Will Improvements in Middle and Long Distance Net More US Medals?

Cross country season is always a good time to take a look at distance running. Especially this fall as for the first time in many years we're coming off a track season where we saw substantial improvement among our middle and long distance runners.

2009 saw a resurgence in our middle distance women and our distance running men such as we've not seen in a very long time. Not that we haven't seen individuals rise up on occasion. But, for me, I haven't been as excited about distance running since Alan Webb burst on the scene as a high school senior in 2001! Webb's breaking of Jim Ryun's HSR in the mile with his 3:53.43 run at the Prefontaine Classic brought huge excitement and hope to US distance fortunes.

This season saw that same excitement magnified many fold as several athletes had break out performances. From three women going sub 4:00 in the 1500 to two men running sub 13:00 in the 5000 we saw middle and long distance runners stepping up and into global contention, joining a handful of vets to give us more depth than we've ever had at this level.

On the women's side it was middle distance runners Maggie Vessey, Anna Willard, Christin Wurth Thomas, Jenny Barringer and Shannon Rowbury leading the way. On the men's side distance runners Dathan Ritzenhein, Matt Tegenkamp, Bernard Legat, Tim Nelson, Galen Rupp, and Anthony Famiglietti at the forefront. Giving us an annual list that looks impressive:

5000 Men
12:56.27 - Dathan Ritzenhein
12:58.56 - Matt Tegenkamp
13:03.06 - Bernard Lagat

10000 Men
27:22.28 - Dathan Ritzenhein
27:36.99 - Tim Nelson
27:37.99 - Galen Rupp
27:39.68 - Anthony Famiglietti

800 Women
1:57.84 - Maggie Vessey
1:58.80 - Anna Willard
1:59.35 - Christin Wurth Thomas
1:59.98 - Hazel Clark

1500 Women
3:59.38 - Anna Willard
3:59.90 - Jenny Barringer
3:59.98 - Christin Wurth Thomas
4:00.81 - Shannon Rowbury

With the next major another year and a half away (Daegu, 2011), do we have enough time to translate this recent improvement into positions on the medal stand? On the clock these athletes are running times that can get them on the podium. But championship running is about "racing" and I think that is where we need to take the next step - learning to run our best under championship pressure.

After all in spite of running 136 sub 4 minute miles and 3:47.69, Steve Scott only stood on the podium once in his career - racing tactics leaving him short on several occasions. Same for Steve Holman who was consistently one of America's and the world's fastest milers during the 90's never found his way to the podium. And though he broke the HSR and has dropped his best down to 3:46.91, Alan Webb is still in search of the podium. So, clearly, in distance running becoming a good tactician is as important as becoming fast!

With no medals at stake and rhetorically nothing to lose, I would hope to see all of the above racing frequently in Europe this coming year. If they never win a single race, being in fast "Circuit" races should help to sharpen their skills and prepare them for the tough, and often uneven paces, typically set by their African counterparts in major championships - the athletes that must be beaten if we have hopes of ascending the podium.

The European races can be tough, but it's toughness that will be needed come Daegu and London! The one thing that I like about the current group of middle/distance runners above is that they are a gritty bunch - seemingly unafraid to try to stay with tough paces and mix it up in traffic. Most of their PR's were set in tough races. And that is what gives me hope that they can indeed make a run at medals over the next couple of Majors.

So I'll be watching the summer racing in 2010 very closely as this should be a key season for all of the above. Especially if we can get the same kind of improvement from them in 2010 that we saw in 2009. Similar improvement and we could see an improvement in medals from this part of our team in Daegu and London.

Track and Field's Heroes

As we take time out to celebrate America's war heroes on Veterans Day, I thought it might also be appropriate to celebrate our Track and Field Heroes. After all, just as our veterans went in to battle to preserve the freedom of our nation, there have been many heroes in our sport that have paved the way and set standards for today's athletes to follow.

So following are some of the sport's greats. Athletes that I feel during my lifetime have made a difference and helped to make the sport great. I know there will be many omissions. That's one of the great things about this sport - we've had a plethora of stars pass through. And I'm sure everyone will have their own "list" to add. But that's what Veterans Day is all about - each one remembering in his/her own way. So here is my start to honoring the sports greats.


