Upload a Photo Upload a Video Add a News article Write a Blog Add a Comment
Blog Feed News Feed Video Feed All Feeds

Folders

 

News

 

National Individual Rankings - 10/10 Girls - XC - Dyestat

Published by
DyeStat   on Oct 10 2013, 03:41 PM

NATIONAL XC TEAMS REGIONAL XC TEAMS NATIONAL XC INDIVIDUALS

 

DyeStat Individual Rankings - Top 30 Girls

2013 Release Dates: Preseason - Sept 26 - Oct 10 - Oct 24 - Nov 7 - Nov 21
 - Dec 5 - Dec 19
by Doug Binder, Dyestat Editor

Sarah Baxter still the 1 heading to Clovis 

Top 30, Oct 10

1 – Sarah Baxter, senior, Simi Valley (California): Another opportunity to shine at Clovis on Saturday

2 – Alexa Efraimson, junior, Camas (Washington): Virtually "1B" after winning Dellinger

3 – Elise Cranny, senior, Niwot (Colorado): Dominant 16:45 performance at Northern Conference Champs

4 – Taylor Werner, sophomore, Ste. Genevieve (Missouri): Very good 17:25 at the Jefferson City Inv.

Anna Maxwell, senior, San Lorenzo Valley (California): Fastest girl at Stanford Invite

6 – Hannah Debalsi, sophomore, Staples (Connecticut): Looks untouchable in New England

7 – Jordyn Colter, junior, Cherry Creek (Colorado): Undefeated season includes Griak title

8 – Stephanie Jenks, sophomore, unattached/Linn-Mar (Iowa): Triathlete swims for her school in fall.

9 – Makena Morley, junior, Bigfork (Montana): Won the Mountain West in 16:43 (3M)

10 – Katie Rainsberger, sophomore, Air Academy (Colorado): Upset by frosh Lauren Gregory bumps her back a few spots

11 – Caroline Alcorta, senior, West Springfield (Virginia): Ran 17:41 at Hagan Stone Park Classic

12 – Marissa Williams, junior, Palisades Charter (California): Ran 16:56 (3M) for second at Bell-Jeff Invite

13 – Hannah Long, junior, Eureka (Missouri): Bounced back with Great American Festival win

14  Ella Donaghu, sophomore, Grant (Oregon): Second to Efraimson at Pre-Nats

15 – Lucy Biles, junior, Herriman (Utah): Wins at Firman, Nebo and Park City bode well for state

16 – Audrey Belf, junior, Seaholm (Michigan): Latest win was at Oakland County Champs

17 – Allie Ostrander, junior, Kenai Central (Alaska): Alaskan state champ races in Oregon this week

18 – Tessa Barrett, senior, Abington Heights (Pennsylvania): Five course records in five races

19 – Bella Burda, junior, Arlington (New York): Won her league meet by 2:20 on Tuesday

20 – Abbie McNulty, senior, Bishop Feehan (Massachusetts): Won the Ocean States Invitational

21 – Bethan Knights, senior, Northwood (California): Beat Williams at Bell-Jeff Invite

22  Annie Heffernan, junior, St. Ursula Academy (Ohio) – Winning streak interrupted by Brasure at Portage

23 – Courtney Smith, senior, Unionville (Pennsylvania): Led the charge in Unionville's win over F-M

24 – Natalie Rathjen, senior, Highland Park (Texas): Ran 17:34 to win McNeil Invitational

25 Lauren Brasure, senior, Rockford (Michigan): Ran 17:36 to win the Portage Invitational

26 – Mady Clahane, sophomore, Cumberland Valley (Pennsylvania): Scored a huge win at the Carlisle Invitational

27 – Lauren Gregory, freshman, Fort Collins (Colorado): With a win against Rainsberger, "Hello World!"

28 – Sarah Feeny, senior, Ogden (Utah) – Cruised to victory at City/County Meet

29 Fiona O'Keeffe, sophomore, Davis (California) – Ran 17:38 to win her section at Stanford

30 – Autumn Eastman, senior, Champlain Valley (Vermont): Undefeated Vermonter gets test at Manhattan

HM (no particular order): Paige Hofstad TX, Anna French MN, Samantha Ortega CA, Jeralyn Poe NE, Josette Norris NJ, Sydney Badger NV, Destiny Collins CA, Kailie Grimes CA, Danielle Jones AZ, McKenzie Yanek IA, Hannah Benoit-Bucher CA, Tamara Gorman SD, Abby Wheeler NY, Kennedy Weisner PA, Allie Klimkiewicz VA, Madisyn Peeples KY, Eliza Rego RI; Kennedy Jensen NY

Post to:  
Post as: 
46 comment(s)  
dkap

Joe Lanzalotto, on , said:

I think that those cases were actually settled rather than litigated.


