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

I heard that the standards will probably remain in place, and so anyone under 2:20 will still have their air/hotel taken care of. As for the 2:22 standard, I think it'd be hard to enforce. Imagine someone being 1st American in a debut time of 2:09 and being told he didn't make the team because he didn't have the trials qualifier.

I don't like the 2:22 standard much even though it's how I got to go. I'd rather see it loosened to 2:30 or so. I'd probably even let anyone race. If they hadn't hit the 2:22 standard, let them pay $500 for a chance to run in the Olympic Trials. If I had the money, I'd probably pay it to pitch in a spring training game, so why not a professional race?

Nobody seems to be enthusiastic about the three-city proposal. Those who are cautiously interested appear to be so for two reasons: 1) there may not be any appealing alternatives, and 2) it might generate more public (read: media) interest.

Why might there not be any appealing alternatives? Because it is expensive (a figure of $500K was used) to put on the Olympic Trials marathon. Why might a three-city proposal generate more media interest? Because the media have some interest in/awareness of the proposed big 3 marathons already anyway.

Given the fact that, from the point of view of most (if not all) runners, the single-day format is preferred, wouldn't it be better to work towards overcoming both of the problems listed above rather than essentially conceding defeat/irrelevance and leaving the single-day format?

How does one make it cheaper to run an Olympic Trials marathon? Combine it with an existing marathon. If it is combined with a marathon that features no appearance money for athletes and no prize money for foreigners, you can more or less safely assume that the entire front of the race will be made up of Trials qualifiers. This has the added bonus of giving not-quite-qualifiers a chance to shine and run with the qualifiers. For the women's race, it would be important to have a race that separates (or would be willing to separate) the men's and women's starts, but I suspect there would be quite a few marathons willing to do this if it meant being able to put on the OT marathon.

How does one increase media interest? Surely the current boom in marathoning should make this a lot easier. However much people on this board malign penguin marathoners, these are people who are interested in marathon running generally, know how far a marathon is, and have a sense of how hard it would be to run OT qualifiers.

Consider the following idea: USATF (or the organizing marathon, for that matter) hires a recent college grad who can write well to interview trials qualifiers and those trying to qualify. Polish up the articles, and distribute them for free to local running publications as well as the local news media in the months leading up to the trials. (Local meaning both local to where the race will be, but also local to individual runners.) Also see if qualifiers might write their own stories. I remember, from some years back, a story by Randy Accetta (I think) in RW/RT about his quest to qualify. Just putting on a great event is not enough to get people and media interested. Active outreach is crucial.

Similarly, for coverage of the race itself, USATF could/should spring for someone (or more than one person) experienced to do race commentary. Pay a good production company to edit the race video, and actively shop it around to ESPN, Fox Sports, etc.

Along those lines, how about producing a good DVD of the Birmingham and St. Louis races? Sell it on the USATF website; offer it to race organizers for free to hand out as age group awards at races; bundle it in the goodie bag of big city marathons -- whatever, there are lots of possibilities. Surely this would not be too expensive and could get a lot of people interested in the next race!

I don't know how many of these things have been tried in the past. But it seems to me that a lot more could be done in terms of active outreach on the part of the USATF, the organizers, and the runners alike, and it also seems to me that costs could be reduced dramatically if the race is simply coupled with an open race.

Maurits

Disclaimer: I have in the past run fast enough to meet the standards, but as a foreigner I am out anyway, so I have no personal interest in this issue other than to see an exciting trials race (or races), in whatever format.

msuxc1 wrote:

I heard that the standards will probably remain in place, and so anyone under 2:20 will still have their air/hotel taken care of. As for the 2:22 standard, I think it'd be hard to enforce. Imagine someone being 1st American in a debut time of 2:09 and being told he didn't make the team because he didn't have the trials qualifier.

I don't like the 2:22 standard much even though it's how I got to go. I'd rather see it loosened to 2:30 or so. I'd probably even let anyone race. If they hadn't hit the 2:22 standard, let them pay $500 for a chance to run in the Olympic Trials. If I had the money, I'd probably pay it to pitch in a spring training game, so why not a professional race?

I am having a hard time understanding your post. Air/hotel taken care of to what? To Boston, Chicago, and NY? Wouldn't they anyways if it wasn't a "Trials" race? If someone ran a 2:09 wouldn't they have the Trials qualifier? You lost me, please explain thanks.

