Discussion: USATF may not honor order of finish at marathon trials for 3rd men's spot - will go with World Rank instead!

the u.s. women aren't having this issue because their good.

anyone hear from rojo to see if he understands the process yet?

It feels like we’re almost back to 2000 on the men’s side , where only one US marathoner qualified . The US men are over a mile behind the best in the world .

Even worse--after Valencia, the U.S. men are a mile behind the best masters marathoner in the world.

To pick the top 3. We have like 15 guys right now who are ranked high enough in the quota. This headline is basically click bate. The only way this shakes anything up is if someone who is not one of our top 15-18 guys somehow finishes third at the trials, which is highly unlikely. There's no stud who is debuting at the trials. Everyone in the running for top 3 has already run a 2:07-2:11 in the past year, and a top 3 finish with their ranking will be enough to qualify. This is not 'news' that you have to be ranked high enough to qualify if you don't have the auto standard.

What happens in this scenario? Let's say Mantz and Young sh*t the bed at the trials and finish in around 20th place or something. And then the top 3 are all guys that have not run 2:11:30 nor are in the top 80 for World Rankings. Would USATF send only Mantz and Young anyway?

Or because their standards are too easy.

He's too busy eating chicken.

.....better than him eating crow.

This is the correct answer. The womens standard is 15 minutes behind the world record.

The women are still given an easier standard relative to physiological ability to encourage participation from developing nations.

Really?? Not being snarky, but how do you know this?

I have been staring at this for a while and cannot figure out what the USATF was thinking.

It should have been top 3 at the trials who have run 2:11:30 at or before the trials, assuming the US gets 3 spots on May 5.

I cannot think of any problem with this that the USATF system fixes.

Not much of a solution. Either way, the person who earned the 3rd spot would have to squeeze in a big race before May. The USATF approach just increases the number who might try that from 1 person to like 3-4.

That is the case. Problem is we won’t officially have the third spot unlocked before May 5. So how can you officially award the top 3 as qualified when WA hasn’t officially? This is more on the difficult standard set by WA with USATF struggling to keep it fair to our runners trying to qualify

(1) That is not the case as I read it. For example suppose the trials goes Mantz, Young, Rupp, Fauble. Then if the Road to Paris list is the same on May 5 as today, then the USA will get 3 qualifiers since Fauble is in the top 80. But the USATF rule would give the third spot to Fauble, even though Rupp beat him. In fact, as I read the rules, Fauble wouldn't even have to run the Olympic Trials.

(2) It's the same in my system as the USATF system. The only difference is that on May 5 if we get a third spot, my system picks the person who finished highest at the trials and the USATF picks the highest person on the Road To Paris list.

This just tells me more that the US Olympic marathon trials will no exist in 2028. This is terrible for the sport.

We saw what just happened in college football when you have a committee decide over quantifiable results

THIS POLICY IS SO STUPID. I believe USATF must honor the order of finish at the Trials - otherwise there is a scenario where Clayton Young is top 3 at the Trials, the US sends 3 and he doesn't get to go!!!