Help save the US Olympic Marathon Trials - A call to action

Probably my last post for the day.

If you actually expect to make the team and come to the trials without the standard, that is on you. A serious injury during the qualifying period is tough and will likely leave someone off the team. If you can't either 1. hit the standard or 2. plan your season to finish Top 10 at a World Major or Top 5 at a Gold Label race then you need a new plan, coach, agent, etc.

I'm not talking about the 2:18:59 guy who never had a chance under the old standard or with the new standard but people who legitimately have a shot at making the team.

Ayy Cee Cee wrote:

Probably my last post for the day.

Good. You obviously don't understand the issue at all so it would be good to stop here.

Ayy Cee Cee wrote:

In my opinion if you aren't in the top 241 in the world you have no place at the Olympic Games.

US running is finding ways to get even more pathetic.

The OT marathon was a big deal when it was a contest between potential contenders. Now it's a big deal for non-contenders to try to sneak in. That is not prestige, it's a celebration of mediocrity.

3:07 per kilometer pace

all wrong wrote:

You guys have it all wrong. This isn't something that was pulled out of the air by USATF and the IAAF.

It was a decision based on heavy lobbying. A Super Pac made up of the three US major marathons (Boston, Chicago, NYC), Nike and Adidas. They all want the top US runners racing more and doing big races. There is not much of an audience for the Trials.

Follow the money, bro.

Dumb troll post. The three US majors would be against this because it will lead to more US runners going for a fast European marathon.

Tell me when that was? When were we more competitive than most recently?

2016 Olympics had 2 men in the top 6 plus Meb

We had 3 women in the top 9

I mean back in the day Bill Rodgers and Alberto Salazar were never competitive in the Olympics. Greg Meyer and Dick Beardsley never made the team.

Getting really sick of you wanting to change the rules for the US, it’s the same for everyone - if you don’t have enough athletes good enough to meet the standard then tough titties you don’t send a full team. It’s not different to what it was like in 2000 when you only sent one in each marathon? Or when Ritz made the Olympics finishing last as the trials in 04.

Get the standards of stay at home, it shouldn’t be any different for the US than the rest of the world!

Old man alert wrote:

Tell me when that was? When were we more competitive than most recently?

2016 Olympics had 2 men in the top 6 plus Meb

We had 3 women in the top 9

Back in the 1970's and 1980's when far more Americans were running world-elite-level times (i.e. near the WR) than the current zero.

Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean by a "competition between contenders." Three contenders and 30 non-contenders angling for three spots is an exhibition. It doesn't decide who the best contender is, it merely risks replacing a contender with a non-contender if the contender has an off day. And this is celebrated, for some reason, to the point where the IAAF's new "must be a contender" requirement results in a "call to action."

For the foreseeable future, the US is going to have no more than a few contenders on either side of the marathon. Find a way to pick between just them, preferably not by putting them through the stress of a full extra race.

The purpose of the Olympic trials isn't to "decide who the best contender is," it's to create an entertaining race where the result matters. Something the sport doesn't have enough of

Discus Moranicus wrote:

How is this any different then years past when the US didn’t send 3 athletes in some events because they didn’t have the A standard?

and

sbeefyk2 wrote:

I know the marathon is unique in that you can't run a marathon every week to chase the standard, but there is ample time and plenty of fast races in the qualifying window to hit the standard. In other words, guys like Jared Ward, Rupp, and any of our top runners don't need to fine tune their training to run 2:11 on a fast course. They should be able to wake up, go to London or Berlin and jog 2:11:10 and come home and keep training.

How is it different?

1) There hasn't been ample time as the rules were announced in the middle of the qualifying window. The standards were announced in March. If you were a marathoner in the US, you most likely had already picked a spring marathon and many had picked Boston where even if you hit the time it doesn't count as it's considered to be an aided course.

2) Many US marathoners were probably going to skip fall marathons and get ready for the February trials. So in reality, many US marathoners had zero chance to hit the standard unless they were top 10 in Boston.

And what happens if you get hurt or drop out like Osako of Japan? Then you are screwed.

Now, what the critics don't seem to get is the IAAF wants to fill half the field off of world rankings. IF the rankings properly valued the quality of the US championships, then if you were top 3 at the Trials you'd almost certanly have enough ranking points to make it to the Olympics. In reality, the women's race at the US champs will almost certainly meet the criteria for a gold level race but it won't be considered that per their rules for national champs.

It may still be enough points even if the IAAF doesn't upgrade the status but the problem is USATF has said but not confirmed, "Hey we don't care if you are world ranked #20 even though people down to #400 are making in the marathon. If you don't have the standard, you aren't going."

So the problem is part IAAF, part USATF.

The IAAF screwed up royally by announcing it after Japan and the US had picked Trials dates and USATF screwed up by a) saying they wouldn't rely on rankings and b) not appealing this in a timely fashion or b) lobbying for the US champs to be treated more than other meets.

