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

Dead F...ing Last.

Let's cut to the chasel, Glenn. IT IS A DUMB IDEA.

You say that "without the facts people have opinions", then admonish everyone for not knowing the facts? Get real, why are you withholding the facts?

You deflect criticism by saying that New York, Chicago, and Boston approached you with the concept. These same three marathons wield considerable influence over you, since a great deal of your personal income depends on their favors. You are not an impartial player here. Because of your professional conflicts of interest, you should recuse yourself from "the process." The process, as you've described, is a farce.

As chair of LDR, rather than clarify and provide information, your are evasive and avoid transparency at all costs. Reading back over your 9 points you've said nothing illuminating here, except that "the process is the process."

Do the right thing and resign.

Are you for the one day selection for medals at the Olympic Games? A 2 day selection (for medals) would have likely eliminated Deena's Bronze Medal. My point is that the purity of our sport is that you can't be screwed by politics. You all race on one day and that is the outcome. Under the present system Meb and Deena both lost at the trials, but it did not effect their medal chances (they still made the team). I think that being forced to run a second marathon before the Olympics (which is what they would have to do) would have seriously jepordized their ability to medal.

The Baldini argument is ridiculous. He was selected. That is not what is proposed here. The same thing with trying to compare this with the Japanese system. After 3 races in Japan, they then select. That is also not this proposal

Just like to point out this topic has been in play on the Boston '79 thread for the past two days.Seems very few people are taking the pro side of this debate.....but as Glenn Latimers letter pointed out we are not privy to all the facts and they will come out as the bid info is released.That said any format that does not involve a head to head race does a disservice to the 2012 marathon pool as they would be the group that has Qualify for Trials in '08-win '12 as training goals. Mixed race is rife for pacers,team tactics and dare I say underhanded play. An extreme example I'm a 2:20:00 guy and my Female team mate is second at 18 miles,I might just happen to stumble and fall into the leading woman causing her to kiss the road.

Say I'm a guy with a 2:10:00 PR but not inshape to run to win but in enough shape to run a fast half M. My teammates know this so when I floor it at 8 miles non teammates think "he is a 2;10 guy I've got to cover that move" but my guys know I'm no real threat so the stay within their own race plan.

Let's see what comes out as the bids unfold remember just a few weeks ago "insiders" thought Boston was the frontrunner with a trials race the Sat before Patriots Day.

Who do I write a complaint to? This sounds like this idea is moving I want to make sure my voice is heard. I can't fly to all the meetings or whatever.

Cut to the chase wrote:

Reading back over your 9 points you've said nothing illuminating here, except that "the process is the process."

that is because you unable to understand the words in front of you. do the right thing and keep your mouth shut while more intelligent people discuss the matter.

1) Will the options be made available to public during the process or will they be kept amongst the committees with only the decision being made public?

2) Will any thoughts be solicited from the athletes?

3) Is Boston a certified course for accepting performances for entry into Olympics? I though because it was point to point and with a change in elevation outside a certain percentage it didn't count for record performances, etc. Didn't men's oly trials course have to be changed within last few months to meet these standards?

The idea has merit. Chicago probably guarantees our fastest guy gets in. New York favors a good stength / speed runner. Boston favors a grinder who can overcome tough hills and weather. Now we have a team where someone is ready for any course or weather condition.

From a money stand, the USOC doesn\'t have to pay airfare, room & board for a bunch of also rans.

From a competitive perspective, since qualifying would be eliminated, a good 5 or 10K guy from the track or a roadie could show up, pay his entry, and then surprise everyone. Perhaps this is good for a talented college XC runner or NCAA 8th place type to give the marathon one good shot before hanging them up. Better yet, someone like Ritz could try to qualify at Chicago, make the team, and still work on his 10K speed in the spring / early summer.

The only people who would be hurt by this scenario are those who are ego involved and need to have the term \"Trials Qualifier\" next to their name. Boo-hoo! If you have a prayer of making it to Beijing, then buy a plane ticket to one of these races and roll the dice. Don\'t most of you complain that \"Olympic Trials Qualifier\" is no more impressive than \"Team-In-Training Gallowalk Finisher\" in the eyes of the public these days?

Glenn and other USATF folks -

For years I've wondered why USATF does not have a discussion board/forum on their web site. It seems to me that this topic would be the PERFECT subject to discussion and debate there.

Set it up so that registration using real names would be required. This would not be all that difficult (how about tying registration of forum postings to your USATF membership number?) This would give USATF "members" the opportunity to give input, receive feedback, and share their thoughts in a transparent and "public" manner. USATF would benefit from much wider membership participation, something that has been lacking for many years.

I might actually renew my membership every year if such a "benefit" were to be offered.

As it stands now you'll continue to get mostly anonymous feedback based on rumors and speculation. Or, only those who travel to the annual convention, or happen to know you guys personally will get face time.

Something to think about.......

