My writing sucks.
My writing sucks.
Joseph McVeigh wrote:
Climate? In 1996, the women's trial was warmer than normal for Charleston, and there was one big surprise (Spangler) and two prerace favorites (Lauck, Somers). The men's trial was freezing and the team was composed of prerace favorites (Kempainen, Coogan, Brantly).
In 2000 Charleston was hot and an Alaskan (Clark) won and PR'd in the OG, a respectable 2:31. Pittsburgh was broiling and the leading prerace favorite (DeHaven) won.
In cold weather trials in 2004, both teams (DeReuck- Kastor-Rhines and Culpepper-Keflezighi-Browne) were the clear class of the lot going in.
Generally speaking, the best rise to the top.
jayruns wrote:
true, but i'd have to strongly disagree with your analysis of both the men's and women's trials for 2000. clark was a virtual unknown; lauck et.al. were the class of the field and got creamed in the heat. de haven was among the favorites but by no means the leading favorite; several others came in with better PRs, including the AR holder at the time, david morris; and joe lemay. in fact there was a big to-do after that race since several other guys had the A standard (i think there were 3 guys, none of them dehaven) who claimed that they deserved a spot on the team.
so, in the cold weather of '96 and '04 the races went to form. in the heat in '00 they did not. holding the trials at a date near the games (i.e. not november) and in a climate approximating that expected at the games gives you the best chance of getting your best team to the olympics.
If the "class of the field" fails to prepare for the possibility of unseasonable heat (always a good possibility in the US in the late winter and spring) then that doesn't say much for the field. It had more to do with the US being at such a low point in history for marathoning that a little attrition in the heat took such a high % of top performers out of contention. What few had the A standard failed to adequately prepare like real pros (i.e. like the great marathoners who might be in the medal hunt.) Our "best team" DID go to the Olympics in Sydney in 2000. Morris, Lauck, et al didn't show that they deserved to go and I strongly doubt they would have done any better than the marathoners that the US did send.
Yes Sir wrote:
To restate the question: When will the announcement be made?
Soon.
non-member wrote:
David Katz wrote:FYI
The IAAF will be accepting the tope 20 places (males & females) from New York, Chicago, Boston, London, and Berlin Marathons as the equivalent time qualifier for the 2007 World Championships. It is very possible that this practice will be accepted for the 2008 Olympics.
It will never happen in an OG. That was a concession made to bolster the WC. No need to bolster the OG and the IAAF is done with kissing our ass. Certainly you should know that David.
You are correct. I have already drafted a letter to the IAAF to discourage including New York in the future in this scenario. I will obviously wait until after the USATF announcement that New York will be hosting the trials.
Here is my justification.
IAAF has thrown a bone to the big 5 in an attempt to bolster the participation in the World Championships. In other words, The WC are very important to the IAAF. Now if the trials are in November, all potential Olympians will be forced to skip the WC as the marathon will be the first weekend in September in Japan. That means that USATF and New York are both aware of this scenario and by allowing a November trial will be snubbing the WC. Very poor political move.
Spoken like a true non-marathoner.
You can't fully prepare for any and every eventuality that may or may not happen due to the weather. If you do, you do so at the expense of something else. Clark didn't have a choice since she was the mother of two living in Alaska, hence had to do most of her training on a treadmill, hence was phenomenally prepared for a hot, humid race. She didn't plan it that way, but she sure did make the most of the opportunity she made for herself.
To insinuate that these people simply "failed to prepare themselves" is quite an insult to the loads of training, suffering through injuries, and general putting-of-lives-on-hold these athletes went through.
You're like the idiot distant relative who shows up to a race in which you finished 3rd or something and told you that you should have just run faster and you would have won...
