MSU, if you scenario holds true, than what happened in 2000? Couldn't LeMay and everyone note the time and place and realize they weren't going to qualify and would have made a move at Mile 25??? Obviously, it did not happen.
|Miles and Miles|
Thanks Kevin. Glad someone appreciated my "humor".
With the currently Olympic standards would the problem that happened in 2000 still occur? For men and women?
First, let me state that I am neither for the proposal, nor am I against it and will remain that way until until the bids are officially in hand. Generally I have taken the devil’s advocate role when the topic is discussed. Jim Estes, Glenn Latimer and Elizabeth Phillips are all aware of where I stand. People have tried to convert me to their viewpoint, but regardless, I am going to chose to wait and see what the different bid proposals look like. When they are in front of us, that is the time for these discussions to take place. There are so many possible scenarios that could play out, that to lock any type of bid proposal out would serve as an injustice to our sport to which we have a fiduciary responsibility.
Consider the challenges that are before the LDR division:
1. What happens if NO city comes forward and bids for the Trials? Keep in mind that it costs about 500K to the LOC to host a trials and that is for only one gender.
2. What if we get only one trials bid and that is in (as an example) Provo Utah? Do we deny it or take it and not let the fact it is at 6000 feet matter?
3. Development money is gone, so helping with the trials becomes a less likely possibility.
What I have done so far:
1. I went to the Marathon summit for the 10 qualifiers for the World Championships (and all of them were there, several of them with their coaches) to get their feedback in an informal setting. I did not get to all of them, but I did get to most of them. (BTW, before anyone says I was on a junket, I paid for the trip out of my own pocket, NOT the LDR budget, although, in the spirit of total transparency, the Hanson’s were gracious and let me stay in one of their athlete houses and let me eat some of that great food their wives fed the athletes).
2. Besides talking with MANY athletes, I have also discussed the possible scenario with Joe Vigil, Bob Larsen, Ray Flynn, the Hanson’s, John Chaplin, and many others.
3. Keep putting forth different “what it” scenarios to the parties involved so far.
Where I stand:
1. I am FOR letting a multiple city (up to 3) bid be submitted (multiple trials have happened in the past, see 1964 Olympic trials).
2. I am FOR a single city bids being submitted.
3. I am AGAINST anyone from LDR taking a particular stance before seeing the actual bid(s) that are submitted.
This is both preventative and proactive on the part of the LDR division. We also realize that this thinking is outside of the box. If anyone on this board is willing to step forward and host the event and have an extra 1-1.5 million laying around I would like to take this opportuinty to solicit your bid application. There has not been a single post or scenario that has been made that has not been discussed. This is only about the bid process. All of these discussions may be moot. As for all of the attacks about conflicts of interest, they are absurd. ANYONE with a conflict of interest will automatically be expected to excuse themselves from the process and I would guess that when the RFP comes out in a couple of weeks, a lot of your concerns will be addressed and answered.
My ideal scenario? Big, new, all American race comes forward, puts a million into the race for the athletes, guarantees national television coverage, and everything is equal for both the women and men. If that happens, all this goes away. If not, then we have to consider options.
The only thing that we have agreed with is to let a conglomerate bid be submitted. When the bid(s) come in, hopefully there will be one that just stands out and it will make everyone happy.
Fred Finke, Chair
I'd love to see a video of someone trying to explain a scenario similar to the "A" standard vs "B" standard fiasco from last year's OT 5,000m....now on top of that scenario layer in the explanation of having perhaps 3 different qualifying races and results. The script would probably rival if not surpass, "Who's On First?"
A couple points:
- one thing that is lost here is that the Trials should follow a format as close to the Olympics as possible. The Olympic Marathon is a one race event, the winner is the one who crosses the finish line first. It's simple, so it provides a simple goal to focus on.
- look at the other Olympic sports who have selection committees, multiple selection events...what a headache! It's too confusing, decreases the drama and the "special-ness" of the event is lost.
