Changed Marathon Trials numbers

IMHO - the primary responsiblity of the USATF is to put on the best possible marathon trials for those who actually have a chance to win the race.

If the standards were the same in 2004, when some have said Sell wouldn't have qualifed with his 2:19:58.... well, something tells me he would have found a marathon somewhere and ran 2:19:00 to make sure he qualified. Hell, he probably would have run that particular marathon faster.

designed to reduce significantly the number of qualifiers, making the race more manageable for potential organizers

What BS. What makes a race of 130 so much harder to manage than a race of 65?

+130 qualifiers is too many. Even if they do not pay travel and lodging, there are other aspects of the race that cost $/participant.

Let's see, there's the race number. And there's paying the volunteers to put their bottles on the table. Oh wait, those are volunteers. You got me. What are these $/participant costs?

Besides, you don't think these 2:19-2:22 guys would be willing to pay a $100 entry fee? You don't think their clubs or their family and friends would be willing to cover it?

However, some marathon courses which do not meet the strict terms for records, like Boston or New York City, are likely to be included because they generally do not produce excessively fast times.

Boston with a tailwind most certainly does produce excessively fast times. I'm all for removing downhill and point-to-point courses, but Boston should be one of them.

Don't these guys know that the 2:19-2:22 qualifiers are the ones that bring 20 spectators each with them, and those are most definitely people who won't be there next time.

These USATF guys seem intent on making decisions designed to alienate as many people as possible. I have always been somewhat a defender of them, but they have successfully alienated me now as well.

I am sure that Hansons are probably happy with this decision

I would be EXTREMELY surprised if that was the case.

And for the record, I am in no danger, and never was, of running 2:22.

dukerdog wrote:

Don't these guys know that the 2:19-2:22 qualifiers are the ones that bring 20 spectators each with them

Where are you getting this info?

toughen up. wrote:

The most spectators are there to see the top one-three, not to hang around to provide pity applause for those trickling in after the top 10 have finished.

I've been to an Olympic Trials. The vast majority of the spectators were there because someone they personally knew was in the race. If you had asked them on their plane ride home who finished 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, many of them wouldn't have been able to tell you.

Sounds O.K. to me

If the standards were the same in 2004, when some have said Sell wouldn't have qualifed with his 2:19:58.... well, something tells me he would have found a marathon somewhere and ran 2:19:00 to make sure he qualified. Hell, he probably would have run that particular marathon faster.

Yes, but that's less likely to have been true for Trent Briney.

I don't disagree with your hypothesis or the basis of your preference, Boston is certainly an aided course. However, USATF is NOT going to do ANYTHING to spite either NYRR or BAA after each has done so much for USATF with the OT marathons. Won't happen.

dukerdog wrote:

Boston with a tailwind most certainly does produce excessively fast times. I'm all for removing downhill and point-to-point courses, but Boston should be one of them.

I believe NYC meets the IOC rule of 50% or less distance between start/finish but not the UST&F 30% rule. If any course meets the IOC standard it should be included in those that USAT&F accept. A nobrainer even for the UST&F gang. Plus Boston is "Boston" and a tradition I'd not want the backroom boys and beancounters to deminish.

Yeah an exception for all the Marathon Majors(Marathons Major?) ya gadda let these guys make a living.

Dsavid K. or one of the NYRR insiders here can answer the 50% quesation I'm sure.

dukerdog wrote:

I've been to an Olympic Trials. The vast majority of the spectators were there because someone they personally knew was in the race. If you had asked them on their plane ride home who finished 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, many of them wouldn't have been able to tell you.

But did you go to the most recent one? NYC was probably more than just a little different than Birmingham or Pittsburgh or any other previous men's OT marathon, certainly in terms of spectators and their reasons for attendance, and that's the direction that the sport is going. We're not going back to podunk OT marathons where <10,000 locals care enough to turn out to watch.

Be realistic. Running is about continuity, consistency, and steady progress. Sell is (obviously) a tough guy, but you can't just "will" yourself to run a minute faster (unless you weren't pushing 100% to begin with). By your logic Sell would always do what he has to do in order to win... which doesn't seem to happen. Runners need time and incentives to progress. Now, maybe his determination would have seen him continue training despite NOT making our hypothetical 2:19 standard in 2004... but that is a different issue. He seems to talk a lot about Dental school... so maybe he would have retired...

wineturtle wrote:

Plus Boston is "Boston" and a tradition I'd not want the backroom boys and beancounters to deminish.