Ah, that would explain it.

Dan
Joe Lanzalotto

dkap, on , said:

Weird, you would think that would set a precedent for all similar cases.

Dan


I think that those cases were actually settled rather than litigated.
dkap

Joe Lanzalotto, on , said:

I've spoken to attorneys who did in fact handle issues on rules that are related to these and done so successfully in individual cases. Problem is that they applied only to the individuals for whom the attorneys were working.


Weird, you would think that would set a precedent for all similar cases.

Dan
Joe Lanzalotto
I think the reason that these rules and the power of state associations to enforce them last is that athletes only spend 4 years in high school and then move on and when they do their (and their parents') interest is righting the system disappears. Add onto that the fact that most athletes won't care much about being prohibited from outside competition until they are pretty good at it and that usually takes a year or two. So then you end up with a very short window of time when an athlete would be adversely affected by these rules AND in order to challenge them they need to engage the services of an attorney which is never cheap.

I've spoken to attorneys who did in fact handle issues on rules that are related to these and done so successfully in individual cases. Problem is that they applied only to the individuals for whom the attorneys were working. Their opinion - every one of them - was that these rules would not stand up if they were challenged in court but that would take some time and money.

A much simpler way to get it done would be to have the schools in a given state tell the SA that they don't want those kinds of rules. Yeah, that's not simpler nor are the schools ever going to do that.
DougB
This rule got a little bit of notice on the Kansas board when I posted it a month ago.

http://www.kshsaa.or...untry/Week3.cfm


I still think it is ridiculous.
dkap

Joe Lanzalotto, on , said:

What right does a state association have to tell a kid that s/he can't run in a road race during the season?


That's what I can never figure out. Does no one challenge these rules? I can't imagine they'd withstand much scrutiny... Are athletes in such states signing something that says they agree to give up basic liberties? And do those states even allow minors to sign waivers?

Dan
Joe Lanzalotto

Greg Beal, on , said:

Variations on those types of rules have been in place in California for decades.

My guess for college competition is that the restriction is two-fold: trying to ensure that athletes aren't competing too often, and to dissuade any type of recruiting that could go on by inviting high school athletes to compete in particular college events.

Without special permission, California high school athletes are not allowed to compete in any unsanctioned events during the high school season proper. For runners, that would seem to include local road runs, college meets, all-comers meets, etc.

There are no restrictions on Olympic and other similar qualifying events (though by and large those occur outside the high school season). For runners, there are also no restrictions on summer or winter competitions that occur outside the fall and spring high school seasons.

Penalties seem to be two meets for a first offense; a full year for a second offense.


Really just unbelievable. State associations all over the country are largely alike. Imagine telling someone in the high school band that they couldn't play in another band on the weekends at parties, etc. What right does a state association have to tell a kid that s/he can't run in a road race during the season? Or even in an open meet? The right of might. The schools decide to give the SA authority to tell a kid what s/he can and cannot do and aside from getting a lawyer (and we have enough of that) what can the kid do?
Greg Beal
Variations on those types of rules have been in place in California for decades.

My guess for college competition is that the restriction is two-fold: trying to ensure that athletes aren't competing too often, and to dissuade any type of recruiting that could go on by inviting high school athletes to compete in particular college events.

Without special permission, California high school athletes are not allowed to compete in any unsanctioned events during the high school season proper. For runners, that would seem to include local road runs, college meets, all-comers meets, etc.

There are no restrictions on Olympic and other similar qualifying events (though by and large those occur outside the high school season). For runners, there are also no restrictions on summer or winter competitions that occur outside the fall and spring high school seasons.

Penalties seem to be two meets for a first offense; a full year for a second offense.
dkap

DougB, on , said:

"The WIAA rules state that when a high school athlete competes in a meet against college athletes who are representing their schools in a scored meet, that violates the amateur status for the high school athlete," said Mike Colbrese, executive director for the WIAA.


