Just over 30 years ago a friend was taking the entries for
Boundary Harriers’ cross country race at Ballachrink Farm in East Baldwin. A
man gave his name, paid his entry fee and announced “I’m a vet”. The recorder
was a little bemused because she didn’t realise that she had to record the occupation
of each entrant but because he was insistent she wrote “vet” next to his name.
He was of course a man over the age of 40 and it seems perverse that, as veteran standards have improved, the age at which a man was classed as a veteran, or master in American parlance, should be reduced to 35. There need not be too big a decline in performances by that age - look at sprinter Kim Collins.
In the days when athletics was wholly amateur there was a quirk in the rules. Organisers of open events had to place a value on the prizes awarded and publish a programme with the total value of prizes and indicate who was qualified for each award. It was a pretty good system and the basis for the “one award per person” system.
If the prize values for the first, second and third positions were £40, £30 and £25, and the prize for the first veteran was £20, then if a veteran finished third he would claim the third prize and the veteran’s award would be taken by the second veteran.
One of the frequently misunderstood points was that, in the scenario above, the third placed runner still won the veteran’s section it was just that he forfeited the prize as he accepted one of greater value. In the days when there was a veterans’ race to Peel in the Parish Walk, if the winner then proceeded to win the whole 85 mile event he was still the veteran winner even though he gave up the right to the prize when he lifted a more significant one.
In those days the veterans were in a minority but in some cases they now form a majority. In my view, it is nonsense to award a prize to the first under 35 runner in a road race if he or she finished fifth. They should not receive anything if the open awards are taken by veterans.
In that case, I come down on the side of veteran athletes. In other cases I am less sympathetic to them. Although I work closely with the Isle of Man Veteran Athletes Club to publicise some of their events, and I have some good friends who are members, I did not support the establishment of a separate club. In a perfect world athletes from the same area, and I would say the area should be the whole of the Isle of Man, should coach, organise and compete in a single entity. I have only ever been a member of one Manx club at a time.
One criticism when fewer athletes retired in their 20s and 30s was that they no longer offered their services as coaches. You could hardly apply such a criticism in the Isle of Man, where some of the top coaches still compete, but the closer aligned the athletes of all ages are the better it should be.
I was staggered once to hear, after a race, a veteran athlete announce that he hadn’t really tried to hold off a senior runner as he was only interesting in winning the veteran’s prize. I admit that I found motivation in chasing Manx records when I turned 40 but the overall performance must surely be the priority.
I have only just read about Anthony Whiteman setting a world over 40 record for 800 metres and his post-race comments were quite telling. He only expected to run 1.49 rather than the record breaking 1.48.05. He concentrated on his race craft and the record took care of itself.
It is right that people should get recognised for their performances as they get older but surely it has to be acknowledged that the higher the age profile the lower the number of entrants. Sometimes I think there are too many awards for veterans. One well known athlete said to me, at a rather long winded prize presentation, “it is like a child’s party – everyone is going home with something.”
With a few exceptions, winning an age group trophy means nothing to me. It is performance, time, distance or height, that counts. We should judge our own performances as we judge others. How well did we train and how close to our potential were we in the event? That applies whether the word “vet” is written alongside your name or not.
He was of course a man over the age of 40 and it seems perverse that, as veteran standards have improved, the age at which a man was classed as a veteran, or master in American parlance, should be reduced to 35. There need not be too big a decline in performances by that age - look at sprinter Kim Collins.
In the days when athletics was wholly amateur there was a quirk in the rules. Organisers of open events had to place a value on the prizes awarded and publish a programme with the total value of prizes and indicate who was qualified for each award. It was a pretty good system and the basis for the “one award per person” system.
If the prize values for the first, second and third positions were £40, £30 and £25, and the prize for the first veteran was £20, then if a veteran finished third he would claim the third prize and the veteran’s award would be taken by the second veteran.
One of the frequently misunderstood points was that, in the scenario above, the third placed runner still won the veteran’s section it was just that he forfeited the prize as he accepted one of greater value. In the days when there was a veterans’ race to Peel in the Parish Walk, if the winner then proceeded to win the whole 85 mile event he was still the veteran winner even though he gave up the right to the prize when he lifted a more significant one.
In those days the veterans were in a minority but in some cases they now form a majority. In my view, it is nonsense to award a prize to the first under 35 runner in a road race if he or she finished fifth. They should not receive anything if the open awards are taken by veterans.
In that case, I come down on the side of veteran athletes. In other cases I am less sympathetic to them. Although I work closely with the Isle of Man Veteran Athletes Club to publicise some of their events, and I have some good friends who are members, I did not support the establishment of a separate club. In a perfect world athletes from the same area, and I would say the area should be the whole of the Isle of Man, should coach, organise and compete in a single entity. I have only ever been a member of one Manx club at a time.
One criticism when fewer athletes retired in their 20s and 30s was that they no longer offered their services as coaches. You could hardly apply such a criticism in the Isle of Man, where some of the top coaches still compete, but the closer aligned the athletes of all ages are the better it should be.
I was staggered once to hear, after a race, a veteran athlete announce that he hadn’t really tried to hold off a senior runner as he was only interesting in winning the veteran’s prize. I admit that I found motivation in chasing Manx records when I turned 40 but the overall performance must surely be the priority.
I have only just read about Anthony Whiteman setting a world over 40 record for 800 metres and his post-race comments were quite telling. He only expected to run 1.49 rather than the record breaking 1.48.05. He concentrated on his race craft and the record took care of itself.
It is right that people should get recognised for their performances as they get older but surely it has to be acknowledged that the higher the age profile the lower the number of entrants. Sometimes I think there are too many awards for veterans. One well known athlete said to me, at a rather long winded prize presentation, “it is like a child’s party – everyone is going home with something.”
With a few exceptions, winning an age group trophy means nothing to me. It is performance, time, distance or height, that counts. We should judge our own performances as we judge others. How well did we train and how close to our potential were we in the event? That applies whether the word “vet” is written alongside your name or not.
