- If they can't "predict"/reconstruct "what would have happened" why are they giving the athletes medals, title of co-champion, and prize money? By doing that they are (correctly) acknowledging what the result would have been.
- Why are they behaving as if the selection rules (imposed by them) are like some sort of federal statute that can't be changed and they will be thrown in jail if they break them? Why are those rules any different from the rules about who is champ, who gets prize money etc?
- Why do they think World Athletics should save them from their own stupidity by giving them extra places? Surely WA will just turn round and say "select the people you obviously should be selecting"?
What's terrible is that the right outcome is staring Max in the face, AND it isn't complicated.
The top three women have all said they'd forgo their spots. The actual top three were set, and there wasn't going to be a change. I believe they all finished strong enough that there was no chance they would have been overtaken.
The USATF is very lucky in this regard. In many years, the top 6-10 would've been much closer whereby this situation would've made the outcome much more ambiguous. The only uncertainty here is 2nd/3rd, and that's just not very important.
Max has emerged to post a statement which seems to say they can't select the rightful winners to the team, but they'll give them a second gold medal and podium and list them as co-winners anyway. They may or may not be asking World Athletics to let the US have six athletes in the half marathon. (good luck with that Max; given international realities, I very much doubt the US wins that vote. Maybe if they let every nation send 6 people it could work).
I'd be surprised if they requested 6 spots for the world event. Perhaps 4 at best, since 4 is allowed for some events in some situations (nations with prior champions for example)? I think the WA request might be more in the weeds than how many total spots can be allotted. From the latest statement:
"World Rankings bonuses and time bonuses are real concerns the athletes have voiced. While we cannot change the time on the clock, we hope that the outcome of our conversations with World Athletics addresses this."
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
What's terrible is that the right outcome is staring Max in the face, AND it isn't complicated.
The top three women have all said they'd forgo their spots. The actual top three were set, and there wasn't going to be a change. I believe they all finished strong enough that there was no chance they would have been overtaken.
The USATF is very lucky in this regard. In many years, the top 6-10 would've been much closer whereby this situation would've made the outcome much more ambiguous. The only uncertainty here is 2nd/3rd, and that's just not very important.
Just name the top three from mile 11 and move on.
You know I don't really think there's uncertainty in 2nd and 3rd. Hurley beat Kurgat by 12 seconds running the same distance. I think Hurley was second.
Max has emerged to post a statement which seems to say they can't select the rightful winners to the team, but they'll give them a second gold medal and podium and list them as co-winners anyway. They may or may not be asking World Athletics to let the US have six athletes in the half marathon. (good luck with that Max; given international realities, I very much doubt the US wins that vote. Maybe if they let every nation send 6 people it could work).
I'd be surprised if they requested 6 spots for the world event. Perhaps 4 at best, since 4 is allowed for some events in some situations (nations with prior champions for example)? I think the WA request might be more in the weeds than how many total spots can be allotted. From the latest statement:
"World Rankings bonuses and time bonuses are real concerns the athletes have voiced. While we cannot change the time on the clock, we hope that the outcome of our conversations with World Athletics addresses this."
To me this is the key part of the statement, which is basically an admission they asked for six spots.
Million Dollar Max wrote:
Additionally, although they have all graciously and publicly stated they would decline their spots on the team, we felt strongly that the three official top finishers should be awarded for their efforts.
So that statement strongly suggests they think the solution is the corrected top three going in addition to the original top three.
I suspect their other solution is to enter the original top three in the mass race, which would be utterly ridiculous. Just so lame. The right answer is statrng them in the face and they just can't do it.
This post was edited 12 minutes after it was posted.
So the ATC has done the right thing regarding prize money. The world's team selection decision is also obvious: the top 3 girls across the line are vocal about not taking those spots, and the running community writ large is also in agreement on granting the spots to the 3 wronged athletes. Therefore is it safe to assume that USATF will inevitably make a different decision that makes no one happy?
Willy nilly race director. All results should be voided. Re run the race in another city and do not let the director run another USATF santioned race for life.
All Race Director's should be aware of the what if's and discuss prior to races and eliminate any possibility of this happening. No excuse for this, poor planning on the race director's part. Should be banned for life.
Max has emerged to post a statement which seems to say they can't select the rightful winners to the team, but they'll give them a second gold medal and podium and list them as co-winners anyway. They may or may not be asking World Athletics to let the US have six athletes in the half marathon. (good luck with that Max; given international realities, I very much doubt the US wins that vote. Maybe if they let every nation send 6 people it could work).
I'd be surprised if they requested 6 spots for the world event.
Perhaps 4 at best, since 4 is allowed for some events in some situations (nations with prior champions for example)?
USATF doesn't need to ask for 4 spots, because 4 spots is how many people are supposed to be on this team. 3 from the race and the 4th based on World Rankings.
What's terrible is that the right outcome is staring Max in the face, AND it isn't complicated.
