The Joan Samuelson Quandry
Joan Samuelson, 52, was the first runner 40-and-over to cross the line at this year's Credit Union Cherry Blossom. I am looking for feedback about what awards people think she should get. For purposes of this post "Masters means 40-49 or 40-and-over, and "GrandMasters" means 50-59 or 50-and over.
If your event does not offer "Grandmasters" prize money, but does offer Aasters money, does she win the Masters Prize money only?
If your event offers Grandmasters money, does she win both the masters money and the Grandmasters money?
If she had earned open prize money, would you have paid her open money only?
Open and masters money?
Open, masters and grandmasters money?
What award(s) would you give her at the awards ceremony?
Do you have a double-dipping policy?
Last edited by pstewart; 04-13-2010 at 03:00 PM.
Normally, this would be spelled out in advance. If not, then I would think you give her the highest prize. If she'd won the Open category, then she'd get the Open prize and the second place master/grandmaster would be awarded the winning prize for those categories, assuming they did't come in 2nd in the Open category.
Where it gets tricky is the prize money. Let's say the runner was first Master, which pays $100, but was also the 2nd Open runner, which pays $50. If you give her the 2nd place award, do you give her the $50 or pay her the higher amount that she won? If you do give her the higher amount, do you have to pay the Open winner a bit more, or does 1st and 2nd now recieve the exact same amount? Again, this is why it should be spelled out in advance. I believe that USATF has some guidelines, and in lieu of your own, pull those over (or link to) to your own website.
If I take you literally, she would be entitled to both since you say "Masters" is 40 and over and Grand Masters is 50 and over. If you are talking about age-group awards, then she would win the 50-59, but not the 40-49. Semantics can be a bugger!
Give Her Both!
She's 52, and beats all of the other 40+ year old women? She has earned both the Masters prize money and the GrandMasters prize money. If she had won overall, I would give her the Overall prize money as well. Once you get to Masters status, let the double-dipping of prize money begin - it might add a little incentive to those younger runners!
Although it is hard to dispute that beating a younger age group is impressive, I am FIRMLY against double dipping.
The common practice with ribbons and plates is...if a person places in the open category, they get pulled out of their age groups. Doesn't matter if the winner is 17 or 67, if a person wins the RACE, they don't also win their age group. I know there are some that have other processes, but, I think that this is the common practice.
Without specific notes to the contrary, I would treat the money similarly although I would make an effort ensure that she receives the largest SINGLE pile of money that she has earned. For example, if she finished 10th overall (earning $10 for this honor) and won the super-masters (earning $100 for this honor), I'd give her $100 but give her the 10th place overall trinket. I would NOT move the 11th overall up to 10th, and I would NOT give Joan $110. I would then move all the other super-masters up in terms of trinkets AND cash awards. So...yes...I would take the bath on the extra $90 in prize money, but I perceive this to be the right thing to do.
Your common practice is dependent upon where you have the event. For instance in the state of Oklahoma the vast majority of events allow for double dipping. Personally I don't think it matters as long as you provide what way it will be done in advance.
Originally Posted by Finish_Line
Why do people have a problem with double- or triple-dipping?
If Joan won overall, in my mind she (1) beat everyone else, so is entitled to overall prize, (2) beat every other 40+ runner, so is entitled to that prize money, (3) beat every grandmaster, and is entitled to that prize money. She beat everyone in each category, so should be able to collect the prize money that was offered for the person that beat everyone else in the category.
Why are other runners so greedy and entitled that they think if someone wins one prize, they should forfeit the other prizes, so the 1st-loser gets a 1st-place prize? Winning is winning, and prizes should not be conditional.
I know, it is common practice, but that is simple race directors trying to spread-out prizes. If someone wins a bushel of prizes, why shouldn't they get them? This whole "fairness" attitude is going too far. You had a competition, someone won multiple categories. Pay up.