Carl Lewis

Love him or hate him (and there are those on both sides of the ledger) Carl made headlines and brought a tremendous amount of recognition to the sport. It was Carl, and manager Joe Douglas of the Santa Monica Track Club, that paved the way for professionalism in this sport in the 1980's. And being the world's preeminent jumper/sprinter gave Carl clout that few others had. Winner of 9 Olympic gold medals and 8 World Championship golds, Lewis brought a rock star attitude to the sport, fighting for financial parity with those of other sports. Often this put him at odds with meet promoters, federation officials, and even his peers, but Lewis made great strides in making money in this sport. If there was a pioneer on the way to professionalism it would have to be Lewis.


Evelyn Ashford

Evelyn came along in the middle of the Cold War and a period of dominance in women's sprinting by the "Eastern Bloc". East Germany's women were lead by world record setting stars Marlies Gohr and Marita Koch women who it seemed at the time were unbeatable as they routinely broke or ran close to WR times. But Ashford took on the "undefeatables" and defeated them both in a huge double victory in at the 1979 World Cup in Montreal. She continued throughout her career to defeat her rivals in the process taking the women's 100 into the 10.7 realm (10.76). She showed what hard work and perseverance can accomplish while defeating foes all knew to be a part of the East German systematic doping machine.


Edwin Moses

Before Moses came along the intermediate hurdles were an event you did if you weren't good at the open 400 or the high hurdles. Moses changes that with 13 strides of consistency. He brought focus and excitement to an event that no one had cared about before. He took his event to the edge of 47 seconds (47.02) while winning 122 straight races! During Moses reign the event grew in stature attracting better talent and becoming a center piece in meets throughout the world. In the process Moses became the model of perfection in his event and showed that brains were as important as brawn in sport.


Jackie Joyner Kersee & Heike Drechsler

Rivals and friends, between them they controlled the heptathlon, long jump, and a bit of the sprints during the 80's. In what was an evolving women's sport at the time, they took their events to new levels and their personal competitions against each other took on legendary status. They made 24 feet a standard in the long jump. Joyner Kersee took us past 7000 points on her way to 7291 in the heptathlon. Drechsler sped 21.74 to tie the WR in the 200. Outstanding performances aside, they epitomized good sportsmanship being fierce rivals on the track but friends off it.


Steve Ovett & Sebastian Coe

Speaking of legendary competitions and rivals, that's exactly what Ovett and Coe were. Tremendous rivals - to the point of being bitter rivals throughout their careers. Together, however, their rivalry brought the middle distances into the modern age. Coe took us to 1:42 (1:42.33) then 1:41 (1:41.73) in the 800. But it was in the 1500/mile where their rivalry took on epic proportions. Before they went back and forth trading records the records stood at 3:32.2/3:49.4. When they were done the records were 3:30.77/3:47.33 with 8 lowerings of the records between them! They showed the effect a true rivalry can have on the sport as they pushed each other to greatness.


Alberto Juantorena

I have to include "El Caballo". We've seen a lot of studs in this sport. Usain Bolt and Kenenisa Bekele are only the latest. Carl Lewis, Michael Johnson. Tommie Smith, Henry Rono and Said Aouita are among those that came before. But all of the above competed in multiple events that were similar - related sprints or related distance or middle distance events. Juantorena competed in a sprint event AND a middle distance and was dominant at both winning Olympic gold in both the 400 AND 800 - a feat forgotten by many. El Caballo was powerful and graceful and showed us all that just about anything is possible.

As I said, there are many others that can be named. But for me, these all taught us lessons in the sport. They paved the way for those that have come since. Setting standards that still hold strong in the sport today. So as we celebrate those who have fought for our freedom and kept America great, lets also celebrate those who have set standards of excellence in track and field and helped to make this sport great.

Shawn Crawford to John Smith!

Shawn Crawford reported to camp today and began workouts with John Smith is the word I've gotten this afternoon. Potentially filling that void in Smith's camp left by the retirement of Maurice Greene in 2006.

Crawford brings an already impressive resume to practice. Bests of 9.88 and 19.79. Olympic gold medalist in 2004, he's also scored silver in the event in 2008, and bronze in 2001. Crawford has been one of the US's most consistent sprinters this decade, slowed only by foot problems in 2005 that seemed to hamper him for a couple of seasons. Crawford rebounded nicely in '08 and '09 as he ran 19.86 and 19.89 (19.73w) putting him squarely in the global mix and on the podium once again following his gold medal performance in '04.

Ironically Crawford is the man that everyone laughed at early in his career as he stated that his goal for the 200 meters was 18.99! A mark that everyone considered to be imaginary and too insane to even mention. Yet now Crawford moves to join Smith on the heels of two impressive seasons by Usain Bolt who has lowered the 200 record to 19.19 - extremely close to Crawford's "insane" 18.99!

