Changed Marathon Trials numbers

1. did you ever take constitutional law? study it for the bar? if so, i have no idea why you think usatf would be a state actor.

2. no. unless they've changed it in the last few months, they're a virginia corporation.

3. see #1 and 2.

as for your other questions/accusation - and others people have leveled against usatf - read the by-laws. they're readily available on their site. i can't imagine anything they've done violates any rules. they're the national governing body. this is what they do: govern.

since you're a new attorney, some advice. lawyers should never "think out loud." if you think out loud around a client and they follow the half-assed advice you gave, lots of malpractice liability. second, it makes you look real stupid when you do it around people who have more than a sliver of an idea what the law or facts are. your most important asset as a lawyer is your credibility. your posts sound absolutely ridiculous (for example, corporate waste? come on) and make you sound like one of those nutjobs who runs around suing anyone and everyone based on what you "think" the law says (usatf just absolutely has to be a state actor, right? because there's a congressional charter and their name contains USA?). if that's the case, go right ahead. just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

as much as this frustrates me, i'm not surprised. this is america. where the rich and elite become more rich and more elite, and the poor become more poor. this is a classic anology of the tax situation, where the more money you make (over 90k), the less you get taxed.

this only makes the elite more elite, and the sub elite just average. the 2:20-2:30 marathoner will cease to exist now. Their will either be a sub 2:20 marathoner, or a "boston qualifier" running just under 3 hours. so basically you're either an "elite marathoner", or just someone running a marathon under 3 hours. The "middle class" since their road is probably more difficult then anyone elses. If you're elite, you have financial support, sponsorship, and probably don't have to work much - since running IS your job. If you're just another marathon jogger, you run a few times a week and wear your t-shirt to work on monday, but you're not nearly putting in the mileage it takes to actually compete. The middle-class marathoner will be secluded, since they'll have no support, no perks, and be spending a load of time training. this sort of layout could in fact give birth to some great marathoners, but i can't help but feel that this will discourage more potential sub 2:15 guys. i can easily understand why the hansons group wouldn't be too supportive of this set-up, given the fact that this new standard practically eliminates the grass-roots revival. i feel that we probably will not see any 10 minute high school 2 milers qualify for the olympics, nor the trials - given this set up. what we will see is faster elite qualifiers, probably more sub 2:10 runners, though after 2:15 their will undoublty be a giant gap. overall, the american distance running will probably plumit as a whole, though flourish in the front. so i guess the usatf needs to ask themselves if they want a country full of "good" runners, or a few "great" runners.

despite how much this frustrates me, i have to admit that it hasn't swayed my goals and desires the slightest, it's just made the road a lot more difficult.

Perhaps they're a state actor because they have the sole right to determine who represents the United States in international athletic competitions?

[quote]News from Hawaii wrote:

This thread was discussed today in Hawaii. Glenn found it ironic that the 2:20-2:22 guys that "aren't elite" wanted airport pick ups and special fluids and all of the amenities of the "real runners", are now the biggest whiners about the change in the standards. "The playing field has been changed and we no longer will be forced to listen to a 35 year old 2:20 marathoner" GL[/quote

Please tell us you made this up. If it is even partially true then Mr. Latimer should be tossed out on his ear.

Well, why would the sub-2:16 marathoner complain? Or the over 2:30 guy? In ANY other marathon other than the Trials, a 2:20 marathoner IS elite. There is no other race like the US marathon OT's. It's a major carrot that, while generously dangled for years, now has been removed. Part of the early grieving process involves anger. Great. Come up with a sub-elite championship race for the pretty-good-runner-who-aspires-to-be-elite-but-who-is-not-quite-there-and-now-probably-will-just-quit-or-settle-into-this-sub-sub-elite-niche. Great idea. Not. The better idea is to expand the standard. If they're having a marathon, why not allow 300 to run? The slower guys don't mind paying their way. How many don't show up, after having qualified, because they have to pay their way? Not many. Merely rubbing shoulders with the studs and being part of the selection process is a tremendous source of pride and motivation for so many. Why take it away? If it ain't broke,.....

I was trying to beat 2:19:04 in 1984 to make the trials. I fell short at 222, cramping up and running the last 3 miles in that race in 6:20 per mile. I crashed and burned in two other attempts. I didn't make it. Shouldn't the standard in 2012 be at least as fast or faster than it was 25 years ago for today's runners? Get serious. If you can't run at least as fast as your parent's generation then forget it. (or try running 100 to 120 mpw, like we did)....waaa, waaaah, waaaah, waaaah, waaaah

Geez, the only thing worse than a bunch of whining distance runners is a bunch of contentious attorneys.

I actually worked on some of the major federal cases brought against NGBs and similar entities, including Tonya Harding v. U.S. Figureskating Ass'n (9th Cir.), Mary Slaney v. USOC (7th Cir.), and a seminal antitrust case against the NCAA (10th Cir.). I even worked on a case involving antitrust claims that the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association unfairly discriminated against team ropers in favor of bucking bronco riders in selecting the rodeo cowboy of the year (or whatever the hell he's called). I can tell you that some legal theories work better than others, and nothing is terribly clear.

