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

Very nice, Manhattan Dude.

Either you took an educated guess or you know me. Why didn't you share this fact with the rest of the group...I also worked at NYRR/ NYCM for five years. If you're going to call me out, please shoot me an email and we can talk further....

I'm a huge NYC Marathon fan and also a Chicago fan, I also hope to qualify for Boston, again...I didn't mean to say anything negative about the three races. I was sharing my knowledge on the situation.

I've been in the biz for a while, other organizations have figured out a Trials model that works for everyone's goals. You pointed out Birmingham, was the race a complete failure? No way, it was a great event, but yes the media didn't jump and cover it. Step back and look at the big picture, we got the best Marathon runners to qualify, the athletes were treated very well and the race logistically went well. Those are the most important parts of Trials, the athletes come first.

Olympic trials don't just happen in Marathons or track & field, every Olympic sport has some sort of trials. Yes, some choose other ways to pick their teams, but what's more fair then a head to head competition? Take a look at the other sports, they make it work in the small markets and they have to follow the same rules.

Sponsorship is not the only way to support a Trials event. Yes, I know in a Marathon, you have no gate revenue, but there are other streams of revenue. Your comment about sports commissions is interesting, if the only source of revenue for a sports commission is "government funding", then they don't have a modern way of operating.

Talk to you soon, Manhattan Dude.

Brooklyn Dude.

Would someone please post/link a timeline and the guidelines for the bids. Thanks

I if this goes through it will create negativity and piss off a few runners going for there olympic dreams. People in this sport tend to over analyze things and this will be one of them. I am confident that the decision will be the correct one because it will be decided by people who are paid to make decisions regaurding whats best for USA distance running. The buttom line is the best RUNNERS should never EVER have a say in these kind of decisions.

The thing thats great about this sport is every one has the same chance to make the team and in this senerio the same would be true. So if the say its top American in these marathons, then thats what it is, if your good you go train and don't worry about it.

They can find other goals and dreams. They wouldn't be getting "screwed" they should be happy just to be there, that there was a system in place that as a by-product threw them a bone. The suggestion that someone who would be serious enough to run 2:22 or better would not still try his best and run hard anyway without having an arbitrary cut-off to meet is just ludicrous.

When did they start giving prize money for the Olympic Marathon Trials???

Why does there have to be prize money???

Not so sure Shorter or Rodgers received any monies when they made the team in the 70's!!!

Anything wrong in going back to that concept!!

It should not be necessary for me to post with a real name to be taken seriously by USATF. I represent the opinion of one anonymous fan. If USATF cannot be bothered to hear my anonymous uneducated (Glenn Latimer called it "premature") opinion then they are going to lose another fan. How many more fans will they lose before they get it?

I don't think it is my responsibility as a fan to become educated about the procedural nuances of putting on an Olympic Trials before I form my opinion about whether or not a USATF idea is stupid. Before reading the facts I knew how the idea made me feel and I posted my feelings. When NBA fans hear that there is going to be a strike, do they examine all the players' contracts to understand why, or do they just say "goddamn this sucks!" and stop buying tickets?

Maybe there is nothing that USATF can do about it and their hands are tied. I am sure they are trying hard and would like to keep everyone happy. I don't think it is a bad thing that I and other anonymous posters came on the site and expressed our unhappiness. It is called feedback and USATF should pay attention to it. I trust that USATF would make the right (educated) decisions, but hope that feedback (even of the anonymous and premature nature) would be considered.

If USATF changes the Trials format and it turns out in the future that we have either more medal contenders and the same number of fans, or the same quality of elites but more fans, then I will come on the site and post (using my real name) that I am a moronic fool and that USATF are geniuses. Until that time continue to note that my anonymous uneducated ravings are a warning sign that the fan base is not pleased...

You are entitled to your opinion, but as Mr. Hanson said earlier. It just appears that there is one person posting under several different names. The folks at USATF are going to make their decisions regardless of what you think. You have very little influence in the procedure. You have even less than that if you post anonymously. I would think that someone that feels as strongly as you do would want more influence, not less.

Thinking about facts wrote:

Strange that a major running mag editor would not check the weather data for that date (early June 2008).

Median Temp = 66 (counts the nighttime)

Average High early June = 72

Average Low = 63

Record High = 82

So that famed SD "June Gloom" is just a rumor, I guess? OK, tie it in w/ Carlsbad 5000 weekend - does early April work for you? Seemed to be OK for the women in St. Lou.

Anyway, I'm just following the lead of USATF honchos and "thinking outside the box." If Boston, NY, Chi or the Podunk Chicken Pluckers Marathon want to host the Trials as a separate event, that's great - I just think having a "race within a race" would mean less, rather than more interest. And the 3 race scenario would be a complete box of worms.

Several concerns with this plan:

1) Sending an athlete who may be the best on paper, but burned/injured themselves running 2-3 races to be able to qualify.

2) This still does not guarantee we send our best any more than the current system. Say Meb ran Chicago and Alan beat him. Meb doesn't run NY because he's not in top form so close to Chicago and Browne/Sell/etc are ready to go for NY. Boston comes around and it's not, things don't go right for him, and he's out. Tell me how this system is any better than the current system for selecting the best. You have to be TOP American in these races, no less. At least in the current system if you are one of the best you can fade to 2nd-3rd and still go.

3) Gilmore mentioned TV coverage at the big races. #1, how much real coverage is there of those races? 5 minutes here and there nationally? Moreover, how many people really watch it? TV coverage should not be an issue here. We should be doing what will select the best team in the most fair way.