So, can the man who lead the legendary career of Maurice Greene, and has Carmelita Jeter in the rarified air previously tread by only FloJo, put Shawn Crawford in reach of Usain Bolt? Well Smith has shown the ability to coach speed, having piloted the careers of Greene (9.79), Ato Boldon (9.86), Jon Drummond (9.92), Jeter (10.64), and Torri Edwards (10.78) among others.

And in spite of Crawford's Sub20 second runs over the past couple of seasons, he's done so with bests of only 10.09 and 10.21 in '08 and '09 - far off his PB of 9.88. Indicating that Crawford, who will be 32 in January, has greatly improved in strength, but his need now is to get back the speed! Crawford, like Bolt and Tyson Gay, is a burner on the turn. So perhaps if he can get close to these men in speed, he may indeed be competitive with them over 200 meters!

Time, of course, will tell the tale. But 2010 is a good year for a change as there will be no major championship on the line. Giving Crawford a chance to put in a full season of work with Smith before being under the gun for the World Championships in Daegu in 2011. So if Smith can get Crawford back to that 9.8 zone, we could possibly see another sprinter in that 19.5 and below range - and Crawford in search of that 18.99 that everyone once laughed at.

Regardless of how it turns out, I'm glad to see someone with true talent make the move to Smith. Because if we are to regain our position in the world of the sprints its imperative that we get our best talent in the hands of our best coaches! Hopefully this is the start of good things. After all, Linford Christie and Donovan Bailey both did their best running late in their careers, with thirty being only an imaginary barrier. And so far the thirties have been kind to Shawn. I wish him the best.

Coaches Association Emerging

As I take a look at the state of professionalism in the sport of track and field it comes to my attention that the coaches may be the ones to lead the way. In talking with various individuals regarding the current state of the sport I've received information on the development of a coaches association.

Discussing the ability of the US to garner 30 medals in a major championship, I was surprised to learn that the coaches of our medal winners do not receive stipends from USATF - a situation that should be rectified in my opinion as prior to the change to the Logan administration stipends WERE paid to coaches. Coaches were paid upwards of $2,000 if their athletes won medals at the Games - lesser amounts if they coached athletes ranked in the Top 10. While it is discretionary, it would seem to be a logical move to provide assistance to those most responsible for the development and performances of our athletes. Something that I would hope the current administration would reconsider.

Further discussion, however, lead to the disclosure that there is a group of coaches, the Elite Athletes Coaches Association, that is in the process of obtaining non profit status for their group.

The Elite Athletes Coaches Association will be comprised of a majority of the coaches of medal winning athletes in the United States, as well as a sampling from overseas. Their mission: to vigorously advocate on behalf of the privileges, status and rights of coaches of athletes at the elite level. Among their goals:

1. To develop a matrix or template for coaches compensation.

2. To undertake projects and programs that work directly towards eliminating drugs and illegal performance enhancing substances from the sport.

3. To develop clinics and conferences to develop and exchange ideas for better coaching strategies and techniques.

4. To seek recognition and membership status from:
a. IAAF
b. USOC
c. USATF

5. To seek sanctioning and censure power in regard to agents and managers that represent elite athletes.

6. To see sanctioning and censure power in regard to competition and competition directors.

7. To provide support and be protective of those things that allow for superior performances by elite athletes.

Among the coaches that I've heard have signed on for this association is a group of some of the most productive coaches in this country:

• John Smith
• Bobby Kersee
• Clyde Hart
• Joe Vigil
• Brooks Johnson
• Bob Larsen
• Jon Drummond
• Carol Smith
• Don Babbitt
• Tony Lest (UK)
• Lloyd Cowan (UK)

This is the kind of organization that the sport needs here in the US - leadership from those who bear the ultimate responsibility for performance. If we are not getting the leadership necessary from "the head office" we can still effect change if we get some leadership from "middle management"!

What would be nice now is to see the development of something similar for the elite athletes themselves. A move that most certainly would lead ultimately to a restructuring of the sport itself. Until then, its good to see that the coaches are taking a leadership role and that one of their stated goals lies in the elimination of performance enhancers in the sport!

I wish them luck as they attempt to use their considerable influence to improve the elite level of the sport in this country.

Are We in Position for 30 Medals?

