----- Original Message -----
To: Matt Carpenter
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 1999 9:49 AM
Subject: Corrections to numbers you quoted

Dear Matt:

Fred Mais apprised me of the telephone conversation you and he had o/a Dec 20. According to Fred’s recollection of the discussion, you made two statements concerning specific dollar amounts.

First, you said something to the effect that “Why do we (meaning the TCR) charge $25.00 for a returned check?” We don’t and, since at least 1996, have not . Prior to 1996 there are no records to indicate what, if any, fees were imposed. Since 1996 we have imposed a maximum fee of $10.00 to cover direct charges and administration for a returned check.

Second, you said something to the effect that “You (meaning the TCR) spent only $5,000 on the Garden [of the Gods 10-Mile Run).” Far more than $5,000 is spent just on the runners’ shirts.

I would appreciate knowing the source(s) of the amounts you quoted so that I can inform him or her of the error(s). Thanks for your help in this.

Dave Zehrer

----- Original Message -----
From: Matt Carpenter
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 1999 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: Corrections to numbers you quoted

Thanks for writing Dave,

I will try to answer your concerns here. You are just going to have to believe me when I say NOTHING that you relayed to me from Fred is as I quoted. Therefore for you to assume that my numbers need corrected is simply wrong.

Issue 1 I brought up with Fred:
Refund policy.
If you will refer to the news section of my site I wrote that this policy, as well as some other recent changes, were positive steps that the TCR has taken. Someone then wrote me that they felt this policy would just delay the closing a small amount and further that they felt charging that much money to return an entry was just wrong.

From the TCR www site: “The details: Once registered, you may return your confirmation booklet and receive a $20.00 refund”

They (and then me, and now several more people) simply took the race fee of $45 and subtracted the $20 the TCR will return to come up with a $25 “return fee.” I asked Fred why so much and he said he would check into it. He too felt that this was high. I simply asked Fred to find out. For all we know the $25 (minus a reasonable fee) is going to feed the homeless. I also asked Fred why it could not be a revolving door with a set date like August 1. Let the waiting list grow as big as it will grow. As long as people return entries (again with a set day so that you have plenty of time to get your ducks in a row) keep taking people off the waiting list. As it is with the limits of the first 25 for the Marathon and first 40 for the Ascent I, and others, think it will only delay the current problem. Again Fred could see this too. Perhaps a drawing from the waiting list? Perhaps a WHOLE new entry system needs to be looked at in the future? Some races that are filling are using a complete lottery system whic h puts a stop to the “fills earlier each year” problem.

Most troubling to me was the simple fact that Fred did not even know there was a refund policy. At any rate, if in fact my numbers are incorrect my source was the TCR www site so please inform them of their “error(s).”

Issue 2 I brought up with Fred:
GOG race.
You recently wrote a letter to the PPRR’s Long Run and I was checking up on your numbers. If you wish numbers to be corrected perhaps it is yours that should be looked at. For you to say that the $ amounts were “roughly constant” is true only if by “roughly” you meant like a sand paper grit of 5. I would wonder how many people if given a pay cut of 33% in a one year period would consider their income to “roughly constant.” This happened twice during the timeframe you mention. You seem to want to focus on a rather narrow timeframe in your cursory analysis of the GOG race. Please quit trying to justify the GOG decline on silly things like its “difficulty” and start looking at the bigger picture. The $5,000 number given to Fred is 100% correct I assure you but it had nothing to do with the context in which he relayed it to you or at least nothing to do with how you relayed it to me. At any rate, if in fact my numbers are incorrect my source was GOG race entry forms ov er many years so please inform the GOG race of its “error(s).” Again my main concern here is the simple fact that the race director of the GOG knew nothing of your letter.


I will not play the “he said, she said” game with you that you have now chosen to play with me. Fred and I talked about many things and we agree on many things and we disagreed on many things. However I respect Fred because he, unlike you, seems to have the ability to stay focused on the debate and not bring in silly unrelated issues. More often that not if someone disagrees with you, you will nit-pick them and point out that they made a typo or wrote in all CAPS or in the case of Larry’s letter (which NEVER mentioned prize money by the way — he was talking about an attitude) you will regurgitate a bunch of nonsense that is — well let me use your own words here — your conclusions are wrong and numbers specious.

I will be honest and tell you Dave that I do not think you are sharing all the feedback that you get from people with anyone other than yourself so I really do not have much desire to do these one on ones with you. I am deeply concerned by fact that a large number of really great thoughts have been shared with you but the Vice President of the TCR/PPM knows nothing about them. I respectfully request that you add more contact info to the TCR www site so that others may communicate directly with the other board members. What is the point of bringing in new people (or in Fred’s case bringing back old people) if you are going to continue your one-man show? When I see TCR/PPM in any correspondence for now on I would like to know that the board is in the loop!

Go out hard, when it hurts speed up...

Matt Carpenter

----- Original Message -----
To: Matt Carpenter
Sent: Friday, December 31, 1999 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: Response to reply

Dear Matt:

My questions were not pejorative in nature; as the information had been conveyed to me it needed to be corrected. The use of the phrase “returned check fee” is associated with checks refused for payment; the issue you were speaking to Fred Mais about had nothing to do with such. Thus, my question on returned check fees is moot. Concerning the second question, apparently the $5,000 amount was related to available prize money and was not related to operational costs of the race. That being the case, no further comment is needed.

Dave Zehrer

Back to the 2000 Pikes Peak News Archives

Back to the Pikes Peak Central