Olympic Trials / USA National Championship Marathon

First, thanks for explaining what you meant about the whole 2:30 & me biz. I was unclear on your point.

Second, no, I'm not opposed to the 2:30 standard because it wasn't available to me. I'm opposed because it's not a good way to 'develop' American talent AND will not result in any future Olympians.

Third, I do not pretend to be part of the 'elite' running community. Friend, I've been running 9+ min miles the past 10 years. On the other hand, my eyes & ears work fine which enables me to tap the pulse of the sport. My best times beat a lot of guys back in the day but I never considered myself more than a second-tier runner. Guys like malmo trained at my racing pace.

Fourth, that's fine if top runners from my day view me as a never was.

Fifth, I feel you confuse confidence w/arrogance. I'm confident enough in myself to post my name & e address because I stand behind what I say. You make much to big a deal out of my stand on this issue. If you don't buy that, know this, the OTrials standards are NOT going to be lowered for '12. There won't be a 2:30 standard regardless of how good too many here think their plan is. This is neither confidence or arrogance...it's the way it's gonna be.

Having said this, truth is, I empathize w/many here. I just don't buy that lowering the Trials standard is a good way to develop American distance running.

Run5k wrote:

While you're at it, somewhere you've said you ran in an Oly Trials and have run at least as fast as 2:19:59. Do tell. Please provide some specifics...which Trials & what was your time? I'm calling BS on your claims.

As Logic already stated, this has become a rather ugly thread. Now you're resorting to playground tactics (a.k.a. immature integrity checks) in order to try to discredit somebody who opposes your point of view? That's unfortunate, to say the least.

As for me, I will tell you that I have "out-ed" my background on Internet message boards before, but past experience has shown me that when people know who you really are, in the aftermath there are typically more negative consequences than anything else. I'm sorry that you feel it's necessary to call my credentials "BS." I never pretended to say I was anything special by any stretch of the imagination (and certainly no threat to be an Olympian), but the people who do know me realize what the truth is, and when I sign off the computer tonight I will sleep quite peacefully with my anonymity.[/quote]

Negative consequences? That'd mean I'm suffering from negative consequences since you know who I am as do many others here. I'm doing fine and'll stand by my comments. Your explanation why you can't answer my questions is silly.

Plus, you aren't nearly as anonymous as you think...

Friend, I'll give you this; salute you for vigorously going after the softer standard. It's clear you feel strongly about it...but feel your zeal is a touch misguided. Trying to prop me up as a reason for how slow Americans have become in the past 20 years is laughable.

Sleep tight.

So we should only develop Olympians and no one else? What about when the Olypians are too good to go to the World Champs?

Not so sure that Pittsburgh paid USATF the $50,000 rights fee.

Maybe someone from the national office could clarify if the fee was ever paid.

Do away with the prize money and just give the guys/gals that make the team a training stipend. That way we will have legit contenders trying to make the team.

Elmer Fudd wrote:

ray wrote:

Some would say that development doesn't belong in the trials. But hey, if it belongs in the games, why not the trials?

Ray, here is where it seems you infer development belongs in the Games. Where does development belong in the Games?

I'm sort of lost on your point of the media and the Trials.

I know there isn't anybody that has the time to go back and read all these, but I already answered this. I'll save you the time. There is a development component to the OG. I beleive the way the rule reads is that every member nation has the right to enter one athlete regardless of whether they have met the standard. I mentioned this in relation to my proposal to have a rep. from each of the 57 associations in the OT.

In addition, my comment in ref. to the media was in response to scott who said the media wasn't important to the trials, the athletes were. I suggested that if there wasn't any media there wouldn't be any trials.

Again, USATF requires a minimum bid to host the trials. It will cost in excess of a million dollars. that amount of clams ain't coming without media involvement.

The Boston Globe has announced that only 4 races have met the bid deadline. New York, Boston, Akron and Twin Cities. My own opinion?? You can cross Akron off the list. Twin cities will have to change their date and structure. as people have been saying since 2003. It looks like it'll be in New York.

