lou From collinsja at me.com Fri Oct 23 12:05:32 2009 From: collinsja at me.com (collinsja at me.com) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:05:32 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [Masters] FW: FW: 2009 Report (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: First, a mailing list feature reminder: you can find the archives of discussions posted to this list at: http://www.biathlonusa.com/pipermail/masters/ The archives are currently public, which means you don't have to be a member of the list to see them. Second, responding to one of Kevin's comments: > [...] Even though the Masters are a large percentage of the participants > we have very little financial value to USBA as a whole. I respectfully disagree with this statement. In my experience, competitors in the Masters category have disposable income, offspring who might become future biathletes, and a pretty high success rate in recruiting their friends from other recreational sport activities to the biathlon ranks. They are the group most likely to be able to make monetary donations (large or small) to the USBA. Masters have a *huge* financial *and* public relations value to the USBA, and the USBA's unwillingness to recognize that point is frustrating and discouraging. Julia From collinsja at me.com Fri Oct 23 12:13:23 2009 From: collinsja at me.com (collinsja at me.com) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:13:23 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [Masters] FW: FW: 2009 Report (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lou wrote re: courses: > We have pretty much settled on - > > Masters Men race Senior Women's courses > > Masters Women race Youth Women's courses > > However, the Masters Coordinator and the local organizing committee can, if > necessary to make the courses "age appropriate", change these course > designations. The "age appropriate" clause makes no sense. Do organizations adjust the distances for youth, junior and men's and women's courses to make them age appropriate? Either the distances are appropriate, or they are not. You can vary 5% +/- from those distances and still be considered to have an official distance course. I move that there be no reference to any special considerations for masters courses. Whatever applies in terms of course modifications to the other categories, should apply to the Masters category as well. This allows changes to handle issues with weather or trail conditions. Julia From collinsja at me.com Fri Oct 23 12:14:37 2009 From: collinsja at me.com (collinsja at me.com) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:14:37 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [Masters] FW: FW: 2009 Report (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Kevin wrote: > Let's agree these distances are the defaults. The rub is with "age > appropriate" changes. Who makes the call? A Master's designee or the race > organizer? Let's not leave it up to chance. What I feel is age appropriate > might not wash and we have the same disappointments felt in Ft. Kent. For > now, it might be simpler to skip any interpretations and go with already > accepted race course settings by utilizing the senior and youth women's > distances. Any attendee to the nationals is a decent athlete and should be > capable of racing these courses. Hear him, hear him. I have to get back to work now so I can afford ammunition and wax. Julia From bill at snowcafe.com Sat Oct 24 08:35:30 2009 From: bill at snowcafe.com (Bill Rode) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:35:30 -0600 Subject: [Masters] Masters, a comment on their value. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000d01ca54bf$9fa94dc0$defbe940$@com> Julia, Thanks for forwarding all these communications to us. I appreciate you speaking for me and keeping us all informed. To Kevin and USBA: I had to write a bit on this one as it really caught me and set me back in my opinion of my own involvement and commitment with biathlon and USBA. Julia points out the many reasons why we Masters are a viable and important resource for the USBA and Biathlon as a whole. I'll add these points: . In my experience and observations it is a very large Masters group that organizes, supports, schedules, and puts on most all of the races in WA, CO, MT, and Utah. . They run yearly education seminars, training venues, rifle safety classes, and actively recruit new members and youth racers. . Devote countless hours and volunteer work for range maintenance, target acquisition, range supplies, etc. . DONATE money in competitor dues, straight donations, youth competitor memberships, equipment and support. . Many of these people on race day are there before dawn and after dark. Making it all happen and trying to squeeze in a race or two themselves. . I would only guess that you derive a good part of your funding from Mfg. Sponsors? o If so, let's count how many pair of Madshus, Fishers, Rossignols, Atomic skis and Swix, Toko etc ... dollars are spent by Master racers and their families all over the country? Does not the support and money spent on the sponsor products also in turn support you? Add that up! If we are trying to expand the level of participation in biathlon and not retreat to a very small closed organization for a select few, then we need to all be equal partners in its future. If you include and respect us and recognize what we do and can bring to USBA and bring us all together a few days in the spring for meaningful championship competitions, you could probably ask us for anything. I'll look forward to that and speaking with more at anytime, Sincerely, Bill Rode 5017 Big Sky, MT -----Original Message----- From: masters-bounces at biathlonusa.com [mailto:masters-bounces at biathlonusa.com] On Behalf Of