Thirty medals. That's the stated goal of USATF CEO Doug Logan. Thirty medals in London, 2012.

This is the goal that was set following a 23 medal performance in Beijing. A performance that was considered to be unsatisfactory. So with a follow up in Berlin that netted one fewer medal (22) than Beijing questions abound:

• Was 30 just an arbitrary number?
• Is 30 a realistic goal?
• If so why are we so far off?
• If 30 "is" realistic then where will they come from?
• Do we have a "structure" in place that will help us get there?

At least these are some of the questions that I have heard from friends I've talked to and from those of you out there that have emailed me. Tough and legitimate questions when it seems that we are actually "losing ground" against the rest of the world - and in some cases against ourselves.

For example, for two majors in a row we have gotten nothing out of our 4x1 relay squads - male or female. These are supposed to be "guaranteed" medals but we've drawn a big "zero"! Some misfortune perhaps in not completing the handoffs. But has anyone noticed that we've been slipping in our sprint depth?

Yes we have Tyson Gay running off the hook. And Carmelita Jeter has emerged as a serious sprint force. But what do we have behind them? Only three Americans ran sub-10 this year behind Gay, and no American women were sub-11 behind Jeter! Not good commentary when the rest of the world is IMPROIVNG their numbers in this area.

Same for the 200 meters. Tyson Gay and Allyson Felix are keeping us strong and in gold medal contention. But the world equaled us this year in sub-20 performers (3 to 3), and on the women's side our next best 200 meter runner is Sanya Richards and she doesn't contest the event very often!

We're still strong over 400, but playing catch up in the 800. We've reached parity in the women's 1500, trying to find it in the men's. The women's middle distances look very promising with Maggie Vessey (1:57.84), Anna Willard (1:58.80/3:59.38), Christin Wurth Thomas (1:59.35/3:59.98), Jenny Barringer (3:59.90), and Shannon Rowbury (4.00.33) emerging as a very formidable group.

In the distances, its on the men's side of the ledger that we are seeing emergence into potential global competitiveness with breakout seasons by Dathen Ritzenhein (12:56.27/27:22.28), Matt Tegenkamp (12:58.56), Tim Nelson (27:36.99), Galen Rupp (27:37.99) and Anthony Famiglietti (27:39.68). Extremely exciting given that the beginning of the season was focused on the potential breakout of Rupp, yet we saw huge growth from the others as well!

In the field events, we're looking at an athlete here and there, but very little depth anywhere. Nice breakouts from Brittney Reese and Trey Hardee. But aside from the men's pole vault and shot put, we don’t have the depth anywhere in the field to sustain even one injury to anyone of significance - and that person may not even be a contender!

My point is that somewhere along the line we have dropped the ball on development. We are dependent on Individual coaches and their athletes rising to the occasion. With all the available talent in this country we have no means of moving a 10.15 sprinter , 13.30 hurdler, 3:55 miler, or 26'6" long jumper to the next level! Everyone is surprised that "a country the size of Jamaica can produce the likes of Bolt, Powell, Fraser, and Walker" when what should really be baffling is that we haven't produced a dozen of each!

In a country of our size and potential resources the development of Willard, Barringer, Ritzenhein and Tegenhamp should be a given, not a pleasant surprise! We should be knee deep in Tyson Gay's and Carmelita Jeter's. Yet we only have one of each and we have yet to see if the development of our middle and long distance runners this year will be enough to translate to the medal stand.

It's been brought to my attention by a US coach that the Germans won only one medal in Beijing, then improved to NINE in Berlin! Another small country making tremendous strides in a short period of time. The question is: How are they improving while we apparently keep taking small steps backwards?

Until we figure that out (we being USATF and those in charge of the sport here in the US) then we are NOT in position to win 30 medals. Not in Daegu, not in London, not even in Rio! As long as we are relying on blind luck, we will continue to produce a medal count in the low 20 range. In a good year perhaps even the mid 20's. After all, even a blind squirrel finds an occasional nut and right now that is our approach to winning medals - the luck of the draw in any given season!

We hope that Tyson stays healthy. We pray someone else "rises to the occasion". We wait for someone to "come out of the woodwork". We're glad that Sanya exorcized her demons. We're shocked and thrilled that Brittney came through. Ecstatic that Trey had the meet of his life. This is no way to manage what is supposed to be the greatest track and field power on the planet!