Realize this! wrote:
If the "class of the field" fails to prepare for the possibility of unseasonable heat (always a good possibility in the US in the late winter and spring) then that doesn't say much for the field. It had more to do with the US being at such a low point in history for marathoning that a little attrition in the heat took such a high % of top performers out of contention. What few had the A standard failed to adequately prepare like real pros (i.e. like the great marathoners who might be in the medal hunt.) Our "best team" DID go to the Olympics in Sydney in 2000. Morris, Lauck, et al didn't show that they deserved to go and I strongly doubt they would have done any better than the marathoners that the US did send.
i completely agree. i didn't mean to imply that those people deserved to go more than dehaven and clark, or that they deserved to go at all. i just wanted to point out that, while the cream usually does rise to the top, running the trials in oppressive heat and humidity makes that less likely to happen. as someone said before, those conditions turn it less into a race and more into a battle for survival. good if you are trying to mimic conditions at the OG which might be hot/humid. counterproductive if the games will be run in a different climate.
not to take anything away from dehaven or clark. both ran spectacular races in difficult conditions at the trials and both deserved their olympic berths.
Follow the bouncing ball wrote:
It was a done deal 2 years ago. New York will be hosting the Mens Trials. Do a search on this site and you will read about how many people were up in arms about it. The entire committee and bid process was simply a formality. I 100% guarantee that New York will host the trial and that they will have them in November.
1. That means that we will not know who our Olympians are until the last minute because a November date will allow guys to then focus on a track season (not train for a marathon).
2. That also shortens the qualifying window by almost 6 months. Traditionally the last qualifying date will be 60 days out from the trials. That means that no qualifying for the trials will be able to be done during the fall of 2007. You have about a year from NOW. That also limits the number of potential athletes that will have the Olympic A standard. In 2004 65% of all athletes world wide received their Olympic A standard during the fall of 2003.
3. It also means that we will not have a US marathon team in the World Championships in 2007.
Simple solution to all of those problems.
HAVE NEW YORK RUN THE TRIALS IN MARCH.
This will not happen because New York wants to flex their muscles and USATF is afraid of them.
it was not a done deal two years ago. not even close.
store guy wrote:
Spoken like a true non-marathoner.
You can't fully prepare for any and every eventuality that may or may not happen due to the weather. If you do, you do so at the expense of something else. Clark didn't have a choice since she was the mother of two living in Alaska, hence had to do most of her training on a treadmill, hence was phenomenally prepared for a hot, humid race. She didn't plan it that way, but she sure did make the most of the opportunity she made for herself.
To insinuate that these people simply "failed to prepare themselves" is quite an insult to the loads of training, suffering through injuries, and general putting-of-lives-on-hold these athletes went through.
You're like the idiot distant relative who shows up to a race in which you finished 3rd or something and told you that you should have just run faster and you would have won...
Spoken like a true hack. Tell that to people like Benji Durden. You can adequately prepare for MOST of the more probable weather contingencies. I haven't insinuated jacksh*t, I flat out pointed the finger at them for failing to do anything to prepare for heat and humidity. Doesn't matter how much training and what injuries they suffered through or how much of "life" they "sacrificed", they were the best (performancewise) of a bunch of weak sisters in that era and therefore weren't pushed to go the extra mile to prepare like their foreign professional counterparts. You're actually (not "like") the boob who runs poorly in hot weather and can never figure out how to minimize heat and humidity's effects and therefore would leap to excuse any pro's failure to do it, despite the fact that it's their full-time job and many before them (including their contemporaries) figured out how to git 'er dun. The 2000 "debacle" isn't completely on them, though, not by far. Because the failure of others (more talented others) in those lean years for US marathoning to get the A standard before the trials therefore they ended up being the "class of the field" by default. It was nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy, at second shoe waiting to fall. Just be glad those days are long gone and that the US talent pool has largely started to take the marathon seriously again.
store guy wrote:
Spoken like a true non-marathoner.
You can't fully prepare for any and every eventuality that may or may not happen due to the weather. If you do, you do so at the expense of something else. Clark didn't have a choice since she was the mother of two living in Alaska, hence had to do most of her training on a treadmill, hence was phenomenally prepared for a hot, humid race. She didn't plan it that way, but she sure did make the most of the opportunity she made for herself.
To insinuate that these people simply "failed to prepare themselves" is quite an insult to the loads of training, suffering through injuries, and general putting-of-lives-on-hold these athletes went through.
You're like the idiot distant relative who shows up to a race in which you finished 3rd or something and told you that you should have just run faster and you would have won...