Ayy Cee Cee wrote:

The men are another story. In 2018 alone, 241 men ran 2:11:30 or faster. In my opinion if you aren't in the top 241 in the world you have no place at the Olympic Games.

Ok, that's nice and you can have any mistaken opinion that you want but the opinion of the IAAF what matter and they want to emphasize world rank and the world rank on the men will go down to over 400.

And you are ignoring the fact that the Trials races are championship style races run on often humid, championship courses.

Do you not realize that in 2016 Jared Ward placed 3rd at the US trials in 2:13:00 when his pb was 2:12:56? So will you confirm that you still think he wasn't worthy of the Olympic Games even though the Trials were run on a hot course and even though he went on to get 6th in the Olympics in 2:11:30.

And what your nonsense kills is any 10ker trying to move up to the marathon. If they debut at the Trials and it's hot, they e could be as good as word, even better as Atlanta is hillier than LA, and still be screwed.

Yawn wrote:

Getting really sick of you wanting to change the rules for the US, it’s the same for everyone - if you don’t have enough athletes good enough to meet the standard then tough titties you don’t send a full team. It’s not different to what it was like in 2000 when you only sent one in each marathon? Or when Ritz made the Olympics finishing last as the trials in 04.

Get the standards of stay at home, it shouldn’t be any different for the US than the rest of the world!

I guess you don't know how to read.

We have plenty of athletes. We are going to send 3 in each race. That's a given. They are just going to kill of the drama of a great race and accomplish nothing positive for the sport in the process.

Hardloper wrote:

The purpose of the Olympic trials isn't to "decide who the best contender is," it's to create an entertaining race where the result matters. Something the sport doesn't have enough of

GREAT point. We are in the entertainment business as well.

The fact that two months has passed and nothing has happened is embarrassing. USATF should have got that private jet they like to use and gotten everyone together within 2 weeks and asked, "Are we doing to honor the rankings or not? Can we get this race upgraded to gold or not?"

It's kind of ironic that USATF has done nothing when one of Siegel's first acts as the head of USATF was to move the Marathon Trials to LA as he said it was big deal and he wanted the media exposure.

But the reality is they don't care who the third placer is in the Trials as that person isn't going to medal.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

tarckstar wrote:

Here's an idea for everyone who might run in the Olympic Marathon Trials.

Finish top three, and don't be pathetically slow.

You don't know much about championship racing. Do you know how many times a medalist at the marathon hasn't hit the current A standard? Championship style racing without rabbits is a different game so expecting the top 3 at the trials to hit the A standard is not a good method. Plus you factor in the trials are a very hilly course in what could be less than ideal conditions in Atlanta.

Jarad Ward was 6th at the Olympics but do you know what he ran in LA at the trials???? 2:13:00, 1min 30 sec slower than the current standard. Would it have been smart not to allow him to go or better for the sport?

I know enough about "championship racing" to see that these times freaking out so many of you are the same that our qualifying guys were running in the 1970s.

I agree with the earlier post about the modern marathon trails being a 'celebration of mediocrity.' You can qualify for the trials with a fast half? You can run the trials as a 2:10 marathoner? The world record is no longer 2:08. Put on the big boy pants, you pansies.

Bringit wrote:

...says the guy who couldn’t run remotely close the “pathetically slow” times the “pathetically slow” marathoners run at the Trials...

Not to mention received special treatment his whole life and promoted past competitive qualifications based solely on the status of the family he happened to have been born into. This guy makes a career out of chasing his own tail.

2:11 is too slow, given how fast everyone is anymore.

The Olympic standard should be 2:08 at worst. Also, countries should be allowed to send five athletes, as long as they meet the 2:08 qualifier time.

For 2018, there were about 70 guys running 2:08 or better. For us to have a 2:19 guy in there is beyond stupid.

You are just assuming that it will kill the drama.

So, lets say that Rupp runs 2:10 in Chicago.

We have 3 guys with the time, so they would go. Providing some doesn't beat them at the trials and runs 2:10.

If Biwott, Derrick, Walmsley or anyone else knows that their only chance is to go top 3 AND get the time, they would have to really go for it from the start.

Could make for a faster race, and puts pressure on Rupp, et al.

I get your point, but not sure if it is worth all the melodrama.

why?? wrote:

I agree that the trials are awesome, but I still can't get past the argument as to why should the USA (or Japan) get this special treatment...

I believe every country should be able to field 3 entrants. Kenya and Ethiopia should be allowed 6. I don't want to see the marathon field too small. Conversely, there should be time standards so that it doesn't turn into a hobbyjog.

Note: This is for the marathon only.

Judging by the responses you couldn't even get 50 people...who care about running to agree with you.

Game over man.