How does the amateur status of a high school athlete change by running in a race with amateur college athletes?


I've been baffled by that, too. And why does it matter if the college meet is scored or unscored?

Would a WIAA athlete be sanctioned for running against a private HS where student athletes are on scholarship? (Obviously not.) I don't see the difference.

Dan
DougB
"The WIAA rules state that when a high school athlete competes in a meet against college athletes who are representing their schools in a scored meet, that violates the amateur status for the high school athlete," said Mike Colbrese, executive director for the WIAA.


How does the amateur status of a high school athlete change by running in a race with amateur college athletes?
watchout

DontStopPre, on , said:

Good news. I'm interested to know why they originally ruled her ineligible (what rule did they think she violated) and then on what grounds was she reinstated. All of this drama should've been avoided. I feel like I'm on an emotional roller coaster, so I can only assume she feels the same times a million.


Mike Colbrese (head of the WIAA) was quoted in an article in the Columbian (Camas/Vancouver's newspaper) after the district meet the other day:

Quote

"It's a very common for the WIAA to handle these situations in this manner," Colbrese said. "We wanted to review what the parents knew about the rule. We ascertained that they got some misinformation from (Alexa's) previous coach, and that her current coach didn't have the correct rule interpretation. We felt that the student was caught in a situation that was not of her own creation, so the decision was made to reinstate her."


http://www.columbian...untry-district/
DontStopPre
I get the purpose of the rule (I guess). But it's written so poorly. So you can't compete against a professional ... I bet this happens a lot at summer all comer meets in large cities. And yes the WIAA would probably consider Mary Cain ineligible in Washington if she lived there but all she would apparently have to do is appeal it and she would win like Alexa did. My guess is that the WIAA still feels Alexa violated their (stupid) rule, but that WIAA lawyers said the rule is written so poorly that it wouldn't hold up. As said by others, any prep athlete participating in the suposedly amateur Olympics or even Olympic trials would violate this stupid rule.
Aaron Rich

Chris Nickinson, on , said:

Sorry, Aaron, I didn't mean that come off the wrong way. It's been one of those afternoons.


No worries Chris. I didn't take it the wrong way. Just wanted to explain what I did.
watchout
That was a truncated explanation of the rule: It isn't just for ball sports - it also comes into play if an individual competes against a professional in that sport (i.e., track). And while this situation (running against a collegiate field where the collegiate teams are scored) was bad enough, how ridiculous would it be if an athlete is ruled ineligible for the remainder of their high school track career just because they were good enough to compete at the Olympic Trials as a sophomore or junior?

I don't think a road race wouldn't effect her eligibility - to my knowledge, the WIAA doesn't consider that cross country. But, if we were talking about Mary Cain, then no she wouldn't be eligible to compete in track for a WIAA school because she has competed against professional athletes in that sport.

The text of the rule was posted in more detail in the milesplit article. Or if you want even further detail, read the WIAA handbook on the WIAA website that the milesplit article links to ... the relevant section is 18.23.x, in particular 18.23.1F and 18.23.5 (which Milesplit quotes) on pages 52 and 53.

And, there is also this notice published by the WIAA last winter in regards to Amateur status for Track & Field athletes (and the same rule applies to all sports): http://www.wiaa.com/...%20Open%20T.pdf

Quote

The open meets offered by many colleges and recreation organizations are open to any high school athlete to compete, in or out the high school season. The exception for this statement is when the athletes are professional or the college athlete is scoring for their school. If this is the case, the high school athlete should be placed in a different heat that has only non-scorers, unattached, and nonprofessional athletes. The high school athlete may not wear high school uniforms while participating at these meets. High school athletes should not be transported or coached by the high school coaches (paid or volunteer) until the summer out of season time period.
Bsarno1
Sounds like a rule for the ball sports and an antiquated one. How was she contaminated? What if she ran in a road race or even the Olympics where members of "professional" teams might participate?
A high school coach might be concerned about the physical risk to an athlete competing in any extra event but that is a team issue. I can see high school coaches getting a bit edgy about kids competing for non school teams, a trend which is altering sports such as soccer, swimming, tennis and basketball. But the kid should always come first.
Chris Nickinson

Aaron Rich, on , said:

Chris, I was actually alerted through another source, but then pointed to the forums here for what watchout was saying. I contacted Alexa and was given the good news. I have also contacted the WIAA via email and voicemail to see their take on the matter. If they respond to me I will add to my article and send to Doug as well. Hopefully they shed a little more light on why they acted the way they did. I wasn't about to press Alexa to comment on that, she has enough to worry about with racing and school.