The truth hurts Store owner, but there will come a time when you will get over your pain and realize that what is spoken here is fact.
Marathoning in this country had reached an all time low. The best team we had was sent to Sydney. It was a wake up call which led to the support and development of the clubs and training groups that we have today.
simpsons_ wrote:
it was not a done deal two years ago. not even close.
Correct, it was closer to three years.
It was over 2 years ago when it was stated that New York would host the trials. Everyone said that wasn't true. Then about 6 months ago they formed a committee to come up with "the best possible site". Everyone said that it was just a front and promised us that New York was already given the bid. Now we havean announcement that will be coming out that will justify all of us that told you over 2 years ago that New York would be the site. I am sure that it has all been coincidence.
?
Dang fat fingers.
To finish my last post:
Congrats, you put out an acceptable answer. You don't know for sure, which is why you shouldn't have posted but you fit in with most of the letsrun posters and comment on things they don't know that others do. Your effort is appreciated though.
Most big news announcements are made when they would get the most attention from the media. In just a couple of weeks hundreds and hundreds of reporters will be gathering in Boston for a little race they have there. You figure it out...
Vanny
They have wrote:
It was over 2 years ago when it was stated that New York would host the trials. Then about 6 months ago they formed a committee to come up with "the best possible site". Everyone said that it was just a front and promised us that New York was already given the bid.
Who are 'they' & 'everyone'?
They = USATF
Everyone= Several posts on this board
Before you tell me that this board is full of faulty info. This board has also told us several times things that ended up being true. Time will tell if this one is bull shit or not. I have a strong feeling that New York will be named and that it will end up being true.
Clearly the trials were not announced "tomorrow." But I'm surprised they are supposedly already being announced this week as I assumed the running public would be able to comment on the proposals. I have no idea how the process works but when this issue came on here a while ago, it was my impression athletes were going to be able to comment on the bids.
I generally think having the trials in November isn't a good idea. I guess I'm more surprised they're going to announce the trials without asking past athletes who ran the trials where they want it. I guess the athletes aren't the only constituency to consider, but it might make sense to at least send them a sheet of paper or have an online voting system where they can see the bids and express their opinions. This would be very easy to do.
I think generally the bid information should be disseminated to the public and then people could give feedback. More disclosure and info is a good thing.
However, I don't think $250,000 is going to be able to buy the committee. From what I did read, a lot of the other cities seemed to have bids with a lot of money behind them. NYRR are not going to quit supporting US Distance running if they don't get the trials. They'll get feedback as to why they lost and try and do things differently in the future.
"NYRR are not going to quit supporting US Distance running if they don't get the trials. They'll get feedback as to why they lost and try and do things differently in the future."
As Weldon must know but I'll state explicitly anyway, that's exactly what NYRR did after the 2004 USOTMs were awarded to St. Louis and Birmingham.
In the 3-4 years after NYRR lost the bids for 2004, NYRR has stepped up stronger then for US runners than any other organization.
(remember here that the LaSalle Bank Chi Mthn, another big benefactor, is only once a year, whereas the USA 8k, the Circle of Friends 10k, etc., which are open to more than just marathon runners, are on NYRR's dime).
Joseph McVeigh wrote:
(remember here that the LaSalle Bank Chi Mthn, another big benefactor, is only once a year, whereas the USA 8k, the Circle of Friends 10k, etc., which are open to more than just marathon runners, are on NYRR's dime).
Lasalle Bank also runs the Shamrock Shuffle 8K and the Distance Classic half-marathon in Chicago....so the last point is not correct.
Wejo, that is precisely the point that has been debated on here for some time. There are a select few who will make the decisions for the rest of us. If we can only trust them to make the right decision, we may be able to rest easier. Unfortunately that has not happened as of late.
For Joe and others, New York found in 2004 that they did indeed need to actually BID for the race, dot the i's and cross the t's just like everybody else. When they didn't then, they weren't even considered. Now it seems like maybe a little money changes hands and suddenly someone else will do the paperwork for you. May not be the case, but it is certainly the impression. Does anyone actually believe that Fink, Estes, Latimer and Phillips are in their positions of power because that is what is best for the sport or rather because that is what is best for New York?