Some comments from Doug Logan at the Annual Meeting

[Marlow]

I'll have to nominate that as the most hilarious post of the year. The king of I-wasn't-there-but-I'll-be-the-first-to-comment on every subject under the sun is now taking issue with somebody else's remote analysis? The mind boggles. Of course it was somebody who wasn't there, as "sounds like" in the quote clearly demonstrated.
And it's not a cheap shot at all. It was a considered opinion by a respected personage in the sport who for reasons I can't disclose couldn't sign his/her name.

Dang, I wish the Tafnys were still around, so I coulda won one there!
The irony of your point is that you dismiss my comments because I'm Mr. Notbeentheredonethat (and also when I HAVEbeentheredonethat), yet you attribute significance to someone else who has zero first-hand knowledge. Saying his opinion matters contradicts your premise. And hiding his name makes him indeed anonymous. We know exactly what the 'reasons' are that you can't disclose his name. S/he does not want to be held accountable for his/her catty remarks.

[gh]

thefinalsprint's excellent series on the dysfunctional USATF was what, 90% unattributed quotes? Did you find it any less relevant or accuse all those mystery people who were quoted of taking cheap shots?

Over the course of the last few days I've given you the unvarnished reactions of multiple well-placed people in the sport.

If names have to be attributed to quotes then 75% of the reporters in Washington, DC, might as well pack up and go home.

[guru]

Over the course of the last few days I've given you the unvarnished reactions of multiple well-placed people in the sport.

Let's stick to the people who have actually heard the speeches for "unvarnished reactions", shall we?

[gh]

you mean you're going to shut up on the subject?

[guru]

you mean you're going to shut up on the subject?

When have I said anything about a convention speech, judgemental or otherwise?

[gh]

An intemperate comment by me. My apologies.

[Marlow]

thefinalsprint's excellent series on the dysfunctional USATF was what, 90% unattributed quotes? Did you find it any less relevant or accuse all those mystery people who were quoted of taking cheap shots?
Over the course of the last few days I've given you the unvarnished reactions of multiple well-placed people in the sport.
If names have to be attributed to quotes then 75% of the reporters in Washington, DC, might as well pack up and go home.

Point taken. I guess I just didn't like the puerile tone of the comments. I retract my characterization. We do need varied perspectives, even if we don't like the mode of expression.

[Marlow]

The best thing about all of Logan's comments is that virtually all of them are tangible and therefore he can be held accountable. He didn't do the usual lip service about 'improving' the sport - he had real objectives, like the 2015 statement. If he does that, with all the IAAF bad blood against him, he will indeed be the Savior we wish him to be. That's why I really think everyone who loves the sport should give him all the rope he needs. He could hang himself or maybe he'll use it to hoist us higher than we've been in a long while!!

[gh]

What IAAF bad blood against him?

[Marlow]

What IAAF bad blood against him?

The bad blood you related to us when Stanford bid on it and it fell through and you said a very highly placed IAAF person said that the USA would NEVER get the WC.

[Daisy]

What IAAF bad blood against him?

The bad blood you related to us when Stanford bid on it and it fell through and you said a very highly placed IAAF person said that the USA would NEVER get the WC.

Not against Logan then, but against USATF?

[polevaultpower]

Hey Ken Stone, your wish has been granted. Doug Logan's blog now allows comments.

[Marlow]

What IAAF bad blood against him?

The bad blood you related to us when Stanford bid on it and it fell through and you said a very highly placed IAAF person said that the USA would NEVER get the WC.

Not against Logan then, but against USATF?

The 'him' referred to 'him' as the head of USATF, not him personally. That would be nonsensical.

[gh]

I know of no "bad blood" between IAAF and USATF.

[gh]

What IAAF bad blood against him?

The bad blood you related to us when Stanford bid on it and it fell through and you said a very highly placed IAAF person said that the USA would NEVER get the WC.

I don't recall ever saying any such thing, although stranger things have happened. Stanford never bid on it and had it fell through. Stanford lost out in bidding, yes.

But next in the sequence were ambitious plans that were tied to the 2012 Olympic bid, but as soon as NYC won the U.S. rights and the Stanford stadium was downsized and converted to football only, they were out of the bidding wars. I suspect that at that time I said that that meant the U.S. would never host because stadium hopes were gone. That was before Chicago jumped into the mix, of course.