I like the idea of the half qualifier, with Rupp being a good example.
Had Eyestone ever run a marathon before he qualified in '88?
John Treacy won a silver medal at the Olympics in '84 in his first marathon.
I like the idea of the half qualifier, with Rupp being a good example.
Had Eyestone ever run a marathon before he qualified in '88?
John Treacy won a silver medal at the Olympics in '84 in his first marathon.
Lasse Viren finished 5th in the Olympics in his first marathon in Montreal.
Emil Zatopek won the Olympic marathon in his first attempt in Helsinki '52.
Alas, I think these options are no longer allowed.
+1
I love this post. I got into running by watching local elites that were 2:18-2:22 marathoners who would show up to local road races and clean up. They worked hard but were always the first to encourage others and share training ideas. Tightening the standards does very little to grow the sport. The average person doesn't know the difference between a 2:10 or 2:22 marathon. People where I live would tune in to watch a 2:21 guy or 2:47 woman run the trials. It's a road race. It would not affect the front of the pack and it would not cost a whole lot more money.
Sorry, I don't know if there's an official rule that explicitly states that -- I was referring to the Ted Stevens Act and USATF's decision to bump the standard as a result of the arbitration cited by Mr. Obvious.
Yes, I remember that arbitration opinion, and I thought that might have been the basis for the USATF's decision to relax the 2016 marathon standards. It's unfortunate that the arbiter made the statements in paragraphs 23 and 24 about hypothetical situations that, in contrast to the case before him, would constitute violations of the Act or USOC bylaws. His statements were unnecessary to resolve the case before him and constitute, at most, obiter dicta that would not bind USATF in other cases. Worse, they reflect a misunderstanding of the statutory and regulatory language, which has nothing to do with performance standards for the Olympic trials (or any other competitions), but rather deal with eligibility requirements that would bar individuals, ab initio, from being considered for selection. As I recall, the statutory provision (later codified in USOC bylaws) was in response to eligibility requirements that had previously been imposed by the AAU, especially age and gender restrictions, that were not required by international governing bodies for participation in the Olympic Games. The Olympic trials in most sports have routinely restricted participation to individuals who have already met performance or selection criteria that are not imposed by international governing bodies.
But as I noted earlier, I understand why USATF might choose to relax Olympic trials standards to avoid arbitration about whether their standards violate the Act or applicable rules.
The trials only have two potential purposes:
1) Find American runners to compete well at the Olympics
2) Drum up excitement surrounding American distance running through a big event.
For whatever reason, the USATF only wants to use the race for the former purpose. I agree that it's a huge wasted opportunity to inspire more American distance runners and push our 2:20-2:30 guys to new heights, but at this point, we have to look at the standards for what they are. Ultimately, the 2:19/1:05 standards for 2016 gave us a bronze medal and a sixth place finish on the world stage. Hard to argue with those results.
That said, I feel like there's now a big void to be filled for the right race promoter. As of now, the only recognized standard for the marathon beyond the trials is the 3:05 qualifier for Boston. There are thousands of Americans faster than that standard, so a more competitive race-entry time (say 2:30) could produce an incredible race/event.
I think what most people are saying is that the trials can be used for both of those purposes and they don't have to choose.
I also think that I would challenge your second conclusion. There have been Americans medal under different qualifying standards, some loose and some stricter, so it is very difficult to make the leap from correlation to causation.
There are lots of automatic entry standards, various sub-elite support programs, and other perks available. I mean maybe a higher standard would attract a higher field, but I don't think that is a slam dunk.
What is the purpose of the USATF Olympic Trials Marathon?
One might think to select a qualified team.
But on this thread we have arguments for large fields with paid entrees to fund prize money pool, to expose athletes to high level competition, to showcase the sport by having a large number of sub-elite athletes compete, to ensure that newcomers to the marathon distance get 'a fair shot' by qualifying in a different event and a number of other goals beyond team selection.
There is a cost to put on a trials race and as long as USATF is in charge they get to decide how to budget this event.
Perhaps with David Katz in the Chairpersons seat an age of real change comes to the way USATF deals with LD running and the concerns of the long distance community.
My role is basically limited to the technical side of the competition.
Well, as an organization that basically requires every competitive runner be a member (to suck us dry for dues), they should allow for more say in their process on how this event occurs because I think they are missing the point.
There is a cost to put on a trials race- which we are forced to pay for with our membership dues & competitors, or supporters of those competitors would pay.
I hope there is real change- I read through their bylaws for how they select board members and it is insane compared to other nonprofits with which I have worked.
