| malmo |
| ||
|
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. |
| Average_Joe |
| ||
|
Interesting historical note: In the early 1900s, Boston was one of the races (sometimes the only race) used to select the US Olympic Marathon Team. I think Yonkers was used as well. |
| Theodoric of York |
| ||
|
We also use to practice "blood letting" as well, but we have now gotten a little more civilized. |
| Glenn Latimer |
| ||
|
I appreciate Kevin's comments. On many issues which we debate, we agree, and sometimes we disagree. That is all very healthy, and does not stop any sort of mutual respect. A few key points: 1) The bid documents have not been released yet. They will be released inside the next ten days. 2) Most of the comments, while appreciated, are, as Kevin points out, anonymous. And these views are very premature. 3) Without knowing the facts, people have opinions. But then, why let facts get in the way of a good discussion? 4) Several scenarios for the "Trials" have been examined. New York, Chicago and Boston approached us with a concept. It would be foolish not to examine a possible scenario. It is no different than examing a possible scenario if Akron or Twin Cities, or Grand Rapids were to bid for the "Trials." But we have no idea who will bid at this stage, so it is all an interesting but moot discussion. 5) It is a very complex issue, and multi-layered. Even Weldon's analysis is too simplistic for the complexities of this situation. For example: USATF has to have the approval of USOC for its "Trials" procedure. Again there are many dimensions involved. So I would chide Weldon for calling it a "dumb idea" without having any sort of idea about the facts involved. (And I'll happily talk to you Weldon, off the record, to discuss these complexities.) 6) The "Trials" site selection is a PROCESS. Many different groups and constituencies have been selected to give their input. These are respected leaders in the sport who will give feedback and review ONCE THE BIDS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. It will be no secret who is involved in the process, so I believe people will be impressed with the caliber of those charged with the review of bids. 7) Then the recommendations go through Site Selection Committees on both the Men's and Women's sides of USATF LDR; and then it goes to the Executive Committees of Men's LDR and Women's LDR. So a lot of very knowledgeable eyes will scrutinize the bids and comment, long before any decision is made. 8) The final decisions will be made based on the MERITS OF THE BIDS, after following a fair process. A timeteble is established for this process. 9) We are charged with the development of USA long distance running, particularly at the elite level, but also from the grass roots up. One key goal will be to select the best possible athletes for Beijing so that they can prepare properly to vie for podium places. Our talent in LDR is excellent and improving fast. Just look at the quality of the Men's 5,000m last week at Nationals as but one example. USATF LDR intends to support this elite development (separate discussion to the issue here.) 10) I do not intend to debate this issue back and forth on this message board. I am commenting to help people understand the process involved. As I said, we have a comprehensive PROCESS in place for input. A decision will be made by December 1, 2005. Glenn Latimer Chair Men's LDR USATF |
| Jason Thomas |
| ||
Be careful. You stated that nothing official goes out for 2 weeks. If that is the case, anyone that is part of the final decision process, may not answer questions regarding bids from potential bidders. This is law. You open yourself up to potential class action law suit from other bidders. I am not a lawyer, but I do know of a similar case. |
| works for me |
| ||
|
No, I do know. Those who don't just don't know enough about the sport. So they were second at the trials, the predication of the trials was that the team is the top 3, not the top one. Even if either or both happened to be the 2nd American at the first selection race, they've clearly shown that they can bounce back to be the top American at a subsequent race. It's completely implausible that such able runners would fail to make a team under any self-selection format. |
| Untrue |
| ||
|
They may be able to bounce back once but what about twice. Yes Deena would have been able to bounce back and win the next effort, but how would the cumulative effect of 2 marathons effect her Olympic Games? In other words how well did Deena run in her third marathon? That would be the New York performance. |
| msuxc1 |
| ||
|
I don't like the idea either. However, I heard it may actually mean more money and exposure to the US athletes. Since the marathon trials didn't even make national TV, at least we know Boston, NY, and probably Chicago would. And as long as we're speculating with what if's, maybe Khannouchi would have been healthy enough at one of those 3 to make the team and then go on to win the gold medal. I guess it comes down to 1. $$$ for the athletes and 2. a fair selection process based on results, not a selection committee. |
| Sarah Hills |
| ||
|
Mr. Hanson, Do you think the folks that defend the USATF are the same person? I have noticed that there has been no one person willing to use their real name to defend this silly proposal. |
| wejo co-founder |
| ||
