US Olympic Marathon Team may come from Chicago, New York and Boston Marathon?

You lost me, was that a shot at me?

I said it's an IMPRESSION, they didn't really say anything.

Do you consider it a shot at you? I was just pointing out how what you said came across. So, what's the impression based upon?

Double "Huh?" wrote:

Do you consider it a shot at you? I was just pointing out how what you said came across. So, what's the impression based upon?

Sorry I came across like a "know-it-all" just giving my input. Truth is I don't know anything about this, but neither does anyone else until the bids are turned in. Not that us in the general public would know anything after that, but we can hope someone gives us some details of the bids.

Okay. The things you were saying made it seem like you were privy to something or at least had a concrete reason to believe what you were saying.

Scared Fan wrote:

Heard from the rumor mill that in the future the US marathon team might move from the US Trials format and go to the highest US finisher at the big three marathons.

I've only read the first few pages of this thread, but it seems like people are taking this to mean that one American is selected at each of those three races, but the details are not in yet.

I was interpreting this differently, at least in my first thoughts when I read the sentence above. I was thinking that they would select the top placing Americans in the overall results of those races:

Chicago

1. K.K.

5. A.C.

7. American

New York

2. Meb

11. American

13. American

Boston

8. American

9. American

In this senario, K.K., A.C., and Meb would be selected because they had the highest overall placings in those three marathons. Of course, this doesn't tell you what to do if there is a tie in the placings in the different marathons, but that is something that can easily be worked out. For example, tie breakers could be based on percent back from the overall winner in the marathon run or the percent back from the the average of the top three in the marathon run, etc.

This doesn't seem like all that bad of an idea to me, at least without knowing all the details yet. A plus would be that the highest placing Americans at those three marathons would be a lot better than they are now. What place was the top American male at Boston the past several years? (dropped into the 20s, I think?) That's pathetic. This would encourage all the folks who are trying to qualify for OTs now to prepare to race well in those major marathons. As someone who has (or least had in the past) potential to run around 2:20 low, I would be just as motivated to try to rip a good one at one of the three qualifying races as I would be to try to qualify for the OT. I don't see why people are saying that mid-level runners would be discouraged... It would probably actually be the opposite for me.

I still don't like it, with all due respect. I don't like all of the possible scenarios. "What if" by using your example, it's hot at NY or Chicago and a lot of the top foreigners drop out to take a payday somewheres else. Then come Boston, (the KENYAN Olympic trials) nobody drops out and we have a great American performance that is a 6th or something but was with all of the A-list foreigners in it?

I just don't like it. I think we have had the fairest way of picking the Olympic team, and it's possible someone will be fuc... screwed by circumstances beyond thier control. I'm big on saying don't look at all of the "what if's", and here I am responding to one. I know someone very good is going to be left off of the Olympic team under ANY scenario. Hell, in 2004 Trent Briney ran 2:12:35, (fastest ever run at the trials to NOT make the team), so it happens. At least he had a shot at beating those guys THE SAME DAY, THE SAME COURSE, THE SAME CONDITIONS. I'm not saying it was easy to be left off the team, but at least he didn't have to sit there thinking "if only I had run 'X marathon' instead of 'Y marathon'" or "why wasn't the weather for 'X' like the weather for 'Y'". As hard as it is, you just hold your head high and say, "there were 3 Americans better than me that day" and move on. No second guessing things beyond your control, no wondering "what if".

No disrespect to Trent Briney but a runner like him is a good reason for the multi race format. Personally, I'd hate to see a team of flukes because of strange weather, travel problems, race-of-a-lifetime, etc. We have sent too many runners to the Games in the past twenty years that may have earned a ticket through our "fair" system but had no realistic shot at the big dance.

Thus far, Briney has not backed up his Trials performance whereas Culp, Kastor, Meb and other have showed consistent excellence. We should be sending our best, not some 2:18 guy or 2:39 girl who ran out of their minds on a windy snowy day. It worked out last time but a bad weather day could still give us a team of lottery winners.

It could still happen with the multi races but with three showcases on various terrain and against world class fields, we could separate the true contenders from the merely lucky. The only other fair way in my mind is to run our Trials in the fall. The winner is guaranteed a spot on the team and any other American attaining the Olympic A standard at the fall Trials can compete for the remaining spots at a half-marathon fitness test 8 weeks before the Games. No more 2000 Sydney one person teams, no qualifiers showing up hurt and unable to compete like Ritz in Athens, and no more Olympic tourists.

