B Trials Qualifiers Being Treated Separately than A Trials Qualifiers During the Race?

First off 150 people will not be on the start. I would be surprised if 100 people actually show up. I will also be surprised if more then 80 people finish the race.

I will remain critical of an organization that has aparently paid to have their way for these trials. Because they forked up the money they want to make their own rules and have never had the athletes best interest at heart. I guess that is the American way though... But if they wanted these trials so bad why did the F*** it up so bad?

Why is the course for New York and Boston not run on the historic courses that make these marathons legandary?

They changed the date of the mens championship to the fall...which I am ok with (even though the USATF is not sending a 1/2 marathon team to worlds) but for what? A few carry over spectators who will walk by on their way to pick up their bib?

Where is the large media coverage? Where is all that they promised?

Why is the USATF so horrible at running our sport?

I have a feeling you be sad that there wont be anything to bitch about next time around when there is no B standard.

I bet more A qualifers dnf then b qualifiers

USATF is the root of all evil! Give me a break. i think this will all get worked out. my guess is that everyone on here is fighting something that doesnt affect them. a guy running 2:21 at chicago wouldnt have had special fluids.. most b guys wouldnt at any marathon..

I still not sure what the USATF actually does. Other people bid to put on their events and then put their stamp of approval on them.

Isn't there a rule that states an IAAF qualifying race needs to have the start and finish lines within "X" meters of each other?

Snoochie Boochie wrote:

Why is the course for New York and Boston not run on the historic courses that make these marathons legandary?

d3 assistant coach wrote:

Isn't there a rule that states an IAAF qualifying race needs to have the start and finish lines within "X" meters of each other?

If you are asking whether someone needs to run their qualifying time on a course that meets those criteria, I think the answer is yes.

Of course, USATF could choose to have the trials run on a non-conforming course, leaving the runners to get their qualifying time in another race.

Ol Grumpus wrote:

d3 assistant coach wrote:

Isn't there a rule that states an IAAF qualifying race needs to have the start and finish lines within "X" meters of each other?

If you are asking whether someone needs to run their qualifying time on a course that meets those criteria, I think the answer is yes.

Of course, USATF could choose to have the trials run on a non-conforming course, leaving the runners to get their qualifying time in another race.

True - that's why the start in B-ham was switched and they ran that neighborhood loop at the beginning - the original start was too far from the finish to meet the IAAF rule.

As to why the Trials races aren't being run on the Boston or NYCM courses - logisitics, mainly. Can you imagine trying to shut down the course TWO days in a row? The alternative would be to run the race 30-60 min. ahead of the main race, or as part of it (that is NYRR's ultimate preference, one I definitely oppose).

The other reason is to make the course easier/faster than the open race courses.

Won't the top 3 already have the "A" standard? Wasn't Athens a point to point course? Hasn't Twin cities been the marathon champs (which qualfies people to world's) and is point to point?

I never said they are the root of all evil, just that they mess everything up and are poor promoters of our sport. I looked up "Track and Field" and "Running" on my direct TV guide for September and October. Over 25 triathalon races popped up and 1 half marathon (the rock and roll half). No mention of the World final...nothing!

Snoochie Boochie wrote:

Won't the top 3 already have the "A" standard? Wasn't Athens a point to point course? Hasn't Twin cities been the marathon champs (which qualfies people to world's) and is point to point?

In order:

1. Probably, but not necessarily.

2. Yes, but it was the championship race itself, not a qualifier. IAAF is only concerned that runners achieve the qualifying time on a legit course; in the race itself, they could care less about time.

3. I'm not positive, but I think that TC, while P to P, curls around on itself enough that the separation doesn't exceed the IAAF limite of 50% (USATF is more stringent, 30%). In any case, same as #1, if the top runners had run a qualifying time elsewhere, didn't matter what they did at TC.

JimG,

Does that mean you can set a WR at NYCMarathon but not an AR?

to break it down:

To qualify for the OT A or B: Any Certified course (St George counts)

To qulify for Olmpics A or B: any course that drops less than 42 meters (grandmas counts, check out iaaf.com. the start is about 26 miles from the finish but it does not matter)

World record: very strict rules. Just run Chicago or berlin or london

JimG wrote:

IAAF is only concerned that runners achieve the qualifying time on a legit course; in the race itself, they could care less about time.

"could not care less"

Whoops! wrote:

JimG wrote:

IAAF is only concerned that runners achieve the qualifying time on a legit course; in the race itself, they could care less about time.

"could not care less"

Got me!

Whoops! wrote:

JimG wrote:

IAAF is only concerned that runners achieve the qualifying time on a legit course; in the race itself, they could care less about time.

"could not care less"

Got me!