NYCM does this already on their website (I've writtena few of them myself). They (and Chi & Boston) turn out impressive media guides, issue press releases, hold luncheons and press conferences - and it's still like pulling teeth to get more than a couple lines of ink in the local dailies. As for electronic media (TV/radio) forget it - if it's not a "major" sport, they don't have the air time.

Birmingham had Rod DeHaven doing color commentary, Toni Reavis was in St. Louis, both did great jobs, but only the local TV outlets picked up the broadcast (Rod's commentary was "hijacked" for webcast, however, with some knowledge of the producers).

You're no doubt right on many counts, but to count on USATF to promote the Trials is foolish - even if they did 100 times the promo work they do now, the fact is sports editors/TV producers have to feel that it's worth devoting a finite (and shrinking) amount of their space/time to it. And right now, they definitely don't.

Keep posting on this dead subject. We have almost caught up with the "Best Song" and "tour of france" threads.

Keep posting on this dead subject. We have almost caught up with the "Best Song" and "tour of france" threads.

After thinking about it and reading some more of the responses here I'm coming around the idea of a major race holding the trials. Even the 3-race bid would be ok but only under the following circumstances: Start the Trials race 10-30 minutes earlier than the main race. This would put the Trials race in the spotlight. Make it so an AMERICAN crosses the line first. That way us hacks who train for the that 2:20 or 2:22 still feel like we've done something. That solves the problem Miles mentioned about guys giving up on the marathon. Would we even have the Hanson's program if it wasn't for the Olympic Trials format? 2:22 leads to 2:20 which leads to 2:15...

Keep the A and B standards, let one or two or three major races hold a trials, start the trials race earlier than the main race. That would solve most of the problems.

1. Multiple races gives us the chance to select the best team.

2. The A/B standards gives us hacks something to shoot for thus keeping the feeder system going. More 2:20 guys leads to more 2:12 guys, etc...

3. Start the trials race earlier. Puts the race in the spotlight. An American will cross the finish line first. Also gives the foreign speedsters someone to shoot for. Maybe Rutto would have run 2:04 in Chi-town if he was looking at Sell, Culp, or Meb up the road?

Alan

JimG wrote:

You're no doubt right on many counts, but to count on USATF to promote the Trials is foolish - even if they did 100 times the promo work they do now, the fact is sports editors/TV producers have to feel that it's worth devoting a finite (and shrinking) amount of their space/time to it. And right now, they definitely don't.

I don't mean to be stupid here, but what is USATF's role? TO MARKET OUR SPORT. In the track and field trials they put on the meet. In the marathon they count on someone else to put it on. So the least they can do is be responsible for the marketting of the event. I find it humorous that the idiots want to BLAME St. Louis and Birmingham for lack of coverage. COVERAGE IS USATF'S RESPONSIBILITY. So rather than correct there problem they want to shift the burden to others.

I personally feel that this is a bad idea, but not to say you aren't entitled to your opinion. When I think of this "head start" I think of races that had to do this for the women, and nothing against women, but it just seems kinda tough to swallow that our top men need a head start to compete with the rest of the world. I would rather they did it the day before or something like that if we had to do something like this, but I would very much prefer the trials the way they are now.

Runningart2004 wrote:

After thinking about it and reading some more of the responses here I'm coming around the idea of a major race holding the trials. Even the 3-race bid would be ok but only under the following circumstances: Start the Trials race 10-30 minutes earlier than the main race. This would put the Trials race in the spotlight. Make it so an AMERICAN crosses the line first. That way us hacks who train for the that 2:20 or 2:22 still feel like we've done something. Alan

Miles and Miles wrote:

I am having a hard time understanding your post. Air/hotel taken care of to what? To Boston, Chicago, and NY? Wouldn't they anyways if it wasn't a "Trials" race? If someone ran a 2:09 wouldn't they have the Trials qualifier? You lost me, please explain thanks.

Yes, I don't know if they'd be able to have free air/hotel for all 3 races or just one or how that would work.

They would only have it taken care of if it wasn't a "Trials" race, if the race (Bos, Chi, NY) decided they were worthy. I don't know exactly what the standards are for such things right now at these races, but they can change them if they wanted to. This would ensure that if you ran 2:19:50 that you wouldn't have to beg the elite coordinator for airfare or hotel. As others pointed out, Boston wouldn't necessarily have to shell out much money to get a good American field as it would be the last chance to make the team.