Miles and Miles - I appreciate your POV but you have not convinced anyone why we should continue to cater to the second and third tier with the reward of a Trials experience. I cannot see a tangible reason how keeping a few dozen middling talents motivated helps the overall picture in the US.

The only thing I will say further on this is that I feel the need to apologize to Trent Briney for using his case as an example of how I felt someone could be left off the Olympic team, even if they ran thier ass off, due to something beyond thier control. I should have known someone on the letsrun expert panel would call him an unnecessary name. Sorry Trent.

I will again say your comment about "no realistic shot at the big dance" is why people compete in the first place. Would you have bet against Radcliff or Tergat winning medals at the games? Would you agree they had a "realistic shot at the big dance"? That is the kind of attitude that will never allow us to win anything. If someone has earned a place on the team by finishing top 3 at the trials, I think they have earned the right by years and years of hard training and preparation and beating the best at the right time, at trying to do it again at the big dance.

Well then why do they allow others in the Olympics that have no shot at the Gold? Why don't we just appoint a gold to someone that has been the best over the last 4 years. No fluke golds right?

We aren't Samoa, ya knucklehead.

Does it really matter anyway how we pick our team? The best U.S. marathon guy K.K. won't be running the trials anyway. Healways comes up with some sort of injury.

That's the stupidest way to pick a marathon team that I've ever heard. All that does is encourage the top Americans to avoid foreign elites. Let's just throw out a possible result of this idea of yours:

1. Chicago attracts many international elites with big prize money. KK runs a 2:05:55 to place 3rd. Meb runs a 2:08:19 to place 7th.

2. New York: Top American finishes 4th in 2:13:05 against a decent international field.

3. Boston: American runners finish 5th and 6th in 2:14:01 and 2:14:05 against a weak international field.

So, Meb, the second fastest US marathoner is left out in that serenario. Even assuming KK gets injured and misses the Olympics.

Okay, so can we all agree on what a bad idea that is.

What would stop Meb from taking a shot in either NYCM or Boston?

explain. wrote:

What would stop Meb from taking a shot in either NYCM or Boston?

Well, New York is two weeks later. And if he does run Boston, that's three marathons in about 9 months assuming he qualifies and runs at the Olympics.

Unless you mean that Meb should skip Chicago all together and pick one of the other two, less competitive marathons. So, you're left with a situation where the top Americans will be ducking the top international elites at the biggest Amercian marathons. Yeah, that's a great way to pick an Olympic team.

The point is why in the world is 6th overall at Boston deemed bettered than 7th overall at Chicago? or whatever.

Is that you Randy A.

Well, it's actually usually more like four weeks between NY and Chicago, but if he could see by 20 (or 15) that he wasn't going to be the top American at Chicago, why wouldn't he just shut it down early and git'r dun in NY? Also, he did pretty damn well in his 3rd marathon (w/in 9 months) of 2004, didn't he?

The proposed method would be a damn sight better than the one responsible for sending a lone Dehaven and a lone Clark.

I have thought long and hard about this topic, and I dont think that the 3 race plan is a good idea.

We have a fair and democratic system in place (the one race Olympic Trials Marathon) for choosing the Olympic Team, and I dont think that we should change it.

American Marathoning has been more successful now than at any time in the last 20 years, so changing the selection process is not needed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The only change that is possibly needed is to have the men and women run the same day on the same course in order to save money.

Beijing will be hot and muggy in August, so having the trials race in a place like Miami or Tampa in January 2008 is probably the best idea.

Jason

explain. wrote:

The proposed method would be a damn sight better than the one responsible for sending a lone Dehaven and a lone Clark.

There's no guarantee of that under the new system. If it had been in place for '04, both NY '03 and Boston '04 were hot days, so it's possible the top Americans would not have achieved the "A" standard in those races (what happened in Columbia/Pitt '00) and any who had the standard might run poorly. So then it becomes picking the team by committee, opening a massive political can of worms, which for me is one HUGE reason against this proposal.

But then, think of how much bandwidth would be generated on LetsRun board with all the bashing and second guessing of a team picked by USATF/LDR - might require a new server for the JoBros.

explain. wrote:

The proposed method would be a damn sight better than the one responsible for sending a lone Dehaven and a lone Clark.

That problem has already been taken care of and isn't going to happen again.