collinsja at me.com Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:06 PM To: masters at biathlonusa.com Subject: Re: [Masters] FW: FW: 2009 Report (fwd) First, a mailing list feature reminder: you can find the archives of discussions posted to this list at: http://www.biathlonusa.com/pipermail/masters/ The archives are currently public, which means you don't have to be a member of the list to see them. Second, responding to one of Kevin's comments: > [...] Even though the Masters are a large percentage of the participants > we have very little financial value to USBA as a whole. I respectfully disagree with this statement. In my experience, competitors in the Masters category have disposable income, offspring who might become future biathletes, and a pretty high success rate in recruiting their friends from other recreational sport activities to the biathlon ranks. They are the group most likely to be able to make monetary donations (large or small) to the USBA. Masters have a *huge* financial *and* public relations value to the USBA, and the USBA's unwillingness to recognize that point is frustrating and discouraging. Julia _______________________________________________ Masters mailing list Masters at biathlonusa.com http://www.biathlonusa.com/mailman/listinfo/masters -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.biathlonusa.com/pipermail/masters/attachments/20091024/feb14335/attachment.html From kevin6q at gmail.com Sat Oct 24 10:31:52 2009 From: kevin6q at gmail.com (Kevin Brooker) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:31:52 -0400 Subject: [Masters] Masters, a comment on their value. In-Reply-To: <000d01ca54bf$9fa94dc0$defbe940$@com> References: <000d01ca54bf$9fa94dc0$defbe940$@com> Message-ID: <5296422d0910241031p6c55937dpff2a525c3d89af54@mail.gmail.com> Hi Bill, What you say is correct and I should have expanded my statement to include what Julia said regarding the financial value to USBA. Here is her comment: I respectfully disagree with this statement. In my experience, competitors in the Masters category have disposable income, offspring who might become future biathletes, and a pretty high success rate in recruiting their friends from other recreational sport activities to the biathlon ranks. They are the group most likely to be able to make monetary donations (large or small) to the USBA. Masters have a *huge* financial *and* public relations value to the USBA, and the USBA's unwillingness to recognize that point is frustrating and discouraging. The last half of the last sentence is the real gem and truth. I would have been hardpressed to better display my own thoughts on the subject. The masters segment of any sport has the potential for huge impact on the activity. Until the governing body uses this to their advantage we are valueless. It is a sad fact that Olympic medals drive financial support and there are no masters who will win any medals in the near future. Company X is not going to drop huge cash on the sport due to the masters contingent. Until a sponsor realizes being associated with masters is a good idea and the masters are a valued part of this support, we will not have any sponsorship (ACME types) value to USBA. Right now we help offset race expenses. If the contributions you mention are not appreciated since they help build the backbone of support for the sport it adds insult to injury. In essance, the masters groups are a sponsor of USBA (or any sport) and should be better reccognized for the contributions we, as a group, make. I have also written I am a firm believer in remaining with the nationals so all classes can be run together. There have been postings in two places and this might have caused some confusion as to what I've written. Right now, my interests in the masters racing is having race distances become a standard and trying to help the national championships move about the country so more have the opertunity to partake. Standard race distances will help the promotors avoid any pre-race complaining. Also, the athletes will know what to expect and whether to spend thier money on these events. Sorry of my lack of proofreading and quick click of SEND upset you. Take care, Kevin On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Bill Rode wrote: > Julia, > > > > Thanks for forwarding all these communications to us. I appreciate you > speaking for me and keeping us all informed. > > > > To Kevin and USBA: > > > > I had to write a bit on this one as it really caught me and set me back in > my opinion of my own involvement and commitment with biathlon and USBA. > > Julia points out the many reasons why we Masters are a viable and important > resource for the USBA and Biathlon as a whole. > > I'll add these points: > > ? In my experience and observations it is a very large Masters > group that organizes, supports, schedules, and puts on most all of the races > in WA, CO, MT, and Utah. > > ? They run yearly education seminars, training venues, rifle > safety classes, and actively recruit new members and youth racers. > > ? Devote countless hours and volunteer work for range maintenance, > target acquisition, range supplies, etc. > > ? DONATE money in competitor dues, straight donations, youth > competitor memberships, equipment and support. > > ? Many of these people on race day are there before dawn and after > dark. Making it all happen and trying to squeeze in a race or two > themselves. > > ? I would only guess that you derive a good part of your funding > from Mfg. Sponsors? > > o If so, let?s count how many pair of Madshus, Fishers, Rossignols, > Atomic skis and Swix, Toko etc ?.. dollars are spent by Master racers and > their families all over the country? Does not the support and money spent > on the sponsor products also in turn support you? Add that