The 2:22 standard allows you participation in the Trials race. Right now, if you don't have the standard, you don't get to race. If 1/3 of the trials is at Chicago, anyone can run. So if someone doesn't have the 2:22 standard, it doesn't really matter as they can enter the race with the 40,000 other runners. I heard that they would keep the 2:22 standard which means only people that had run that fast prior to Chicago would be eligible to compete in the "Trials" race for a spot on the team. That way for everyone who wants to say they are an Olympic Trials Qualifier still can if they've run 2:22. However, assuming everyone starts at the same time, an American who is running a marathon for the first time (obviously doesn't have the standard and isn't allowed to participate in the "Trials" race) could still be the first American in say 2:09. So, I say this 2:22 standard would be difficult/silly to enforce.

Hope that clears things up.

I just spoke with Glenn Latimer from the USATF and I want to take a few things back that I previously posted. I became very aware during our conversation that I am providing a bunch of "what ifs..." without knowing any of the facts. The facts are that there are no facts. The bid documents have yet to be submitted so we don't know ANY of the details of the proposals. When the bids specifics are complete they will be posted on their website.

So it's just a wait and see game at this point. My opinion of the proposals is not quite as negative and could change depending on the specifics. Let's put it this way the race(s) is not going to be the way it's been laid out in this thread.

Glenn was happy to talk with me, he just doesn't want to debate with anonomous posters.

So in other words I don't know what I am talking about.

Chad,

Thanks for being a stand up guy and saying that. While I feel there are issues in a totally objective, one-shot race scenario, I also recognize that there are issues in anything with a subjective element (especially the threat of a lawsuit against USATF). The fact that Mr. Latimer and Mr. Finke are on here is indicative of their willingness to listen to commentary, essentially regardless of its validity. To me that says that they are at least trying to do their jobs well.

Have a good holiday!

Wayne

maurits wrote:

Why might there not be any appealing alternatives? Because it is expensive (a figure of $500K was used) to put on the Olympic Trials marathon.

In the past, people like the Oregon Track Club could do it on a shoestring budget. It can be done today as well.

According to Durden, he had a pretty solid idea that's how it would come down very early on, well before any official announcement.

Oh Boo Hoo! wrote:

According to Durden, he had a pretty solid idea that's how it would come down very early on, well before any official announcement.

That's when there was no prize $$$ (and maybe the athletes were responsible for their own transportation, I can't recall).

Oh Boo Hoo! wrote:

According to Durden, he had a pretty solid idea that's how it would come down very early on, well before any official announcement.

How could anyone know when the bids have yet to be submitted? WE KNOW NOTHING. The USATF doesn't even have the details yet.

Profligate City wrote:

In the past, people like the Oregon Track Club could do it on a shoestring budget. It can be done today as well.

Sorry, meant to respond to this post.

That's when there was no prize $$$ (and maybe the athletes were responsible for their own transportation, I can't recall).

JimG wrote:

Profligate City wrote:

In the past, people like the Oregon Track Club could do it on a shoestring budget. It can be done today as well.

Sorry, meant to respond to this post.

That's when there was no prize $$$ (and maybe the athletes were responsible for their own transportation, I can't recall).

Welcome to the year 2005. You have to pay for the words "Olympic" and/or "US Championship". Even if you found a way around all the sponsors you still have to pay the city and from what I hear that can be costly. Any Race Directors out there want to clarify?

That would be terrible for so many reasons.

First, people are not racing each other head to head as they should.

Second, not all races are equal! If you, for example, are the 2nd best American runner of the year but you are unlucky enough to run the same race as the best runner, well tough luck!

Third, it would be an absolute BOOM for Boston! Every US Runner who did NOT win at Chicago or New York would be forced to run it if they want a chance at the Olympics. Heck, Boston could SERIOUSLY cut down on appearance fees for US Atheletes. It would be, run here or forget the Olympics. New York and Chicago would of course still be competing against each other.

Fourth, it would require all the top US runners to run New York or Chicago and then Boston if you don't win that. (Or take a chance and run only Boston but then there's no second chance) All the other great marathons, domestic or foreign would have no chance of attracting any of the top runners.

This is an absolutely terrible idea. Huggs Becky