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

What do 2:20 Marathoners do? They aren't going to win anything. This is the primary goal (I would think) for Marathoners around this range. Unless you are deliusional (like myself) and have convinced yourself that some day you will make an Olympic Team.

Oh Boo Hoo! wrote:

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.

It's one thing to make a decision for 2012. But when the standards are already published and qualifying windows announced, doesn't it seem to be a little late to completely revamp the system? Many athletes have reordered their training and lives around these races and this goal. even some elites. Not to say they wouldn't work hard anyways, but the plans are in place.

Don't you think some 1980 "Olympians" would have done things in their lives differently if they would have known they would be screwed into staying home?

I'll follow your lead and answer your question with more question(s): where do 2:20 marathoners come from? Did they start out 2:40 marathoners and then progress to 2:30 marathoners and so on? What do 2:30 and 2:40 win (for men)? Improving and running one's best is a pretty easy goal to adopt for runners of any level, 2:20 marathoners should stop thinking that they're above it just because some authority inadvertently threw them a bone.

Certainly. As for the 1980 Olympians, the marathoners knew before the race that they weren't going to Moscow.

Egg/Chicken wrote:

I'll follow your lead and answer your question with more question(s): where do 2:20 marathoners come from? Did they start out 2:40 marathoners and then progress to 2:30 marathoners and so on? What do 2:30 and 2:40 win (for men)? Improving and running one's best is a pretty easy goal to adopt for runners of any level, 2:20 marathoners should stop thinking that they're above it just because some authority inadvertently threw them a bone.

When I ran 2:41 in 1998 I could "see" all the way to 2:22. Could I "see" 2:12? Don't think so.

Oh Boo Hoo! wrote:

Certainly. As for the 1980 Olympians, the marathoners knew before the race that they weren't going to Moscow.

Just curious, does anyone know how far in advance they knew?

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?

Great comment dickhead. How close were you to the qualifying time? If you want to rip Miles and Miles, at least you should have the stones to put your identity out there like he does.Unless you can add something positive to this good thread why don't you do everyone a favor an shut up.

malmo wrote:

The day the Olympics goes to a format where it's three races and the winners of those races each gets a medal, that's the day that the US team should be selected in such a ridiculous manner. The Olympics (or any other championship) are about the results that were on a given day, not about do-overs until you get the result that you wanted. The one shot trials system is the fairest and most American of all processes -- inoculated from the whims and corruption of selection committees and back-room tribunals.

If Glenn Latimer, Jim Estes and Fred Finke really believe this is a good idea, then they've shown that they are no more competent than Stephanie Hightower. I'll withhold further comment until these three step forward and claim credit for such a cockamamie scheme.

THE BEST TAKE ON IT THAT I HAVE SEEN THUS FAR.

malmo wrote:

The one shot trials system is the fairest and most American of all processes -- inoculated from the whims and corruption of selection committees and back-room tribunals.

.

Fairness is NEVER considered in their decisions. I heard on more than one occasion a USATF official say that their best work is done at a breakfast or behind closed doors. THEIR SHOULD BE NOTHING DONE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. Every member (not just an executive committee) should be involved in the decision process. This is an organization that is supposed to be run by its membership. I appreciate the Hansons, but it is wrong that you guys or anyone else is aware of these issues before we ALL are made aware. If the committe votes 100% to accept a 3 day format, I can promise their will be a collusion law suit. My community has hopes of having the Trials here, but knowing that we have to compete against NY, Chi town, and Boston together is more than a little discouraging. However, what is more discouraging is the fact that NO OTHER BIDDER was given this option. That means that USATF is attempting to manipulate a situation. If we are competing under a different set of rules, the this will be in the courts.

What are you talking about? Read what fred fink said about where everything is. The bidding has not even been opened yet.

Miles and Miles wrote:

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.

This is a good point to bring up. I'm sure there are many athletes who have already set qualifying at Twin Cities as a goal for the fall. Some of them may have made other racing plans if they knew ahead of time that there will be no trials. Just a thought.

I am currently a 2:23 marathoner (Chicago 04) and I think that this new format for picking our team has many flaws.

1. Most guys in my shoes would probably stop training and racing. My only goal the 2008 trials would be gone. LESS 2:22 GUYS=LESS SUB 2:10 GUYS!! The past has shown that where there are numbers there are fast times. The more 2:22 guys you have, the more 2:18 guys, the more 2:14 guys and so on. It's like that 6th guy on your cross team always keeping your 5th honest.

2. Our club system would fall apart because it is made up of only a handful of elites BUT a ton of sub-elite....who would have lost a huge incentive to keep plugging away.

3. Guys like Meb, Alan, Browne, Sell, Verran, Gilmore would get screwed too. Lets say that these guys all find out that Meb is running Chicago and Alan is running NY. You can be sure that non would show up to either fall marathon and there would be a battle royal in Boston. This would make the early marathons pretty boring and Boston would love it because they wouldn't have to pay these guys a penny to show up.