4) What if the Olympic standard is 2:12 and our winner in Boston runs 2:11 but does not have the standard prior to the race? Correct me if I'm wrong, but his time in Boston won't count.

5) We wouldn't think of selecting the 5K team from Golden League meets, or the 10K team by the Stanford/Mt Sac/etc method already mentioned. Why would we consider this for the marathon? You can have a bad day regardless of race distance and fail to qualify.

I agree with you, both about the issue of names, and with what think was your suggstion for trials format.

My name may, or may not, be Ralph Anderson. But even if it is (it's not), what the hell good does it do if you know my name? You'd have my name, but you've never heard of me, seen me, or know anything about me. Most of the time, this name thing is just a red-herring, an argument employed by those desprate for ideas.

On the format, I like the idea of a single race trial event, but becasue so much can happen in a marathon, I'd like to see the top finishers, not just the top 3, get put into a pool. Have the trials a year, year and a half before the Olympics, and see what happens. Maybe pick people for the pool from other preformances, maybe not. it gives a little more flexibility for an event that can blow up in an athlete's face, no matter how good they are.

A few random points after catching up on this thread.

1. To the person who listed temps for San Diego, is that from 7 to 9:30AM when the Marathon would take place? I don't think it's 80 degrees at that time. I personally would rather run in the 50's then snow again.

2. Sending the 12th place person from some major Marathon reminds me of NCAAs where like the 15th place guy in a distance race is still "All American" because you have to take out the foreigners. Does anyone care besides the athlete, coach, and family?

3. Are other T&F events going to go to such a format? No one would ever think of eliminated the T&F Trials, why is that? Because it's a successful event and makes money. Isn't that what this is really all about? I know the stands are full here in Sacramento when the Trials happen. Put the Marathon on in a city that can generate some interest. Fill a stadium for the finishes, charge for parking, sell T-shirts, concessions, show it on the big screen, money made.

4. Does anyone care about the "Top American" at major Marathons besides running "nuts" like us? I don't think so. The top American male usually gets a LITTLE coverage, what about the top American woman? The coverage usually is over by the time she comes in, I don't think that would change.

5. I wish the USATF would have told us this was a possibility instead of posting that Twin Cities was "open" for qualifying for an event that probably won't take place now and posting a "standard" that means nothing BEFORE I paid for my entire family to fly across the country to watch me qualify again. USATF you owe me $1,222.20, I figure I should have to buy a new USATF card for a while now, ha.

Oh Boo Hoo! wrote:

They can find other goals and dreams. They wouldn't be getting "screwed" they should be happy just to be there, that there was a system in place that as a by-product threw them a bone. The suggestion that someone who would be serious enough to run 2:22 or better would not still try his best and run hard anyway without having an arbitrary cut-off to meet is just ludicrous.

You obviously have never been in a position such as this before... How would you like to devote 4 years to a goal and have someone come out and tell you that your toil during that time was for nothing?

For those of us that have a family, work full time and still train 120+ miles a week, this is what gets us out of bed at 4:30 in the morning and keeps us going at this level.

The elimination of this race tells those at the sub-Olympic level to stop trying hard. You're not gifted enough genetically so don't bother us. The fact is, without those in the 2:20-2:30 category, there is nothing to separate the pinnacle of elite running from the gallowalkers... It becomes just like everything else in our country: bifurcated.

To have 10 Americans running 2:10 we need to have 50 guys running 2:15 and the only way that is going to happen is if we have 200 guys running sub 2:20. It's a long way for 2:30 Marathoners to go to 2:10, are they really going to stick with the sport? Don't think so, the trials is their Olympics.

If I was in the most intense race of my life, I wouldn't want to be negotiating warm-up space, bathroom time and rift-raft priorities with a huge crowd filled with Joe & Jill Runner's World.

Should Miles and Miles really have a say in this when he didnt even make the standard for the last trials?

Miles and Miles wrote:

50 guys running 2:15 and . . . 200 guys running sub 2:20.

So when was the last time THAT happened? I agree with your theory, just not the means that will necessarily enable it.

Do you think that eliminating the need for 2:20 Marathoners will get it done? Not saying it will happen or has happened in a long time, but is eliminating the Olympic Trials the way to make it happen?

Just to note that isn't my theory I read it somewhere.

potential 2K8 trials qualifier wrote:

You obviously have never been in a position such as this before... How would you like to devote 4 years to a goal and have someone come out and tell you that your toil during that time was for nothing?

For those of us that have a family, work full time and still train 120+ miles a week, this is what gets us out of bed at 4:30 in the morning and keeps us going at this level.

The elimination of this race tells those at the sub-Olympic level to stop trying hard. You're not gifted enough genetically so don't bother us. The fact is, without those in the 2:20-2:30 category, there is nothing to separate the pinnacle of elite running from the gallowalkers... It becomes just like everything else in our country: bifurcated.

You obviously think someone has to have been in that "position" to see the truth. Who has said that anyone's "toil during that time was for nothing"? That smacks of not only imagined insult, but of skewed priorities as well. It's the individuals themselves at the sub-Olympic level who would be telling themselves to stop trying hard. Are you trying to say that running in this particular race is the one and only worthy goal out there for them? I call bullshit.

Miles and Appeals wrote:

Should Miles and Miles really have a say in this when he didnt even make the standard for the last trials?

Yes I should since I am a USATF member and have been for the past 10+ years.

Thanks for the putdown, I thought I was getting off too easy here. Went 115 posts before I got a decent bashing.