I think its a bad idea. Perhaps "dumb" is not the right word (and maybe I shouldn't have used it as the people involved have good intentions, but a lot of smart people have come up with dumb ideas, I know I have), but just hearing about it, I didn't like the idea. Everyone I have talked to seems to think about it a second and then say the same thing like "that just doesn't seem the right way to do it." I had never heard of the idea until the track champs. Then I saw it posted on here and then received emails from people and decided this was further along than I thought. Since I am against the idea (I know all the facts haven't been released) I decided to get some attention on this. The point is to stir and foster debate and I hope my headline did that. If Boston, NY, or Chicago wants the trials, then they should bid for it, on their own like any other city. The post by the Donut guy was great. I've heard the benefits behind this idea mainly are supposed to be PR but I don't see the pr value of having a mini trials within a race. Assuming the benefits are mostly pr, the public at large is really going to get so much more excited and care about American marathoning because the 4th or 7th place guy at the Chicago Marathon is going to the Olympics? A one shot trials system has so much drama built into it, that someone with a marketing mind should have no problem marketing it. Americans don't like things second rate, and win the winner of their 3 trials isn't the winner of the race then they won't get too excited. And lets remember that the race isn't the trials, its the 1/3 trials. Assume the race is in Chicago and you've got someone going for a WR. Now I'm assuming by 2008 we won't have an american at that level. So all the americans are running in a pack of their own, way back off the 3-6 guys going out at 2:04 pace. Sounde like great tv for me. Sounds like NY, Chicago and Boston want the benefit of having the olympic trials without altering the traditional structure of their race or creating another special one off race. I know their are problems with sponsor conflicts,etc, but that is life. |
| Miles and Miles |
| ||
|
The only reason I could see that the USATF would want to use this 3 trials idea would be that there would be more $$$ for the USATF. I like the idea of holding the Trials in conjunction with the Boston Marathon, like the day before. I personally don't like the idea. Some of us have wasted our pathetic lives trying to make the Olympic Trials Marathon and now there wouldn't be one? Weird. Would this mean that everyone is now "eligible" to be in the trial without hitting the standard (save the bashing of me for not hitting it for another day, I understand the irony)? So people that have never even run a Marathon are now in the Trials races. I don't like it, but that's just my 2 cents. Chad Worthen 70th Place (DFL) 2004 U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials Sacramento, CA |
| Do Go On ........ |
| ||
Well, why not? We have already seen you state many times in this thread that you're against the proposal, but you've never really elaborated why you feel that way. |
| Miles and Miles |
| ||
|
I didn't? I thought I mentioned that our two best Marathoners wouldn't have made the team because they got 2nd. I thought I mentioned that this would eliminate the Trials and many of us shmucks have been working for it for years I didn't say that? Sorry I will try better next time. |
| MAYEROFF |
| ||
|
Just wanted to point out that if the 3 race system was used for 2004, Meb would've still made the team, due to his Chicago 2003 performance. It's an interesting concept, this 3 race idea. Keep in mind that neither Stefano Baldini nor Mizuki Noguchi won the races that put them on their respective teams, and they sure did quite well at that Olympics. We do need to get rid of this thinking that sub 2:20/2:22 is somehow "elite," and maybe this is the best way to do it. Jason |
| Miles and Miles |
| ||
|
Don't get me wrong I don't think I am elite by any stretch. But do you think that making the Trials a non-event is going to solve all the problems? This doesn't benefit any athletes accept the top 1% of Americans. Now Meb can dodge Culppeper. Deena can dodge Coleen. They can kill two birds with one stone and get their payday and not have to "waste" their time with a Trials event. This isn't going to add to Boston, NY, or Chicago just elinate one event that could be top knotch. |
| just a scenario |
| ||
|
Suppose Meb or Culpepper come out and say one of them is doing Chi-town. Now other smart runners would think seriously about doing one of the other two races. Now comes race day and they're hurt or get hurt during the race and are unable to finish. Being that other highly ranked Americans probably have bailed for NY or Boston, does mid-level 2:18 American get an Olympic spot if he's the first American that day or does someone intervene and say that just can't be. Also say this crazy scenario played out at Chicago, how lame would are system look if Paula beat our Olympic marathon qualifier? Now if something crazy like this happened during a trials race (where for some reason all the upper runners could run or didn't run well) and an up and comer type takes the Olympic spot then you'd kind of have a cool story. |
| Wayne B |
| ||
|
I don't like the 3 race idea, yet I'm also not a big fan of a one-shot trial. I feel that anyone who is even slightly off on the one-shot day gets eliminated, even if they are actually the better/better trained athlete. The flip side is that anything that involves multiple races introduces different weather and courses and must be somewhat subjective. This, in turn, introduces the opportunity for claims of unfairness. There isn't a perfect solution, but I think a 2-try system may be better than a one-shot (and it was done for some years in the '50's and '60's at Boston and Yonkers). That's my two cents. (Two further notes, depending on timing of the Olympics, Boston may fall too late to permit full recovery. Also, what do we do in case of injury after selection?) |
| Inquiring minds want to know |
| ||
DFL?? Did Finish Last? |
| Miles and Miles |
| ||
|
Dead F...ing Last. |
| Cut to the chase |
| ||
|
Let's cut to the chasel, Glenn. IT IS A DUMB IDEA. You say that "without the facts people have opinions", then admonish everyone for not knowing the facts? Get real, why are you withholding the facts? You deflect criticism by saying that New York, Chicago, and Boston approached you with the concept. These same three marathons wield considerable influence over you, since a great deal of your personal income depends on their favors. You are not an impartial player here. Because of your professional conflicts of interest, you should recuse yourself from "the process." The process, as you've described, is a farce. As chair of LDR, rather than clarify and provide information, your are evasive and avoid transparency at all costs. Reading back over your 9 points you've said nothing illuminating here, except that "the process is the process." Do the right thing and resign. |