up! > > > > If we are trying to expand the level of participation in biathlon and not > retreat to a very small closed organization for a select few, then we need > to all be equal partners in its future. > > If you include and respect us and recognize what we do and can bring to > USBA and bring us all together a few days in the spring for meaningful > championship competitions, you could probably ask us for anything. > > > > I?ll look forward to that and speaking with more at anytime, > > > > Sincerely, > > Bill Rode > > 5017 > > Big Sky, MT > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: masters-bounces at biathlonusa.com [mailto: > masters-bounces at biathlonusa.com] On Behalf Of collinsja at me.com > Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:06 PM > To: masters at biathlonusa.com > Subject: Re: [Masters] FW: FW: 2009 Report (fwd) > > > > First, a mailing list feature reminder: you can find the archives of > > discussions posted to this list at: > > > > http://www.biathlonusa.com/pipermail/masters/ > > > > The archives are currently public, which means you don't have to be a > > member of the list to see them. > > > > Second, responding to one of Kevin's comments: > > > [...] Even though the Masters are a large percentage of the participants > > > we have very little financial value to USBA as a whole. > > > > I respectfully disagree with this statement. In my experience, competitors > > in the Masters category have disposable income, offspring who might become > > future biathletes, and a pretty high success rate in recruiting their > > friends from other recreational sport activities to the biathlon ranks. > > They are the group most likely to be able to make monetary donations (large > > or small) to the USBA. Masters have a *huge* financial *and* public > > relations value to the USBA, and the USBA's unwillingness to recognize that > > point is frustrating and discouraging. > > > > Julia > > _______________________________________________ > > Masters mailing list > > Masters at biathlonusa.com > > http://www.biathlonusa.com/mailman/listinfo/masters > > > > _______________________________________________ > Masters mailing list > Masters at biathlonusa.com > http://www.biathlonusa.com/mailman/listinfo/masters > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.biathlonusa.com/pipermail/masters/attachments/20091024/27ce10e7/attachment-0001.html From walter.warwick at gmail.com Sat Oct 24 14:22:32 2009 From: walter.warwick at gmail.com (Walter Warwick) Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:22:32 -0600 Subject: [Masters] into the fray... Message-ID: Hi Julia, Kevin, Bill, Bill and Lou, I'd like to add my voice in support for the proposed standardized Masters race distances (masters men racing senior women's distance; masters women racing youth women's distances), without any mention of "age appropriate adjustments." Standards should be standards, and fiddling with them on an ad hoc basis will always lead to some kind of disagreement. (besides, every masters athlete I know is chafing at the bit to race as hard and as often as possible--if there were a masters category at the tour de france, there be a line to get in it...) I would also argue against spinning off some sort of separate Masters National Championships. While I'm sympathetic to many of the concerns voiced about the USBAs indifference to Masters athletes, the remoteness of the venues, etc, I think much of the perceived prestige of a national championship in a niche sport like ours is found in being at *the* national championships. And, further, if there's any value for me in being a member of the USBA, it lies in being able to participate in a race without having to organize it. My EUR .01355, Walter CBC President From mnbiathlon at aol.com Sun Oct 25 04:16:17 2009 From: mnbiathlon at aol.com (Piotr Bednarski) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 06:16:17 -0500 Subject: [Masters] into the fray... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6D79449E-5A01-4A4C-BC24-FAA6378815C2@aol.com> Dear Julia, Kevin, Bill, Bill and Lou- I am currently on vacation with my family, but would very much like to comment on the email conversation in a coherent and thoughtful way. I will have some time over the next few days to compose my thoughts. As Lou can tell you, as Director of Development for USBA, I would very much like to improve and increase the master's level National Competition and increase the number of masters competitors nation wide. I'll get back to you in the next few days, regards, Piotr On Oct 24, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Walter Warwick wrote: > Hi Julia, Kevin, Bill, Bill and Lou, > > I'd like to add my voice in support for the proposed standardized > Masters race distances (masters men racing senior women's distance; > masters women racing youth women's distances), without any mention of > "age appropriate adjustments." Standards should be standards, and > fiddling with them on an ad hoc basis will always lead to some kind of > disagreement. (besides, every masters athlete I know is chafing at the > bit to race as hard and as often as possible--if there were a masters > category at the tour de france, there be a line to get in it...) > > I would also argue against spinning off some sort of separate > Masters National Championships. While I'm sympathetic to many of the > concerns voiced about the USBAs indifference to Masters athletes, the > remoteness of the venues, etc, I think much of the perceived prestige > of a national championship in a niche sport like ours is found in > being at *the* national championships. And, further, if there's any > value for me in being a member of the USBA, it lies in being able to > participate in a race without having to organize it. > > My