Simple Country Running Lawyer wrote:
Well, as an organization that basically requires every competitive runner be a member (to suck us dry for dues), they should allow for more say in their process on how this event occurs because I think they are missing the point.
There is a cost to put on a trials race- which we are forced to pay for with our membership dues & competitors, or supporters of those competitors would pay.
I hope there is real change- I read through their bylaws for how they select board members and it is insane compared to other nonprofits with which I have worked.
You're welcome to email me to be added to the newly formed USATF Women's LDR Google Group, so we can have more discussion and better communication outside of the annual meeting. I just posted last year's meeting minutes, along with a monthly newsletter created by our new LDR Division Chair (Mike Scott). At the last annual meeting we did have a lot of open discussion with the membership surrounding the Trials standards, what they should be and why, and how to ensure the next Trials are better managed. There was a survey sent to the athletes, and their concerns were openly discussed. It was suggested a sub-committee be formed to have better communication between the LOC/USATF and the LDR membership.
The $30/yr annual membership fee (or less if you select multiple years) is a very small price we pay, for benefits that are worthwhile and many may not know exist (like discounted hotels, travel, rental cars, and secondary insurance if you have an injury). If you wish to be part of the discussion and process, join and become active at some level. Every other year alternates being changes to the competition rules vs. bylaws, and any proposed changes have to be made by I believe around Sept. (?). There were a lot of changes in leadership at the last meeting, including a new President (Lananna) and changes within the Board of Directors.
http://www.usatf.org/Products---Services/Individual-Memberships.aspxRegarding the tightening of standards- It's the Ted Stevens Amateur Act that limits the standards not being tighter than what's set by the IAAF.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/220522(14) does not have eligibility criteria related to amateur status or to participation in the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games, or the Pan-American Games that are more restrictive than those of the appropriate international sports federation; and
Cheers, :) jaguar1
jaguar1 wrote:
Regarding the tightening of standards- It's the Ted Stevens Amateur Act that limits the standards not being tighter than what's set by the IAAF.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/220522(14) does not have eligibility criteria related to amateur status or to participation in the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games, or the Pan-American Games that are more restrictive than those of the appropriate international sports federation; and
I still haven't seen anything in the Act that supports the assertion that it mandates performance standards for the Olympic trials or any other competition that are no more stringent than performance standards set for participation in the Olympic Games. Subsection 14 refers to eligibility criteria of an amateur sports organization that seeks recognition as an NGB. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I recall that this subsection was drafted specifically in response to concerns about the AAU's history of restricting eligibility for participation in AAU competition by, among other things, gender and age. (I believe that it also restricted eligibility based on its own definition of amateur status.) It should be fairly easy to find a discussion of this in the legislative history of the Act.
If the Act were read to require NGBs to allow everyone to participate in the Olympic trials as long as they meet performance standards for participation in the Olympic Games, you'd have chaos at the Olympic trials for many sports, since performance standards for the Olympic Games can range from low to nonexistent. Before the IAAF imposed some serious standards for athletics, that would have been true in track and field as well.
Avocado's Number wrote:
I still haven't seen anything in the Act that supports the assertion that it mandates performance standards for the Olympic trials or any other competition that are no more stringent than performance standards set for participation in the Olympic Games....
Hi Avocado, as I cited, this is the point of the Act that has been discussed at past USATF meetings for why the standards are not more restrictive than the IAAF. The Olympic Trials are essentially owned and governed by the USOC.
Bumping this thread because I'm wanting to know if Boston will be eligible for qualifying purposes for the trials. Anyone know? I can't find anything.
Has been in the past. Here is some 2016 data for you. http://www.marathonguide.com/news/exclusives/2016USAOlympicTeamTrialsMarathon/QualifierLists/CreateReports.cfm?Order=SummaryByName&Sex=M
Bump one more time. Thanks for the info but I'm still not confident it's a qualifying course.
Bump
Running863 wrote:
Bumping this thread because I'm wanting to know if Boston will be eligible for qualifying purposes for the trials. Anyone know? I can't find anything.
See #2 under "Qualifying Guidelines"
Hardloper wrote:
Running863 wrote:
Bumping this thread because I'm wanting to know if Boston will be eligible for qualifying purposes for the trials. Anyone know? I can't find anything.
See #2 under "Qualifying Guidelines"
So pretty much what you're saying is Boston doesn't meet USATF standards for sanctioned courses because of its elevation loss but I see that runners on the 2016 trials list qualified at Boston. Did it changed for this trials cycle?
"The course must be USATF/IAAF/AIMS certified with an active course certification and have an elevation loss no greater than 3.25 meters/km. "
The max elevation loss is set to match Boston and no more.