Being that it'd be relevant ONLY to US runners and ONLY during the OT qualifying window, any "diminishing" would be negligible.

So start earlier.

221isME wrote:

Be realistic. Running is about continuity, consistency, and steady progress. Sell is (obviously) a tough guy, but you can't just "will" yourself to run a minute faster (unless you weren't pushing 100% to begin with). By your logic Sell would always do what he has to do in order to win... which doesn't seem to happen. Runners need time and incentives to progress.

toughen up. wrote:

We're not going back to podunk OT marathons where <10,000 locals care enough to turn out to watch.

I may be wrong, but I doubt that even in NYC there were 10,000 locals who didn't know anybody in the race who were willing to get up before dawn to go watch. Admittedly, there were probably a good number of people who were in town to run the marathon the next day who came out to watch.

By "locals" I meant all those who had no personal affiliation with any entrant in the race.

So nobody has a problem with Latimer deciding which races are OK? Smells a little fishy to me.

Um, what exactly would we be able to do about it if we did have a problem with it? Further feckless griping, pissing, and groaning?

toughen up. wrote:

Raising the bar, at this juncture, is what the sport needs. The state of the competitive marathon in the US is heading in the right direction again and this gives it a boost. There really isn't a HUGE difference between 2:19 and 2:22, if it seems impossible then that's nothing more than a mental barrier. I bet there will be more qualifiers next time than there were A qualifiers for this last OT marathon.

Although the difference between a 2:19 and a 2:22 can be substantial, and the difference between a 2:19 on a legitimate marathon course and a 2:22 at St. George is huge, your basic point is almost certainly correct. I mentioned earlier that the qualifying standard for the 1984 trials was 2:19:04, and over 200 qualified. It's worth noting that the qualifying time of 2:19:04 was arrived at by picking the time of the 100th fastest American of 1982. The qualifying window then didn't start until the date of the 1983 Boston marathon, and concluded within a year. In other words, after the trials qualifying time was set to 2:19:04, the number of Americans who ran under 2:19 the next year approximately doubled.

Of course, there will be disappointed runners who felt they had a decent shot at 2:22 on an aided course, and very little shot at 2:19 on a record-quality course or even Boston. But why should these decisions be controlled by the wishes of those individuals?

The 2:25 to 2:28 marathoners who have qualified in the past by running 2:20s on courses like St. George and Steamtown can count their lucky stars to have qualified when the standards were unduly lax, and when it was easier to qualify for the Olympic trials than to become an NCAA Division I All-American in cross-country. Future qualifiers will just have to be better. I see little wrong in that.

From, what I have read so far this seems like a case of trying to fix something that was not broken. The US men got a medal in 2004, first time in a long time. We just had an excellent Olympic trials race that was won in record time. All of the qualifiers were among the pre-race favorites, which tells me we're sending a team comprised of 3 guys who can all challenge for a medal on their best day. Should any of the 3 who qualified decide not to race we have an alternate that was among the pre-race favorites. The field size was easily manageable-and I can't think of a potential trials venue that couldn't handle 200+/- of the best US men's marathoners.

I don't get it-why change a system that works?

If the 2:22/2:20 B standard/A standard suddenly started producing 500+ guys who qualified and the trials race experience was compromised then you tighten up the standards. If you have standards or a way of picking the team that was producing lousy Olympic results or was hindering the development of US distance runners then you change the standards. In this case the system was working fine-why change?

No doubt Wittenberg had something to do with it.

d2xccoach wrote:

From, what I have read so far this seems like a case of trying to fix something that was not broken.

True!

Venue may be just a polite way of explaining this decision without bringing up the real issue.... a 2:22 guy is not the same as a 2:10 guy, and maybe the slower one shouldn't be considered a qualifier. The qualifying standards for the shorter distances are tougher, as you don't see 200 guys show up to run the 10,000m at the U.S. Track Champs. Granted, you can't run that many on the track. But I'm not sure that b/c you can accomodate more runners on a marathon course, you necessarily should. OT qualifying times should be kept tough to keep them special.

Take a look at the results from the trials race a month ago. I think less than half the runners that finished ran under the 2:22 "B" standard. Maybe they took that into consideration when making this decision.

Just my thoughts. Not an insult to the 2:20-2:22 guys - much admiriation for you (not even close to being one, myself). But it is what it is.