EUR .01355, > Walter > CBC President > _______________________________________________ > Masters mailing list > Masters at biathlonusa.com > http://www.biathlonusa.com/mailman/listinfo/masters Piotr Bednarski Director of Athlete Development US Biathlon Association 4845 Emerson Ave S Minneapolis, MN 55419 952/237-0765 From jaybender at arkansas.net Wed Oct 28 21:28:46 2009 From: jaybender at arkansas.net (Jay Bender) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:28:46 -0800 Subject: [Masters] into the fray... References: Message-ID: <00d601ca5850$4f2408b0$4c115a04@TOSHIBALAPTOP> Hi all, I, too, would voice support of standardized distances. The masters competitors I know of are not wimps and, generally, do not favor dumbing things down as though they are not capable competitors. The reality is that masters are every bit as capable and competitive, we're just older and don't have heart rates and VO2 max to match the younger folks. I also believe it would be a mistake to try and have a separate masters nationals, somewhere different from regular nationals. Part of the lure for masters is "going to nationals" and competing in the same event as all the top athletes, even if it is in a different age category. Part of the fun is being able to see and rub elbows with those younger hot-shots. There is also more to be learned by participating in an event on that level. On the subject of "USBA's indifference to Masters biathletes".... I don't think that is really the case. What it sounds like is that they support masters doing their thing, they just don't have any time, manpower or resources to give us. If you haven't got it to give, you aren't really withholding anything, right? I think they recognize that there are a lot of masters out here. They just feel they have to focus on the junior programs, assuming that is where their new athletes are going to come from, not from our ranks. OK, so I'm putting words in Max Cobb's mouth here.... I don't really know. I just don't think the USBA bears the masters any ill will. And, while I'm on that subject, I'll also say that it would be nice if there was some recognition of the fact that it is the masters who are running all the club level biathlon racing in this country. In every area I know of, Colorado, Washington, Wyoming, and back in the Northeast.... who are the people organizing all the races and programs where these new juniors are learning the sport? Masters biathletes, right? (Max, USBA.... you listening?) My point is that masters biathletes are a very important component in the sport in this country. I know you all know this, of course.... just saying it out loud. In previous years I have begged for the same rules the Canadians use regarding determination of a legitimate class for any competition. If there are at least four competitors in an age classification, Gold, Silver, and Bronze can be awarded. If there are only three competitors, only Gold and Silver are awarded since one should not medal for having come in last. In previous years my pleas have fallen on deaf ears. The thinking seemed to be, "medals for everyone!". If you show up you have beaten all those who did not show up. This is all wonderful and touchy-feely, of course. But, going back to the discussion of course lengths and how masters athletes are actaully REAL athletes who are very competitive, why coddle and dumb down the competition with regards to what it takes to medal. When it really means something to medal at master's nationals, more masters are interested.... it is FOR REAL.... not pretend where everyone who shows up gets a medal. It just isn't right that someone can show up and, if they happen to be in one of those age or gender classifications where no one else shows up, they're NATIONAL CHAMPION. Bunk! That is not a national championship. That's a kid's camp. And I really believe that cheapens the event and causes people to NOT attend....it ain't real. Well, if anything, maybe I'll get some conversation going here. What do the rest of you think? I agree, I should not go into politics! Jay ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter Warwick" To: Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 1:22 PM Subject: [Masters] into the fray... > Hi Julia, Kevin, Bill, Bill and Lou, > > I'd like to add my voice in support for the proposed standardized > Masters race distances (masters men racing senior women's distance; > masters women racing youth women's distances), without any mention of > "age appropriate adjustments." Standards should be standards, and > fiddling with them on an ad hoc basis will always lead to some kind of > disagreement. (besides, every masters athlete I know is chafing at the > bit to race as hard and as often as possible--if there were a masters > category at the tour de france, there be a line to get in it...) > > I would also argue against spinning off some sort of separate > Masters National Championships. While I'm sympathetic to many of the > concerns voiced about the USBAs indifference to Masters athletes, the > remoteness of the venues, etc, I think much of the perceived prestige > of a national championship in a niche sport like ours is found in > being at *the* national championships. And, further, if there's any > value for me in being a member of the USBA, it lies in being able to > participate in a race without having to organize it. > > My EUR .01355, > Walter > CBC President > _______________________________________________ > Masters mailing list > Masters at biathlonusa.com > http://www.biathlonusa.com/mailman/listinfo/masters > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.biathlonusa.com/pipermail/masters/attachments/20091028/30b8d7e1/attachment.html From bill at snowcafe.com Thu Oct 29 15:46:04 2009 From: bill at snowcafe.com (Bill