Here we go again

[trackstar]

I just submitted this letter to the Austin American-Statesman.

Letter about Kelli White
I've made this complaint to the Statesman before, but here we go again -- why is the Statesman only interested in world-class track and field when there is a scandal? When Kelli White won the 100 meters in last year's World Championships, the Statesman buried the story on page D5 and devoted only 147 words to the feat; but when she admitted taking performance-enhancing drugs, it ran on the front page of the whole paper, 799 words. I'm not against covering the scandals -- I just don't understand why they are more important than the actual competitions. While I applaud the Statesman's coverage of high school and University of Texas track, it devotes almost no coverage to pro track unless the word "drugs" appears. I hope you'll devote as much space and prominence to this year's European circuit meets as you did to White's cheating.
Lee Nichols
Austin

[dl]

Re: Here we go again

Fantastic!

[Guest]

Re: Here we go again

Agreed.

[333]

Re: Here we go again

So true...

[sweetness]

Re: Here we go again

I hope someone is listening

[The Kitchen Cynic]

Re: Here we go again

Nobody is listening.

[EPelle]

Re: Here we go again

The cynics? No, they are not.

[Track fan]

Re: Here we go again

Track is a fringe sport and the news it generates isn't much in the US. But when there is scandal it reaches the common reader and gets their attention. It's no different then Mike Tyson and his ear biting of Evander Holyfield. That fight was re-broadcast on network tv, yet the fight was just a sham and was about the worst title fight I have ever seen.

[Pego]

Re: Here we go again

My local paper ignores T&F totally (except the local high school scene). No report of WC, but also no KW scandal.

[No Name]

Re: Here we go again

Track fan is right.

The originator of this thread can probably answer his own question pretty easily. The reason the paper doesn't cover pro track is because nobody in the U.S. cares about it. They do care, however, about juicy drug scandals.

Unless interest in track and field somehow increases in this country, I think you can expect your local paper to continue with the same approach.

[dl]

Re: Here we go again

I know it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg argument, but I truly believe that one of the reasons track is no longer as popular as it was even 15-20 years ago is precisely because it receives little coverage in the daily sports section.

I remember when I was a young kid who had just been introduced to the sport by a family friend who took me to the old Examiner Indoor Games. Shortly thereafter I remember seeing a huge banner headling on the front page of the SF Chronicle's Sporting Green (back when it was actually on green paper!):

COGHLAN BREAKS 3:50

The average sports fan was aware of such things. Today, not only would a potential young track fan have few opportunities to see a good track meet, they're never going to be exposed to the sport in the popular media.

Of course, who reads newspapers these days...

[tm71]

Re: Here we go again

here we go again >>>

sounds like roland reagan from 1984 !
but you are right, track receives most of its coverage outside the olympics because of someone testing positive or accused of it.
i am sure they had some negative stories about baseball and football, but the percentages of negative stories about track is much higher than most other sports.

[EPelle]

Re: Here we go again

I must state, however, that the LA Times and both the SF Chronicle and SF Examiner were at one time - and still may be (I don:t live in the states) very resourceful in providing major USA and all Grand Prix international athletics results from placings 1-8. I have a clipping from the Examiner (1995-07-14) with a quarter-page story on Morceli setting a(nother) world record (3.27,37 in Nice). Morceli had already run 3.28/3.44/7.25, yet his 1,49-second improvement was a big news-maker in the Bay Area. These papers - as well as others - do (did) a fantastic job with covering athletics both within and outside of the United States.

[Dietmar239]

Re: Here we go again

To be honest with you the media perception has influenced quite a number of high school coaches as well. Having graduated in 92' I saw this first-hand. The coaches at my High School felt that track was just a spring/summer warm-up to get you in shape for football in the fall. I remember a friend of mine asking our head track coach if he should pursue track or football in college and the coach said, "track may be fun, but football has the longest future".

[MJD]

Re: Here we go again

I remember a friend of mine
>asking our head track coach if he should pursue track or football in college
>and the coach said, "track may be fun, but football has the longest future".

Uh? Doesn't the average football player only have about a 3 year career?