Friend, I'll only answer your first question because I don't understand the second.

Right now, development seems to only benefit those who aspire to represent the US internationally. Development beyond that is an elusive & tough nut to crack. There are runners graduating from college every year that have varying degrees of success trying to improve, hit Oly Trials standards, etc. There is no all-inclusive system to encourage/enable those athletes to reach their goals. For most it's a catch-as-catch-can world, trying to pay bills, balance the running and chase their dreams.

The ideal situation is one where the stress level needs to be minimal for college grads to improve, to reach higher goals. Minimal can take the form of the Hanson's Distance Project or several runners renting a house, sharing expenses, living on the cheap and cranking out the miles. There aren't many groups like the Hanson's so ambitious runners need to get creative and make their own breaks.

ray, we're not as far apart about the media as you may think (re: whatever I said earlier & I don't feel like looking back for it...I'm lazy tonite). I was excited to listen to the Men's Trials via the local radio feed in '04. I, as much as anybody, would love to see the Trials receive more play. More media attention helps an event come to life,

fills in the gaps in our imaginations & generally broadens our horizons.

Lerry Gindgren wrote:

The Trials are not about picking the best team. They are about USATF making money. If it was about selecting the best team they would hold it at a fast major marathon like Chicago. Then you could be assured that the three top american finishersget a Olympic "A" standard. It is a bunch of crap when people like Malmo come on here and say that it is about selecting the team. Honestly does it really make any difference if USATF has the B standard for the trials at 2:22 or 2:30? I think not. It is a stupid system for selecting a marathon team. People in other countries probably laugh at it and say it is another reason U.S. distance running is in the toilet.

I nominate this as the most ill-informed post of the entire thread. Second place goes to Lerry's Pittsburgh post.

ray wrote:

The Boston Globe has announced that only 4 races have met the bid deadline. New York, Boston, Akron and Twin Cities. My own opinion?? You can cross Akron off the list. Twin cities will have to change their date and structure. as people have been saying since 2003. It looks like it'll be in New York.

I am confused. I agree that Twin Cities needs to change their date as a fall marathon is a stupid idea for a number of reasons. But doesn't New York also need to change their date?

I don't feel disrespected, but thanks.

Have you ever been to Chicago NY London or Boston marathon?

How could any runner not be enthused about racing in those events and running well enough to get invited(free number, good start)

If competing well in those types of races is not enough of a lure to keep kids in the sport, then they probably don't have the heart to be an Olympian anyhow.

I would much rather run well at Boston Ny etc, then to squeek into the US marathon trials.

There is plenty of competition available for 2:30 guys to rise up to.

The argument that it keeps runners enthused and "in the game" is a poor one.

I think this is a good post, and so far no one has stepped up to give a good challenge to it.

ray wrote:

Lerry Gindgren wrote:

The Trials are not about picking the best team. They are about USATF making money. If it was about selecting the best team they would hold it at a fast major marathon like Chicago. Then you could be assured that the three top american finishersget a Olympic "A" standard. It is a bunch of crap when people like Malmo come on here and say that it is about selecting the team. Honestly does it really make any difference if USATF has the B standard for the trials at 2:22 or 2:30? I think not. It is a stupid system for selecting a marathon team. People in other countries probably laugh at it and say it is another reason U.S. distance running is in the toilet.

I nominate this as the most ill-informed post of the entire thread. Second place goes to Lerry's Pittsburgh post.

Why don't you post reasons as to why it is such an ill-informed post. Otherwise you are just name calling. From what you have posted so far I serious doubt you have anything but name calling. Both posts are right on base. You are the ill-informed one thinking that USATF knows what they are doing. So come on big man I'm calling you out. Either list why my posts are ill-informed or shut the he double hockey sticks up.

