Some good points (even if they are mostly tired arguments that come up every T&F or marathon trials). However, there ain’t no equivalent of Dan O’Brien at this trials. The argument against a top three win a spot would be more compelling if there was an obvious Olympic gold medal favorite. We just don’t have one currently. Not even close.
Christine Clark was certainly within the top 10 or 20 in the US in 2000 (not 1980 as you wrote). She was justifiably #1 in the US. Won the trials by more than 2 minutes. She also had the fastest American time of the year, which happened to be at the Olympics (a not fast race). Who were the 20 American women better than her in 2000? I can't even name one.
I'm a huge fan of the U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials. In fact, I may have attended more Marathon Trials than anyone else, beginning in 1968. Just one problem: The Trials are also stupid and misguided. How would you select the best U.S. marathon runners to compete in Paris?
My bad on Christine Clark, 2000 not 1980 (since corrected in original article). She was definitely strong in 2000, and a great story to boot. From Track & Field News annual rankings, we might best call her a "one-year wonder," . And there was a lot more going on at the 2000 Marathon Trials--too much to include in a brief overview. My selection committee wouldn't have picked her, even though she might have been the best in 2000. No system is perfect. The one-day, one-race Trials system seems more imperfect to me than other systems.
Isn't there a flaw in the trial for all events, and not just the marathon?
Think about the sprinter that is clearly superior to everyone else yet in the final is questionably DQ'd similar to how Devon Allen was in the 2022 World Championship final. It doesn't even need to be a questionable DQ. It could be a just DQ. That sprinter dominated the competition all year, has the fastest time in the world by a large margin, and false starts in the final. That is just one example, though there are others.
Conversely, the manner that many other countries choose teams, without trials, may be deemed to be too subjective. This leads to someone more deserving on the outside looking in.
If the goal is to provide the purest form of sport, then you choose the best 3 from the trials and go with it. No exceptions. Pressure is part of sport, and if you false start or no height in a jump, then that means you were not the best that day. Who's to say it won't happen at the Olympics too? This is my preference.
If the goal is to provide the highest probability of winning a medal for USA, then I think the best formula is something like a top 2 + 1, where the top 2 in the trials event get a spot no matter what. The 3rd is a flex spot chosen by a committee from athletes that competed in the event final at the trials.
The default choice would be the 3rd place finisher, but it allows for exceptional events such as a false start, a no height, taken out by a spectator, dog runs onto the track, etc. Not a fan of this though because I could think of scenarios where it's easy to game the system. For example, there are 4 sprinters within a very narrow margin in the pre-lims. The top sprinter feels like the committee would definitely pick him for the 3rd spot, so he false-starts on purpose rather than taking a chance of getting beat by the other 3 guys.
First, Amby's committee would not have selected the bronze medalist for the women's marathon in Tokyo as she had never run a marathon before the trials. Second, let's stop acting like the US is some second tier track nation that needs to maximize its medal potential more than it already does. There are up years and down years, and the occasional upset, but the value of the suspense of the trials and the economic impact is far more valuable than preventing one Dan O'Brien.
The US trials and even the US championships is the top meet of the year in the world that isn't a diamond league or global championship. Why would USATF hurt this brand by just using a committee.
The goal shouldn't be the most "fair" because that's not what makes sports enjoyable. The NFL could have a committee determine the Super Bowl and you'd probably have the 2 best teams play each other every year but I think people prefer the NFL Playoffs. The trials are one of the few things that has a mass appeal for marathon running.
If an athlete is picked for the team, can they be unpicked if they are judged unfit by the USOC or USATF?
If an athlete loses form, gets injured or preggers, could their place on the team be taken away?
Win and in for the Olympics. It's suppose to be a coming together of the world through athletics. I know that's a dated idea, but it'd be nice if it come back around. Use all the analytics stuff for the World Championships, if you like.
First, Amby's committee would not have selected the bronze medalist for the women's marathon in Tokyo as she had never run a marathon before the trials.
Nor would they have tapped the top finishing American (5th) male in Rio.