Sorry, Aaron, I didn't mean that come off the wrong way. It's been one of those afternoons.
Aaron Rich

Chris Nickinson, on , said:

MileSplit, no doubt likely alerted by your posting, got to the bottom of it and found out she's been reinstated.
http://usa.milesplit...al#.UmRePJQli2Y
The original ruling was dumb.


Chris, I was actually alerted through another source, but then pointed to the forums here for what watchout was saying. I contacted Alexa and was given the good news. I have also contacted the WIAA via email and voicemail to see their take on the matter. If they respond to me I will add to my article and send to Doug as well. Hopefully they shed a little more light on why they acted the way they did. I wasn't about to press Alexa to comment on that, she has enough to worry about with racing and school.
watchout
The rule she violated was not competing against collegiate athletes in a scored meet. I don't know what grounds they argued to get her reinstated, but it's a fairly silly rule so the WIAA probably just didn't care that much since she is still an amateur athlete (which is what that rule is supposed to protect against, I guess). In essence, I'm guessing she got off with a warning of avoiding similar situations in the future.
DontStopPre
Good news. I'm interested to know why they originally ruled her ineligible (what rule did they think she violated) and then on what grounds was she reinstated. All of this drama should've been avoided. I feel like I'm on an emotional roller coaster, so I can only assume she feels the same times a million.
watchout
Good news.

Yeah, the original ruling was dumb. Glad that the reinstatement process went so quickly!
Chris Nickinson

watchout, on , said:

I hope so, but this wording made me unsure:

"If you're eligible to compete for your high school team, you're eligible to run in the Nike Cross Nationals."

(runners that have been eligible to compete for their team's JV, but not Varsity, have been allowed to compete before on at least three separate occasions, but I'm not sure if there's ever been a situation where an athlete has been essentially banned from participating in the sport for the season - at any level - was allowed to compete at NXN)

At any rate, this should serve as a reminder for others... be very careful about the choices you make.


MileSplit, no doubt likely alerted by your posting, got to the bottom of it and found out she's been reinstated.
http://usa.milesplit...al#.UmRePJQli2Y
The original ruling was dumb.
watchout
I hope so, but this wording made me unsure:

"If you're eligible to compete for your high school team, you're eligible to run in the Nike Cross Nationals."

(runners that have been eligible to compete for their team's JV, but not Varsity, have been allowed to compete before on at least three separate occasions, but I'm not sure if there's ever been a situation where an athlete has been essentially banned from participating in the sport for the season - at any level - was allowed to compete at NXN)

At any rate, this should serve as a reminder for others... be very careful about the choices you make.
Chris Nickinson

watchout, on , said:

#2 Alexa Efraimson is done for the rest of the HS season (ruled ineligible for the rest of the season due to competing in a scored collegiate race).
Not sure if that will effect her opportunity to run NXN?


Well you can't spell state association without a**.

She should be ok for NXN or Foot Locker.
watchout
#2 Alexa Efraimson is done for the rest of the HS season (ruled ineligible for the rest of the season due to competing in a scored collegiate race).
Not sure if that will effect her opportunity to run NXN?

EDIT: As seen below, she has now been reinstated.
Smythington
Nice to see #28 Sarah Feeny run a 17:00.6 to spice up her senior year. (Ut Reg.5).
View More
History for DyeStatCAL
YearVideosNewsPhotosBlogs
2014 2288 420 15175  
2013 3435 803 17656  
2012 73   9  
2010 86 1    
2001 125 4    
2000 224 2    
1999   1    
Hashtags: None
 
 
------DyeStat Track Talk Forums------
Main
HS General
HS Elite
College
Elite
The Plaground
Help
Training
Spikes
Nutrition
Distance
Sprints/Relays/Hur
Jumps
Throws
West
California
Nevada
West Region
Washington/Oregon
Midwest/Heartland
Michigan
Illinois
Wisconsin
Kansas
Minnesota
Midwest/Heartland Region
South/Southeast
Texas
Florida
Tennessee
South/SE Region
Northeast
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
New York
New England
Maryland

International
Canada