Rode) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:46:04 -0600 Subject: [Masters] into the fray... In-Reply-To: <00d601ca5850$4f2408b0$4c115a04@TOSHIBALAPTOP> References: <00d601ca5850$4f2408b0$4c115a04@TOSHIBALAPTOP> Message-ID: <001b01ca58e9$9948cdb0$cbda6910$@com> Good thoughts Jay! 54 is the new 34 right? Or was it 24? Ski Fast, shoot straight, don't fall down. Bill From: masters-bounces at biathlonusa.com [mailto:masters-bounces at biathlonusa.com] On Behalf Of Jay Bender Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:29 PM To: masters at biathlonusa.com Subject: Re: [Masters] into the fray... Hi all, I, too, would voice support of standardized distances. The masters competitors I know of are not wimps and, generally, do not favor dumbing things down as though they are not capable competitors. The reality is that masters are every bit as capable and competitive, we're just older and don't have heart rates and VO2 max to match the younger folks. I also believe it would be a mistake to try and have a separate masters nationals, somewhere different from regular nationals. Part of the lure for masters is "going to nationals" and competing in the same event as all the top athletes, even if it is in a different age category. Part of the fun is being able to see and rub elbows with those younger hot-shots. There is also more to be learned by participating in an event on that level. On the subject of "USBA's indifference to Masters biathletes".... I don't think that is really the case. What it sounds like is that they support masters doing their thing, they just don't have any time, manpower or resources to give us. If you haven't got it to give, you aren't really withholding anything, right? I think they recognize that there are a lot of masters out here. They just feel they have to focus on the junior programs, assuming that is where their new athletes are going to come from, not from our ranks. OK, so I'm putting words in Max Cobb's mouth here.... I don't really know. I just don't think the USBA bears the masters any ill will. And, while I'm on that subject, I'll also say that it would be nice if there was some recognition of the fact that it is the masters who are running all the club level biathlon racing in this country. In every area I know of, Colorado, Washington, Wyoming, and back in the Northeast.... who are the people organizing all the races and programs where these new juniors are learning the sport? Masters biathletes, right? (Max, USBA.... you listening?) My point is that masters biathletes are a very important component in the sport in this country. I know you all know this, of course.... just saying it out loud. In previous years I have begged for the same rules the Canadians use regarding determination of a legitimate class for any competition. If there are at least four competitors in an age classification, Gold, Silver, and Bronze can be awarded. If there are only three competitors, only Gold and Silver are awarded since one should not medal for having come in last. In previous years my pleas have fallen on deaf ears. The thinking seemed to be, "medals for everyone!". If you show up you have beaten all those who did not show up. This is all wonderful and touchy-feely, of course. But, going back to the discussion of course lengths and how masters athletes are actaully REAL athletes who are very competitive, why coddle and dumb down the competition with regards to what it takes to medal. When it really means something to medal at master's nationals, more masters are interested.... it is FOR REAL.... not pretend where everyone who shows up gets a medal. It just isn't right that someone can show up and, if they happen to be in one of those age or gender classifications where no one else shows up, they're NATIONAL CHAMPION. Bunk! That is not a national championship. That's a kid's camp. And I really believe that cheapens the event and causes people to NOT attend....it ain't real. Well, if anything, maybe I'll get some conversation going here. What do the rest of you think? I agree, I should not go into politics! Jay ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter Warwick" < walter.warwick at gmail.com> To: < masters at biathlonusa.com> Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 1:22 PM Subject: [Masters] into the fray... > Hi Julia, Kevin, Bill, Bill and Lou, > > I'd like to add my voice in support for the proposed standardized > Masters race distances (masters men racing senior women's distance; > masters women racing youth women's distances), without any mention of > "age appropriate adjustments." Standards should be standards, and > fiddling with them on an ad hoc basis will always lead to some kind of > disagreement. (besides, every masters athlete I know is chafing at the > bit to race as hard and as often as possible--if there were a masters > category at the tour de france, there be a line to get in it...) > > I would also argue against spinning off some sort of separate > Masters National Championships. While I'm sympathetic to many of the > concerns voiced about the USBAs indifference to Masters athletes, the > remoteness of the venues, etc, I think much of the perceived prestige > of a national championship in a niche sport like ours is found in > being at *the* national championships. And, further, if there's any > value for me in being a member of the USBA, it lies in being able to > participate in a race without having to organize it. > > My EUR .01355, > Walter > CBC President > _______________________________________________ > Masters mailing list > Masters at biathlonusa.com > http://www.biathlonusa.com/mailman/listinfo/masters > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.biathlonusa.com/pipermail/masters/attachments/20091029/b88f17b9/attachment-0001.html