Thus far (and obviously we are only going to count people who use their own identity)

For 1 Glenn Latimer -an elite athlete coordinator for the Chicago Marathon who obviously gains personaly from this bid.

Against 4

Chad Worthen an Olympic Trials qualifier.

Weldon Johnson an Olympic Trials qualifier.

Malmo a former american record holder.

Kevin Hanson a coach and supporter that had roughly a dozen Olympic Trials qualifiers.

Wow this is a tough one to score so far.

Messrs. Latimer & Estes will make all the decisions and feed the rest of us what they think is appropriate. FF is only there for the pictures.

Right!

To Glenn Latimer,

My name is Tom Hyland and I post under the name wineturtle. I am in favor of continuing the one-shot all runners at the line together Trials Format. My posts on this topic can be found on other message boards where my human name is exposed along with my "handle".

Thanks for your attention and look forward to you keeping us up to date.

Tom Hyland

Score Card keeper - maybe Glenn's role at Chicago is being offset by Alan Steinfeld's NYRRC/NYC Marathon/USATF Board member/USATF Committees positions.

I'm trying hard to see how this "new" selection criteria/process is devoid of conflict of interest and back room maneuvering. It's hard to look past these sort of conflicts if the decision making process is not made more public.

First of all I am not in favor of the three race selection process---

My question is now this---what if the top American in any of the three races does not have the Olympic "A" standard?

Larry Kimball

Burlington, VT

I am sure there are problems with this idea, but what about some form of having both the Trials and using other marathons. For instance, change it to top 2 finishers at the Trials (time standards still necessary of course), anda third runner chosen - possibly from one of the other three marathons, or 3rd at the Trials, or some other way.

This way we keep all the benefits that the Trials offers, but still are able to include the guy on the team that is 5 minutes better than anyone else (hypothetical), gets sick, falls and bumps his head, or is tackled by some nut-job protester.

Obviously, there are details to be hammered out, and criteria to be determined for the 3rd spot (and alternate, for that matter), which hopefully would all but eliminate a selection committee from determining it.

Just throwing something out there that may be looked at.

wineturtle wrote:

Say I'm a guy with a 2:10:00 PR but not inshape to run to win but in enough shape to run a fast half M. My teammates know this so when I floor it at 8 miles non teammates think "he is a 2;10 guy I've got to cover that move" but my guys know I'm no real threat so the stay within their own race plan.

What stops this from happening with the current system?

Difficult scenario. As I see it, the new proposed system would completely professionalize American marathoning as we know it. As Boston Billy stated, "no one with a job will ever beat me.." and that's how it will be: a sport for the Culpeppers and Keflezighis. This also opens the door for the future Khannouchi's or any other foreigner (think Lagat) that wants to make America home.

My whole life has been centered around the Olympic Trials, and without it I do not know what I would do. I would still run, and train hard, but perhaps I will go back to the track and chase a standard there or perhaps get a little less serious (mentally in a way) with chasing a time and race more, etc.

I do think the Trial-less system has proven to be the most effective method in marathoning history if we look at Japan, Ethiopia, etc. Even our own system showed flaws in 2004 where Keflezighi and Kastor both did not win the Trials, yet rallied to medal at the Games.

Perhaps the best aspect of the Trial-less system would be the unnecessary stress of placing the Top 3 Trialist into an unfortunate predicament of two marathons in a 6-month period. And, yes, Frank Shorter was able to do it, but that's why he was Frank Shorter. Listen to Pete Pfitzinger or anyone else who felt they had to rush recovery and force training in such a short period of time.

As the world turns..

"These are the type of stories that will never exist again. We were told by some fairly higher up administrators of USATF that they are attempting to do away with the current Olympic Trials System for the Marathon. They are talking about having the winner of New York, Chicago, and Boston be our Olympians. I can't speak for the men, but I can tell you that the women at the Marathon Summit were 100% against the idea."

This was posted on the 'Boston Marathon 1979' thread on page 58, most likely from someone (a woman competitor?) who is going to Worlds. If it is true, why would USATF force a new format on the runners if the women were "100% against the idea?"

As someone else said, it must be all about $$$$$.

For whatever it's worth, as a card carrying member of USATF, my vote is NO (don't change).

Rick Boyle

Score Card wrote:

Thus far (and obviously we are only going to count people who use their own identity)

For 1 Glenn Latimer -an elite athlete coordinator for the Chicago Marathon who obviously gains personaly from this bid.

Against 4

Chad Worthen an Olympic Trials qualifier.

Weldon Johnson an Olympic Trials qualifier.

Malmo a former american record holder.

Kevin Hanson a coach and supporter that had roughly a dozen Olympic Trials qualifiers.

Wow this is a tough one to score so far.

Well three against votes gained personally from the current format didn't they? Either in their own reputation/standing (wejo and miles), or financially and reputationally (hanson). Of course they're against it, because they either wouldn't have qualified in the proposed system, or wouldn't be able to say that he (hanson) had roughly a dozen Olympic Trials qualifiers in his stable.