I'm a huge fan of the U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials. In fact, I may have attended more Marathon Trials than anyone else, beginning in 1968. Just one problem: The Trials are also stupid and misguided. How would you select the best U.S. marathon runners to compete in Paris?
You'd be taking away the special event that the marathon is and what the marathon trials are all about. If you take away the American process that exists for the marathon now, then why not scrap the entire Track & Field Trials? Making it to the Olympics involves many different variables but it shouldn't define a runner's career.
Alberto made it to L.A. and had a bad race compared to his prior races. Had he taken 4th in the 84' Trials, many, including Amby, would have said he'd have won a medal in L.A., but he'd have been wrong. It's one race, no one knows what "would have" happened.
Molly had the race of her life in Atlanta to make the team and then had a better race in Tokyo, but who would have guessed that? Sara had a bad race at the Trials in Atlanta, as did Emily. If they had made the team and ran in Tokyo, would they have gotten the bronze or even the silver? After all, Sara's best is almost 3 minutes faster than Molly's and Emily's is almost 5 minutes faster!
It's an unknown and one race. Leave the Trials the way the are.
First, Amby's committee would not have selected the bronze medalist for the women's marathon in Tokyo as she had never run a marathon before the trials. Second, let's stop acting like the US is some second tier track nation that needs to maximize its medal potential more than it already does. There are up years and down years, and the occasional upset, but the value of the suspense of the trials and the economic impact is far more valuable than preventing one Dan O'Brien.
The US trials and even the US championships is the top meet of the year in the world that isn't a diamond league or global championship. Why would USATF hurt this brand by just using a committee.
Like you, I don't like the idea of a committee picking an Olympic. But I do not believe what we do is the best way to pick a team if you're looking to maximize your likelihood of getting medals or coming close to them that would not require a committee and could be just as objective as the current system is. And given the changes in what's required by WA for athletes to qualify in the distance events I think our current system, which was designed to select athletes for a qualifying system that really doesn't exists anymore, is outdated.
But I agree with you, the Trials are always the top meet, or race in the marathon, in the US. I'd say even more so than any DL meet is. As such it's a cash cow for USATF, a very big one and I do not see them letting go of it easily.
If there are three spots, maybe do something like the Japanese system. A trials race in the Fall before the Olympics to select the top two with a provisional spot to the third place finisher. However, the third place finisher can be replaced by the fastest person who subsequently beats a very aggressive time standard in specified races.
The selection process makes me nervous although Amby's picks for 2024 appear to be good ones as I write this 24 hours before the trials will be finishing tomorrow.
Dear Amby .... STFU ....If you want stupid and misguided then take a long look in the mirror.
The current system is the only system that is fair and makes sense. Its a fair method that rewards excellence on a given day. Thats exactly what the Olympics is -- rewarding excellence on a given day. It doesn't matter what you've done before. Its not a subjective beauty contest. Its doesn't matter if you got a blister on your little finger or a blister on your thumb. Its a one day self selecting event. That's why Peter Rono is an Olympic Champ. He deserved it.
Did I say you were stupid and misguided? You said it, so its a fair cop.
It's not outdated, and completely fair. The best athletes will easily qualify spots based on the World Athletics standard. World athletics allows replacing with inferior athletes for positions qualified given the athletes exceed a lower standard. The rules are clearly stated well in advance and everyone knows.
If you want someone capable of winning a medal, then it should be someone capable of winning a race not just running a fast time on a fast course. There is no need to change the system.
Dear Amby .... STFU ....If you want stupid and misguided then take a long look in the mirror.
Did I say you were stupid and misguided? You said it, so its a fair cop.
Woah, what? why are you talking to him like this?
Excuse me, Amby is the one calling the selection process which is objectively fair "stupid and misguided" therefore anyone who agrees with the fair process is stupid and misguided. He needs to just go away.
Excuse me, Amby is the one calling the selection process which is objectively fair "stupid and misguided" therefore anyone who agrees with the fair process is stupid and misguided. He needs to just go away.
Wow.
At this point there is little on this site that shocks me, but your posts go to a new level of disgusting, offensive, and inappropriate.