- Including the trials within an existing Marathon - bad idea. Look at the US Pro Championships in Philly as an example. The winner is the national champion, sort of, most of the time the winner is not an American, so someone . The race includes some of the top Americans and some top international talent. The top American wins the "Stars and Stripes", since prize money is involved for the top overall finisher and the top American, it confuses the TV viewer. But it also creates the dilemmma, race for the money or race for the Olympic spot...
- The big three marathons have been working together and doing some great things. BUT is this idea truly a way to help the sport or a clever attempt to figure out a way to get around a business model that they don't agree with?
- Point of clarification about the USOC & Trials: yes,the USOC protects their sponsors, this is done because the sponsors have made commits for multiple years to support the American athletes training to represent their country. This situation is very similar to the way the NBA supports NBA franchises, the USOC makes the larger deals and they support the Olympic sports. Let's not loss focus on this issue and make the USOC the bad guy on this.
- The Athletes deserve a stage where they can standout. The qualifiers deserve the attention, including the Trials within New York, Chicago or Boston races makes the Olympic qualifiers a story, not the story.
- Brooklyn Dude
I think this sounds like a great idea, that will send the best team no matter what.
I think with the talent coming up a change could only help us get more marathon medals.
does this mean that everyone could possibly have 3 shots to qualify?
|Do Go On ........|
That's pure conjecture. As pointed out by others, they didn't get 2nd in other races.
That isn't a purpose of the trials, it's merely a side-effect of that particular selection system.
maybe i missed this, but if one of the three marathon winners decides not to go or gets hurt, from which marathon does 2nd place get to go?
Hey Chad, you are a great guy, and I am not passing judgement on the running of anyone here.
A move to "the Japanese format" of Olympic Selection is a very interesting proposal.
What about the 2007 World Championships? Supposing an American runner win a medal. Under the Japanese system, they would automatically be on the team, which is how Mizuki Noguchi and, I think, Stefano Baldini, made their respective teams.
I think just the opposite Chad, I think that having Boston, NY and Chicago as the qualifiers for the Olympics would RAISE domestic interest in these races, by connecting them to the Olympics.
Another advantage of the 3 race format would be that an athlete could race Chicago or NYC, and then Boston in the following April.
Also, I don't think that Meb or Culpepper would ever dodge each other!
If NYC/Chicago/Boston agreed to fly/feed/hotel any and all sub 2:20 US Marathoners to their events, it would definitely benefit more than the top 1% of US Marathoners.
We've yet to see the full proposal from the NYC/Chicago/Boston consortium.
It should be noted that "Brooklyn Dude" works for the USOC and has an interest in maintaining the current system of USOC sponsorship protection which, in effect, makes it impossible for Chicago or New York from incorporating the Olympic Trials into their existing races, even if they ran separate fields for the Trials (New York is tailor-made for the women's race with a separate all-women's race already). Both LaSalle Bank and ING are not USOC or IOC sponsors. Therefore, their nameplates cannot be near any Olympic properties, like the Trials. Until this system is changed, the Trials will continue to be held in small cities which usually use sports commision (read "government") money to fund them, that way their are no sponsorship conflicts.
I think the Big 3 marathons are simply trying to get the Trials back in the limelight with live television and the robust media coverage the athletes deserve --but did not get-- in 2004. The coverage was particularly bad for the men in Birmingham, with only the Denver Post and Washington Times sending reporters from what could be called "national" papers. The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, etc., did not think the race was worth covering. That's the real tragedy here.
|bringer of news|
This has probably been said already, as I don't have time right now to read through the whole thread, but...
This is going to kill the dreams of the sub-elite who long to run at the US Olympic Marathon Trials. It is a badge of honor for those of us who probably won't ever make it to the Olympics. Making the '08 Marathon Trials is my ONLY long term goal. It distinguishes the top 100 or so US marathoners from the rest. Now what, everyone who runs Chicago or NYC can say the ran at the "trials"? What's going to distinguish those who would have made the trials under the old system from the people who are jogging Chicago in 3:30? People wouldn't care if you ran 2:20 at Chicago and finished as the 30th American. But just to say you ran at the Olympic Trials is something people will recognize and respect.