You see a goal requires a PLAN. A methodology. A road map on how to get there. Yet in a country where everyone seems to have a GPS system, we travel blindly on the stated road to thirty medals! So I fear that we will not get there any time soon. I would love to see USATF prove me wrong. But until a comprehensive plan for developing talent in this country is in place, I just don't see it happening.

How Are They Selecting Coaches These Days?

Recently I talked about the elite level of the sport and the effect that money has had as the sport has attempted to grow from an amateur sport into a professional one. The "growing pains" that have stressed the sport on the money front has seemingly spilled over to the coaching front.

I say that after reading on Friday that Veronica Campbell Brown is leaving Lance Brauman - the coach that has guided her to nine World and Olympic medals, including three gold. The coach that she is leaving him for is Anthony Carpenter. No offense to Carpenter, but everyone I've talked to so far is asking : who is Anthony Carpenter?

Carpenter may indeed be a good coach, I don't know. And that is really the crux of the matter. Because it seems that only in track and field do athletes at the elite level choose to move from "proven" coaches to "non proven" coaches.

For example. You would never see the Los Angeles Lakers, New York Yankees, or New England Patriots have a successful campaign and then come back the following season and hire the equivalent of an intern to guide them through the next season. But it would appear that this is exactly what Veronica Campbell Brown (VCB) is going to do!

But she is not alone. In recent seasons we’ve seen, Xavier Carter (10.00/19.63) and Wallace Spearmon (9.96/19.65) jumping on the coaching carrousel and leave prominent coaches right on the cusp of the Olympic season itself. And the coaching move of Jeremy Wariner from quarter miler guru Clyde Hart to assistant Michael Ford has been one of the most chronicled coaching changes ever. Wariner went from Olympic gold medalist and two time World Champion to consistent runner up to Lashawn Merritt while running nearly a second slower as a result of his downgrading of coaches! Losing Olympic and World Championships gold in the process.

In other professional sports, it’s the struggling teams that take on unproven coaching talent. In part because they can't afford the higher profile coaches, and in part because most top level coaches don't want to take on reclamation projects!

In professional basketball Phil Jackson and Larry Brown are commodities whose services cause bidding wars. In track and field, Lance Brauman and John Smith seem to have great difficulty attracting the top sprint talent any more - and Trevor Graham has been shelved and shunned. Yet these men have produced most of the US men's sprint medals this decade - and Brauman took Tyson Gay to 9.84/19.63 before Tyson changed coaches!

In any other sport these men would have the Lakers, Cowboys, Yankees, and other top teams bidding wildly for their services. When Mo Greene retired you would have thought that sprinters with the talent of Wallace Spearmon, Xavier Carter, Darvis Patton, Mike Rodgers, and Ivory Williams would be lined up doing what Mo Greene did in 1996 - asking Smith to teach him how to be a champion. I mean, wouldn't YOU take a chance on the coach of champions such as Steve Lewis (Olympic gold and silver), Quincy Watts (Olympic gold), and Mo Greene (Olympic gold and bronze, along with four World gold)? Yet, since Greene's retirement the top male sprinters have chosen to go elsewhere to learn their craft - only in track and field. Yet if there's any question that Smith still has "it" look no further than Carmelita Jeter who took advantage of that "opening" and this season became #2 all time in the women's 100!

Yet, ironically as Jamaican sprinters are finding success by flocking to their country's top sprint coaches in droves, we here in the US seem to be slipping as our athletes are running the other way from our top coaches! Spearmon had great success with Braumann, but left to train with his father. Carter began having success with Holloway (in spite of injury) but left. Wariner was seemingly on his way to the WR in the 400 but left Hart - and my grapevine says that Sanya Richards is considering a similar move. Does anyone think that the Lakers will be getting rid of Phil Jackson any time soon? I didn't think so.

I understand that athletes have their own reasons for these moves. I've heard that many athletes don't want to move to live in Los Angeles for example. I understand wanting to "stay home" and work. But people in professional sports - as well as professionals in many other industries- understand that to make the money you think you deserve, sometimes you have to make a move to another location. It's called a business decision.

It was no secret that Wariner felt that Hart's services had become too expensive. But after a season and a half of less that the best results, Wariner must have come to the conclusion that it had been money well spent as he chose to rehire Hart to once again take the reigns of his career! After all in sports, as with other endeavors in life, you get what you pay for - and you don't get Porsche performance at a Yugo price tag!