The top three women have all said they'd forgo their spots. The actual top three were set, and there wasn't going to be a change. I believe they all finished strong enough that there was no chance they would have been overtaken.
The USATF is very lucky in this regard. In many years, the top 6-10 would've been much closer whereby this situation would've made the outcome much more ambiguous. The only uncertainty here is 2nd/3rd, and that's just not very important.
Just name the top three from mile 11 and move on.
McClain was 9th, Hurley 12th and Kurgat 13th. Even if the top three decline their spots, you have five more people who would have to (legally) decline before it gets to McClain.
What's terrible is that the right outcome is staring Max in the face, AND it isn't complicated.
The top three women have all said they'd forgo their spots. The actual top three were set, and there wasn't going to be a change. I believe they all finished strong enough that there was no chance they would have been overtaken.
The USATF is very lucky in this regard. In many years, the top 6-10 would've been much closer whereby this situation would've made the outcome much more ambiguous. The only uncertainty here is 2nd/3rd, and that's just not very important.
Just name the top three from mile 11 and move on.
McClain was 9th, Hurley 12th and Kurgat 13th. Even if the top three decline their spots, you have five more people who would have to (legally) decline before it gets to McClain.
Nope, after the top 4 it goes to world rankings. So if the top three decline, they'll have to figure out a plan B anyway.
McClain was 9th, Hurley 12th and Kurgat 13th. Even if the top three decline their spots, you have five more people who would have to (legally) decline before it gets to McClain.
Nope, after the top 4 it goes to world rankings. So if the top three decline, they'll have to figure out a plan B anyway.
I think it's after top 5 it goes to rankings but you're correct otherwise.
I just read that. Shambles is absolutely right; it's utter tripe. About half of what she said is pure garbage.
1. She pompously 'explains' to us that Nobody in USATF or ATC wanted this to happen. Pure bullsh*t just there to divert from the real story. NO ONE SAID they wanted it to happen, you idiot; it's that they allowed it to happen because of their carelessness and incompetence.
2. Then she 'informs' us that the ATC (which she happens to belong to) is a great organization filled with beautiful people who just wanna make things beautiful.
Wonderful. So why do they keep f***ing up races, over and over and over again? THAT'S the question, not whether they're nice people who love running.
Nothing to do with the actual issues.
3. Then she explains to us (cuz we're obviously all too stupid to understand this without her help) that the USATF has a really hard job, and organizing races is complicated.
Holy Christ on a cracker. They can pay Max F***ing Siegel three million dollars a year (or whatever the hell ridiculous number it is), fly all their low-life officers all around the world first-class (while the athletes ride in steerage), put them up in 5-star hotels, expense their luxury meals and drinks,... but what they *can't* afford to do is devote the resources to make sure a national f***ing championship is run correctly.
Because their job is 'hard.' That's beautiful.
4. (This might be the most sickening.) She excuses it all even harder by telling us that all the gals who just got royally screwed in eight different ways are 'adapting.'
(The implication obviously being that 'they're not angry (which is pure bullsh*t again), so we sure as hell have no right to be angry' --which is clearly the point of her whole piece.)
She seizes on their politeness, and reluctance to sound too strident or offend anyone, as evidence that the two orgs in question really must not be guilty of anything bad.
My god, what a load of crap.
5. Finally, she poetically regales us with a lovely tale of how wonderful and beautiful the mass race was --which I guess is somehow supposed to mitigate the crime that was done to the top 3 women (and maybe 4). Oh, and she reminds us that running is supposed to be a peaceful and meditative pursuit --the point being once again that we fans dare not be upset about this, because that's somehow 'against the true spirit' of running.
This whole piece is such utter tripe (as Shamble said) it's pretty amazing.
What's not amazing at all is that Rojo would recommend it, and that a whole bunch of the guys here would think it was 'brilliant.'
Again, critical thinking matters.
If I could upvote this 100x I would.......Nailed it !!
I'd be surprised if they requested 6 spots for the world event. Perhaps 4 at best, since 4 is allowed for some events in some situations (nations with prior champions for example)? I think the WA request might be more in the weeds than how many total spots can be allotted. From the latest statement:
"World Rankings bonuses and time bonuses are real concerns the athletes have voiced. While we cannot change the time on the clock, we hope that the outcome of our conversations with World Athletics addresses this."
6 spots doesn't make sense to me either. I was guessing more along the lines that they are asking WA to somehow grant world ranking points to the true top 3
The idea that WA should step in to cover the USATF's inability to organize a race and selection process for their athletes is absolutely ridiculous.
What's next? National bodies making similar mistakes on purpose to get an advantage in the selection?
Yes it's utterly bizarre. Why proceed on the basis that in this totally unique scenario the USATF's own rules have to be applied to the letter (even though they could change them) but WA should alter its own rules about world rankings etc to get the athletes in?
The whole thing is so inconsistent - just like the insistence that they can't estimate a counterfactual result for the purposes of selection, but are willing to do so for the purposes of prize money and medals.