I know most people will just say "it doesn't matter since the best people will make it anyway" and that it shouldn't matter for those 100 other people who make the trials and don't make the team, but 99% of people who run the trials don't make the team. This is screwing them over.
Another thing I'd like to touch on, which people may have mentioned. Mixing Americans and non-Americans just creates havoc. You have to distinguish between people who you are competing against and foreigners. This system also caters to the marathoners who are time-trialers who just get sucked along at a fast pace. We want people who can race in almost any situation. I'd rather we send a 2:11 guy who can handle surges and great pace variations over a guy who can run 2:09 but doesn't know how to lead and can't handle moves.
|news of the bringer|
Yeah, I bet that the possibility of you being able to impress your friends by telling them you ran in the Olympic Trials Marathon is an issue that the decision makers are really worried about.
As an editor of a national running publication, I can state almsst unequivocably that including/subsuming the Trials race as part of a major marathon (whether 1, 2, or 3) would LESSEN the interest, relegating it to a footnote/sidelight of the main event, even for dedicated running fans. As it is, there is little public interest in the Trials, and I don't see that changing no matter how/where it is staged. But among the running cognescenti, there's a heightened sense of drama for the one-shot Trials race as is currently constituted.
Having covered the past 4 OT marathons, there are plenty of stories that would have been overlooked or barely mentioned - Chris Clark in 2000, Briney in '04, etc. How dramatic would Colleen passing Deena and going on to win have been if it had occurred more than a mile behind Paula going for a WR in Chicago?
One of the most poignant stories from St. Louis was that of the last place finisher, who was pregnant a year before the race and was confined to bed rest the last 2 months, and only resumed training a few months before the race. For her, just making it to the starting and finish lines was as much a goal, and a story, as the top 3, but it would hardly have meant as much or garnered any attention if the proposed system were adopted.
My own proposal? Get Elite Racing to cough up some of the $$$ they garner from all the Team in Training runners and stage a Trials race in San Diego the day before Rock & Roll. House the elite athletes at the USOC training center to save costs, and set up a criterium course around Mission Bay. Fast course, generally good weather, and you'll have thousands of the R&R'ers out there cheering their lungs out.
That is a great idea. I agree that having the Trials as a stand alone event the day before a big race is the way to go.
Entry fee's are already crazy for a marathon. Just tack on a extra few dollars and put that towards the Trials. I also think that the mens' and women's should be on the same day so the awards presentation's could include both the men and women.
|Thinking about facts|
Strange that a major running mag editor would not check the weather data for that date (early June 2008).
Median Temp = 66 (counts the nighttime)
Average High early June = 72
Average Low = 63
Record High = 82
Very nice, Manhattan Dude.
Either you took an educated guess or you know me. Why didn't you share this fact with the rest of the group...I also worked at NYRR/ NYCM for five years. If you're going to call me out, please shoot me an email and we can talk further....
I'm a huge NYC Marathon fan and also a Chicago fan, I also hope to qualify for Boston, again...I didn't mean to say anything negative about the three races. I was sharing my knowledge on the situation.
I've been in the biz for a while, other organizations have figured out a Trials model that works for everyone's goals. You pointed out Birmingham, was the race a complete failure? No way, it was a great event, but yes the media didn't jump and cover it. Step back and look at the big picture, we got the best Marathon runners to qualify, the athletes were treated very well and the race logistically went well. Those are the most important parts of Trials, the athletes come first.
Olympic trials don't just happen in Marathons or track & field, every Olympic sport has some sort of trials. Yes, some choose other ways to pick their teams, but what's more fair then a head to head competition? Take a look at the other sports, they make it work in the small markets and they have to follow the same rules.
Sponsorship is not the only way to support a Trials event. Yes, I know in a Marathon, you have no gate revenue, but there are other streams of revenue. Your comment about sports commissions is interesting, if the only source of revenue for a sports commission is "government funding", then they don't have a modern way of operating.
Talk to you soon, Manhattan Dude.