The odds would be significantly lowered, though!
The odds would be significantly lowered, though!
The only system responsible for sending only one runner in 2000 was the runners themselves. They (we) all knew the standard and had over a year to get it before the Trials. Same thing applies for every Trials. "A" standards should be out of the way. Hoping you hit the A and be in the top three isn't the best indication that you're Olympic Team material.
Miles and Miles wrote:
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.
Miles,
How has the problem been taken care of? Please explain.
Secondly, it's time for all to finally realize WE DID send our best marathoners to Sydney. Who would have done better? DeHaven was sick, not his fault. Clark ran yet another PR in Sydney. Name one of our athletes that would hae medalled there, given the chance. In fact, name one that could have been top 10 there. Not a direct knock on anyone, but that was the state of marathoning in this country at that time.
The Olympic Standards were softened correct? The IAAF helped us (USA) out to make sure we get six there.
That and the USATF realized the screw up from 2000 and PROBABLY won't hold the Trials on a hilly/slow course again.
Jesus, why do I even bother?
Miles and Miles wrote:
That and the USATF realized the screw up from 2000 and PROBABLY won't hold the Trials on a hilly/slow course again.
You are going to have to spell it out, I don't understand your comment.
I know that everyone knew the standard going into the 2000 Trials, but I don't think anyone could hit it before hand correct? Wasn't the B Olympic Standard like 2:14 and the A was like 2:10? Not sure. Now they are 2:15/2:18.
Miles and Miles wrote:
I know that everyone knew the standard going into the 2000 Trials, but I don't think anyone could hit it before hand correct? .
That's my point.
So why the comment at me? Do you not think it was a problem having the hilly courses for the 2000 Trials if the athletes knew the standards beforehand?
Because you're placing blame at USATF when the real issue was why we didn't have more guys under 2:14. Same thing applies for the proposed 3 tier scenario. Our eventual Olympic team should be made up of marathoners who routinely run well below IAAF standards. Time at the Trials shouldn't be the focus. It should be an afterthought when the emphasis on place.
and if we don't have runners that can run below the standards? That was the case in 2000. I am not disagreeing with you, just curious about your thoughts on it. If we couldn't have runners routinely under 2:14 shouldn't they have set up the best scenerio to try and get some at the Trials (the last chance)? Who's to blame if we didn't have Marathoners under 2:14?
I still like the idea of a criterium course in Boston the Sunday before the Boston Marathon. This is the core running audience and the best way to assure a captive audience. There was talk about this awhile back with a course set up to conform to all standards. The 2:20 to 2:22 guys will be treated like stars by their fellow runners who understand the struggle.
I feel like Pittsburgh got a bum rap. They won that bid well in advance. It's not like they were sizing up the black hole of quality marathoners and re-routing the course accordingly. Even if they did, the major downfall that day was the heat. The course isn't that bad. Remember Brantly rocked those streets in 2:12 as well as Ken Martin. Scudamore broke 2:14. I actually think once you got past the hill heading into Oakland, it's not that undulating.
Send the Best wrote:
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....
If you drop the ball that's not the fault of USATF. Especially in the Olympic Marathon when conditions are almost never ideal it's best to send a team of "racers" than a team of "time trialers". Line em up on the Sunday before Boston and let em go around a crit course.
Alan
I can't help but notice how many of the notable names like Glenn Latimer and Fred Finke have quietly slithered away. You can bet that the with the way these type people do business, you will just wake up one day and there proposal will be a reality. They are right now trying to circle the wagons and create support for a horrible idea. Mark my words. They will tell you that they are waiting for all of the bids to come in before they comment. When all the bids are received, they will tell us that "the three city system bid was the only good bid".
Anyone that is opposed to this proposal should continue to put pressure on USATF. They have already made their decision (no matter what they tell us) and now they are just looking for a way to justify it.
Josh K. wrote:
In the end it doesn't really matter which proposal wins out, the best will rise to the top. The real problem is that we have guys year in and year out trying to make A and B standards, let alone be competitive on the world stage. Right now we're bickering about which also-rans to send to the Olympics. We should be thinking of ideas to change also-rans to medal-contenders.
We are coming off of a year that we had 2 medals. That is more than any other country. Maybe other countries should be duplicating what was done to select the USA team for 2004.
This 3 city selection idea won't happen, for men or women. Too many 'what ifs.'
Folks are getting too worked up over this. I suspect the three city proposal was just an idea someone floated during a brainstorming session and the kneejerks on bulletin boards treated it like a done deal.
The more realistic scenario is that the big three US marathons will bid for the trials and either Chicago or New York will win. They'll run the race the same day and probably start the Trials fields 30 minutes before the masses to take advantage of the media assembled and the crowds. We'll have a team selected well in advance of the Games, it will give a "surprise" athlete the chance to chase an "A" standard time if needed, and the big races can bring dollars and logistical expertise to the event. Most importantly, USATF / USOC don't have to create a race from scratch and incur the extra costs associated with it.
Think Simple wrote:
Folks are getting too worked up over this. I suspect the three city proposal was just an idea someone floated during a brainstorming session and the kneejerks on bulletin boards treated it like a done deal.
There are more then a few people looking at a real proposal of this idea. It's not a done deal but it's more then just an idea someone floated.
bump
Miles and Miles wrote:
The Olympic Standards were softened correct? The IAAF helped us (USA) out to make sure we get six there.
That and the USATF realized the screw up from 2000 and PROBABLY won't hold the Trials on a hilly/slow course again.
Not to get into a pising match with you, but...... the standards for 2008 haven't been announced yet. They could go up or down, we don't know. So the problem hasn't been solved, it was resolved in 2004.
USATF didn't screw anything up in 2000. There were two bids. One from Pittsburgh for the men and one from Columbia for the women. Both had million dollar budgets. Even with hindsight going for you, would you put on your own race to the tune of $2 million dolllars?