Just as I feel that the sport needs to be more professional in its methodology of getting its athletes paid, I feel that its athletes need to take a more professional approach in how they choose the people that are most responsible for their performances - and therefore their revenue base. Professional sports franchises refuse to select anything less than the best when they feel they have the other pieces in place to make a move towards winning championships. Likewise, I would think that an athlete looking to reach the podium of an Olympics or World Championships competition, would be looking at hiring a coach that has a proven track record of success. After all, I don't think any of them would hire an ordinary mechanic to work on a Ferrari, so why hire less than the best to train their body?

Has Money Helped or Hurt the Sport ?

When I was young and watching the sport, I thought it would be wonderful if track athletes could actually make a living in track and field like they could in other sports. As I watched athletes struggle to find training time as they worked full time jobs to pay the bills and put food on the table, I thought, "wouldn't it be great if running could pay the bills?".

But after roughly 20 years of professionalism in the sport, I wonder if we've done it "right". After all, two decades is plenty of time to develop and tweak a "product". But looking at track and field, we're nothing like the other professional sports when it comes to our athletes getting paid.

Somehow, while other sports have actual salary structures, we've attempted to become professional by retaining the amateur pay model of appearance fees, mixed with a few hefty contracts from the shoe companies. Now this works very well if you are the number one athlete in your event - maybe even number two or three. I mean, Usain Bolt is making crazy money right now. Mo Greene made a healthy living. Michael Johnson and Marion Jones too.

But when one athlete picks up a check for a quarter million or half million dollars from one meet (and I'm not "hatin" him for it) there's not much money left for everyone else! Which leads to a lot of problems.

For starters it leads to a sport divided among the "Well to Do" and the "Struggling" - and this sport has far too many athletes struggling to eek out an existence. Consider the 100 meter final in Berlin. Usain Bolt is extremely "well to do". Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell are "well to do". The remaining finalists, however, (Daniel Bailey, Richard Thompson, Dwain Chambers, Marc Burns, and Darvis Patton) fall into the category of working hard to try and make a living in spite of the fact that all have PR's well under 10.00 and only one was slower than that in the World Championships final!

Can you imagine being among the EIGHT best in the world at your position in any other professional sport on the planet and yet you may have trouble paying the bills? Yet that is exactly the situation a large percentage of track and field athletes find themselves in - Olympic and World finalists; among the best in the world at what they do; yet struggling to make a decent living!

And the non medalists aren't the only one's affected by the huge discrepancies in appearance fees. Sticking with the sprints, if you are Tyson Gay or Asafa Powell, you have to think twice about running in a meet featuring Usain Bolt - and its not necessarily about having to face him on the track. You see when a meet promoter pays an ungodly fee to Mr. Bolt, just what does that leave for Mr. Gay or Mr. Powell? The answer is:not what either feels he should be earning for his days work! So the answer is to find a meet where "you" can be the featured athlete! And though you may not command a Boltian fee, you do get the opportunity to get paid much closer to your own market value. The result is that we find it difficult to find top level fields in the sprints outside of major championships - primarily for financial reasons! A very frustrating proposal for most of us fans whose mouths water at the thought of high level sprint showdowns, yet who are mostly frustrated at how infrequently the top sprinters are brought together on the track!

Even when athletes are able to earn "big money" in the sport it doesn't seem to translate to the track. For example it seems that when the shoe companies hand out the large contracts to what seem to be budding young stars, progress seems to stall or even stop! Sort of like when athletes in other professional sports are in the last year of their contracts. That final season we get great performances; the athlete signs a huge new contract; and then the level of performance drops dramatically. More than once I've seen athletes like Xavier Carter, Alan Webb, Walter Dix and others, get huge shoe deals only to stall out and fall on hard times. While, in the meantime, we watch "struggling" athletes like Mike Rodgers, Ivory Williams, Alonzo Edwards and Steve Mulling make major strides internationally without benefit of "adequate compensation".

My point to all this is that the sport really needs to take a look at some sort of restructuring if it is to truly survive long term. It's great that a Usain Bolt can earn top dollar. But if we can't get the guys in the other 7 lanes paid adequately we will end up with Bolt running alone - and that won't be fun for anyone! As I said previously regarding performances, the sport needs at least a dozen Usain Bolt's. Likewise when it comes to getting athletes paid we could use a couple dozen Usain Bolt's - with a salary structure that would allow for compensation of the rest much more in line with their competitive abilities!

So, while I know that we are still a ways away from making New Year's resolutions, this will be high on my list for 2010 - that the sport take a serious look at how it's athletes are being paid and seriously attempts to rectify the severe inequality that exists.