4. Elite appearance fee gone! You have to show up to these races if you want a shot at a team, so why are they going to pay you anymore? These guys just started getting paid what they are worth!

Not to mention that Twin Cities would be a bit pissed if it happened.

A lot of folks are pointing out scenarios under which the 3 race system would not send our three best guys. These points are valid, but the one race system had flaws too. The point is, how can we minimize those flaws and have the BEST CHANCE of sending our three top marathoners to the games. If Meb and Alan split up the two fall marathons, it wouldn't scare away others because anything can happen in a marathon. Meb could step in a hole and not finish and Sell could get the spot. In a one race deal, Meb steps in a hole and his Olympic chances are gone. With the new plan, he can come back in Boston and have another shot. You can't post on here pointing out the flaws in the new plan without honestly comparing them to the flaws in the old system.

One chance is great! The Olympics is a ONE Chance scenario......you don't get 3 races at the Olympics to prove you are the best. Whay should we give 3 chances here? Consistency is what we want in an athlete representing our team. Thanks fo playing

Disclaimer: Seeing as how because I am anonymous, this post should be awarded no merit, regardless of its value.

I think the worst part about this three city system would be how each race would turn into a "I only want to win my age group" race. What happens if Meb if hauling ass in Chicago and he works his way up to the lead pack of three with 4 miles to go. The WR isn't in sight, but maybe one of the fastest American times recently. Meb pulls alongside the three leaders and... he looks over to see if their bibs indicate they are American or not. (Just like the kids do in the middle of your local 5K, "Hey, are you in my age group?") Meb relizes that these guys are all Kenyan (or whatever) and that the guy 100y behind him is an American. He now can't go for the win. If he goes for first and staggers in, he could get run down by a hard charging American and not go to the Olympics.

I think if they changed the qualifying system to this three city format, they would have to address this problem. No American could gamble at the front of any of these races for fear of flaming out with 500y to go and getting run down by another American. If the Americans at the front of Chicago/NY/Boston can't take risks because they have the spectre of not qualifying hanging over them, can they win those races against foreigners? I seriously doubt it. If I were those three races, I would think about the consequences of having the top Americans in your race being forced to "play it safe." While you would be increasing the marketability of your race in the short term, by advertising as a qualifying race, your long term marketability would continue to decline because no American can roll the dice for a win 1 out of every 4 years.

Perhaps a better idea is keeping the current one, but allowing for exemptions from being forced to be top three at the Trials. Example: If runner X fulfills the Olympic A standard and wins Chicago/Boston/NY or medals at Worlds, then they go to the Olympics and the Trials is only for 2 spots. The first two people to get an exeption are on the Olympic team and the Trials are a race for that last spot. (Although obviously there usually wouldn't be one exception granted per 4 years, let alone 2) This would encourage winning races (not age groups) and fast times, while at the same time maybe it would satisfy those officials at the top of the sport who want to use their influence to benefit their races.

Jesse Williams wrote:

2. Our club system would fall apart because it is made up of only a handful of elites BUT a ton of sub-elite....who would have lost a huge incentive to keep plugging away.

I am neither elite nor sub elite -- you'll need a few more "sub"s on there before you get to me -- but I don't understand this particular aspect of the objections I'm seeing.

Are you telling us that you will NOT train hard and try to run as fast as you can over the next few years if you cannot have some single exclusive race for which only you (and 40-100 other guys) qualify? Why not? Why will this take away yours (or anyone's) incentive to train?

I think people forget that the purpose of the one-trial race is not to give American runners a goal to train for. The trials are a means to an end. Their purpose is to (ostensibly) pick the "best" runners. Obviously people will debate whether or not this new method is the best way to determine that, but regardless, shouldn't that be the only consideration?

I think the craziest part about this sport is that no one does anything for the good of the athletes, or the good of the fans. It is done for the good of the six people making the decisions. No wonder this sport has no fans.

Peter Gilmore wrote:

A lot of folks are pointing out scenarios under which the 3 race system would not send our three best guys. These points are valid, but the one race system had flaws too. The point is, how can we minimize those flaws and have the BEST CHANCE of sending our three top marathoners to the games. If Meb and Alan split up the two fall marathons, it wouldn't scare away others because anything can happen in a marathon. Meb could step in a hole and not finish and Sell could get the spot. In a one race deal, Meb steps in a hole and his Olympic chances are gone. With the new plan, he can come back in Boston and have another shot. You can't post on here pointing out the flaws in the new plan without honestly comparing them to the flaws in the old system.

Peter question for you. If this new system were in place and Meb, Culpepper, Sell, Browne, and myself (kidding about the last one) were going to Chicago would you go? Honestly. Not taking into appearance fees, travel costs, etc. If it were just about the Olympic spot and not money.