| Sumguy |
| ||
|
If you run sub 2:08 on any certified course in the two years before the Games, you are in. 2:22 for women. They could tune these times to get the numbers they want. My rational: -The races will obviously not be as good as they could when the current, active, fit, WR holder is not in it. -Having a trials makes potential runners have two training cycles. The guy who does well at the trials could be ill prepared for the Games or the opposite . -The field size is essentially unrestricted logistically. -The justice aspect. Clearly and rightly, there are some heart-broken Kenyans today who could medal, if not win, and should be in London. If it is a money thing, they could pay the way of the top three from each country or some other plan that does not as cost. The unpaid runners pay their own way. Finally, how lame is it that a Kenyan might hope to win through the mechanism of a rival not being picked. Really, they gold won't be the gold without Mutai in the race. If he was not there because he failed at a trial or was injured, fine. He is not there because of a political decision. |
| asdscs |
| ||
|
I like this idea. I do think the Olympic games should actually be the championship for the very top runners in the world, not just an even distribution of runners by country. Still, if only the top 3 from each country were paid for I think we would see the same problem in a lot of countries like Kenya. Those guys would probably opt for races where they could actually earn money. I think an A+ standard should be used for the olympic games, and under this standard of something like 2:06 or 2:07 all the athletes should be paid for. |
| Idontevenknow |
| ||
|
Problem is, if an American doesn't get in, they just lost a lot of revenue (same for the UK and multiple other countries), and not many people want to watch 100 Eastern Africans in a race. The Olympics isn't about the pure spirit of competition anymore. It's a business, just like pretty much everything else in the world. |
| Precious Roy |
| ||
|
In the Olympics, you run for your country. If you make the marathon only accessible to a field that will be majority e African, it is no longer a race run for your country. It becomes an individual race that is no different from a major marathon. |
| asdscs |
| ||
|
I wasn't saying it would be only based on a standard. i was saying there should be an A+ standard that guarantees the athlete is in the race. the 3 for each country with the A standard would still stand. with the A + standard regardless of your nationality, you would get in. |
| luv2run |
| ||
|
You would need a cut off of something like May 1. The IOC still needs to get a fix on the number of entrants. Then what if a country cannot afford to send all those runners? That process alone would also reduce the race to runners from a very few countries and the IAAF does want to grow the sport (they might be incompetent at it, but they do want it to grow). Not sure how some of these runners are going to pay their own way. Look up to see what a hotel in London costs today. 3x it for the Olympics. I do like the idea of letting more of the faster runners in. I disagree with another poster that one runs for one's country. I do not think that was the original idea as I do not think countries were limited at the start of the modern Games. That became an issue when participation reached a point where there had to be a cap. The marathon is about the only event in the Olympics that really does not have a reasonable participation limit. All you have to do is get elected to the IAAF and IOC boards to make this change. |
| Querfeldein |
| ||
|
I have written this several times before: if 50 East African runners were in the race, the best of them would not be so keen to run it. The lure of the Olympic marathon is partly that it is relatively "easy" for the best runners to medal (which guarantees a lifetime of appearance fees), compared to a victory in a major city marathon. Limiting the number of entrants per country also makes the race much more interesting tactically. The relatively week standards, plus limits, are unfair, but they are better than anything else. |