Where to begin? So much crap to make fun of. How about your proposal to include a representative from each association in the Olympic trials. That was a senseless waste of time on your part. What possible rationale could you have for that proposal. Do you really think that some guy from the loser association of lower Montana deserves a place in the trials running 2:55 in his association championship or something. No, that is not a way to foster development. You have to have the development system in place that is producing guys in every assosciation that deserve to be in the trials. Not the other way around. Next Akron has no shot. Why is that? You think they can't host an event or raise money? They are most likely to change the date of their event and do whatever it takes to please USATF. Just like Birm and STL did the last time around. Maybe that is why on the front page it says Akron has a 50% chance of getting it.

Just how many men ran under 2;20 last year...how many were Americans?

Info on AKRON'S bid>

Scott, just wondered how you are so certain of this:

"Fifth, I feel you confuse confidence w/arrogance. I'm confident enough in myself to post my name & e address because I stand behind what I say. You make much to big a deal out of my stand on this issue. If you don't buy that, know this, the OTrials standards are NOT going to be lowered for '12. There won't be a 2:30 standard regardless of how good too many here think their plan is. This is neither confidence or arrogance...it's the way it's gonna be." How are you so certain about 2012, or are the decision makers of USATF that stubbornly unwilling to change?

Having just looked at T&FN yesterday, we had 22 guys who went under 2:22 last year. So again, what is wrong with changing the standards to 2:25 or 2:30 and bringing in some young blood who might actually get inspired to train for several years. We can complain all we want about "softening" or "weakened" standards but all the negative beliefs about that doesn't alter the need to try to promote opportunities for the guys and gals making big decisions as they leave school.

Mike Lundgren wrote:

Scott, just wondered how you are so certain of this:

"Fifth, I feel you confuse confidence w/arrogance. I'm confident enough in myself to post my name & e address because I stand behind what I say. You make much to big a deal out of my stand on this issue. If you don't buy that, know this, the OTrials standards are NOT going to be lowered for '12. There won't be a 2:30 standard regardless of how good too many here think their plan is. This is neither confidence or arrogance...it's the way it's gonna be." How are you so certain about 2012, or are the decision makers of USATF that stubbornly unwilling to change?

Mike, I know this because I'm prescient...kidding, just kidding. I'm not 'so certain' because I'd like to put an end to the debate...debate is good & many suggestions here have been interesting and passionate. You must admit, however, suggestions from a message board won't be enough to change the standards. Change comes from working w/in the USATF system. At least one of the posters on this thread has written one, if not both, of the USATF LDR chairs...an attempt to work w/in the system. That's how to best affect change. Work up a good enough argument, get enough support and take the position before the appropriate USATF committee in coming conventions. My gut feeling is there'd be more of a move to raise the bar than lower it.

I see 2:30 qualifiers as participants and not part of some development scheme.

OK Lerry here's my response. Can you tell me how much money USATF has made off the Olympic Trials?

Secondly, there was 1 choice for the trials site for 2000. Pittsburgh. Yes son, that's it..... Pittsburgh. So educate yourself before you go making ill-informed comments.

As far as my proposal for a development component to the trials. I had said a "relaxed standard" to increase association participation. That would mean if the standard was 2:22 for entry, a 2:25 might get you in under this exemption. I don't recall saying we should let 2:50 marathoners in. In fact I am dead set against 2:30 marathoners being in.

As Scott has said, nothing will come of this thread. Change comes from within the organization. But it is entertaining to read your conspiracy theories so please continue.

Mike Lundgren wrote:

Having just looked at T&FN yesterday, we had 22 guys who went under 2:22 last year.

So very pathetic.

Perhaps it's time to change the event to PlayStation2. Everyone gets to pick imaginary runners and race a marathon on a vido game? Lets see who those Kenyans could do at that? Come to think of it, I don't want 2:30 marathoners in my PlayStation2 game either.

I'd suggest keeping the " A " standard but let the top 200 marathon times in the country be apart trials. Have a 200 runner capicity.