Harding's case against the U.S. Figureskating Association, by the way, relied on Colorado state contract law, based on the purported contractual relationship between the NGB and its members and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that inheres in all contracts under Colorado law. Under that theory, Harding was successful in getting an injunction from a U.S. district court judge that allowed her to participate in the Olympic Games.

That said, I think that anyone who files a lawsuit about Olympic trials qualifying standards in the marathon is likely to be, in legal terms, a real weenie.

Is it really preferable to wait 23 years to cry about it? I'm sure you have accomplished a lot in the last 23 years... maybe you should let go of your "crash and burn" experience, and support others in achieving their goals so they won't be as bitter in another 23 years as you are now?... waaa, waaaah, waaaah, waaaah, waaaah

krp wrote: distance running will probably plumit as a whole

++++++++++++

Avocados Number said:

As a final, somewhat philosophical observation: I'm pretty sure that most 2:30 marathoners would be better off spending more time "training" to be good husbands, fathers, doctors, teachers, and so on, and less time training to qualify for the Olympic trials. So let's not pretend that it would be so horrible to have fewer post-collegiate men chasing their athletic dreams with 120-mile weeks instead of moving on with life.

+++++++++++++

As a reasonable, somewhat logical inference: I'm pretty sure you are a complete douchebag. I hate to make judgments based on a few posts from a messageboard, but I'll go out on a limb for this one.

Numbers, times, and effort are all individual and arbitrary, and there is always someone running more miles, faster, and harder than somebody else. There is no end to that argument, so I won't argue about the value of a six-hour versus a two-hour marathon. Every person's effort has intrinsic value whether you deign to endorse it or not.

What I take issue with are the assumptions in your post: 1. Those without the requisite talent who train at a high level are somehow wasting their time, and are inadequate in their personal, family, and professional lives because of said training. 2.That training at a high level to achieve a goal is not somehow part of, and, in fact, is contrary to, living a well-rounded and satisfying life.

You're wrong on both points. I read a half dozen blogs on a regular basis written by people past their 'prime years' with wives, two or more children, and full-time jobs, who are running 80-120 miles every week and chasing their own personal goals. To suggest that the training they do detracts from rather than adds to the quality of their own, their family's, or their professional lives is ridiculous. Read some of these blogs yourself, and show me an example from any of them that supports your contentions. Here are a few to start with:

http://championseverywhere.blogspot.com

http://rubbishrunner.blogspot.com

http://downeastrunning.blogspot.com

Goals are the driving force behind every single action made in every single person's life. Fortunately, it's not up to Avocados Number to decide which goals are worthy of pursuit.

And as far as the standard changing to 2:19 goes, I say 'do or do not, there is no try.' At least I still have the opportunity to participate if I make the standard. Anybody with four years, two legs, and a lot of ambition should just be happy the OT qualifier still exists.

Eric Sondag

http://www.runnorth.com

If was said in a crowded bar with several people present. YES, I agree with the tightening of Standards. No this was not brought to the committe from athletes or NYRR. This is Glenn's baby. There was neither support or outrage over the change.

I didn't read the whole thread so I don't know if someone mentioned this or not but... Didn't they add a 5000 and 10000 standard to make the field bigger? Now they want to make it smaller? Kind of wishy washy aren't they?

Think about it this way. If you were thinking last week that you would go for 2:22 in 2012, you have FOUR YEARS to adjust that goal approx. 7.2 seconds per mile.

Do you want the strongest Olympic team the US can send or do you want boatloads of people in the Trials?

New Zealand has, or had, a 2:12 marathon standard. If no one qualified, they didn't send anyone.

Those standards are really tough. They're to encourage talented track runners to try the marathon, not to make a big difference in the number of competitors.

Bring some knowledge wrote:

Kind of wishy washy aren't they?

What, if they don't maintain the status quo of the past 16 or so years they're supposedly "wishy washy"? Whatever.

gonzo wrote:

Do you want the strongest Olympic team the US can send or do you want boatloads of people in the Trials?

New Zealand has, or had, a 2:12 marathon standard. If no one qualified, they didn't send anyone.

That is very interesting. How has this system translated into success in the Games? What about the marathon in general? How was New Zealands top 10 list for 2007?

SO WE KNOW THAT SYSTEM SUCKS.

Let us remove the Boston Marathon (an aided course under IAAF guidelines and perhaps from 2012 USATF Qualifying guidelines), and how many sub-2:19:00 Marathoners are left?

Let us remove the Boston Marathon (an aided course under IAAF guidelines and perhaps from 2012 USATF Qualifying guidelines) from the 1983 & 1984 Marathon seasons, and how many sub-2:19:00 Marathoners are left?