If you were Elise Cranny, would you do the 1500/5000 double at the Trials or the 5000/10,000?

Running UberNerd wrote:

Alice Cram Me wrote:

5k and 10k. I don't think she can beat ESP, Wiley, Hiltz and some others in the 1500.

Agreed. I don't see a universe where she beats 4 of ESP, Wiley, Hiltz, Mackey, Johnson, and MaClean in 4 weeks.

it is what it is wrote:

ESP has entered both the 1500m and 5000m according to the USATF site.

Question: If an athlete enters an event (taking a spot from a lesser qualified athlete), and then withdraws on the day-of (or soon before) the competition, are they then prohibited from subsequently competing in other events at the Trials?

birdbeard wrote:

Running UberNerd wrote:

Agreed. I don't see a universe where she beats 4 of ESP, Wiley, Hiltz, Mackey, Johnson, and MaClean in 4 weeks.

Unlikely, yes. But I think the 5000 is really her event. She should do what reignites the fire for running in her. I think that's the 1500 based on her Coffee Club interview and other interviews (and countless post-race interviews and posts where she talked about begrudgingly doing the 10000)

it is what it is wrote:

Blank231 wrote:

I tend to agree with this because of the Trials schedule and she likes the 1500m.

Is the schedule the same at the Olympics though? The Olympics are also having repechage rounds in the 1500m this year. Which could make doubling harder (assuming she or ESP make both teams).

Fwiw it does sound like ESP is focused on the 1500m only.

ESP has entered both the 1500m and 5000m according to the USATF site.

Question: If an athlete enters an event (taking a spot from a lesser qualified athlete), and then withdraws on the day-of (or soon before) the competition, are they then prohibited from subsequently competing in other events at the Trials?

decent question wrote:

it is what it is wrote:

ESP has entered both the 1500m and 5000m according to the USATF site.

Question: If an athlete enters an event (taking a spot from a lesser qualified athlete), and then withdraws on the day-of (or soon before) the competition, are they then prohibited from subsequently competing in other events at the Trials?

I can’t interpret what the downvote to the above post means.

ESP is entered in both events.

The NCAA has scratch deadlines, but hasn’t USATF historically flip-flopped on rules?

it is what it is wrote:

Question: If an athlete enters an event (taking a spot from a lesser qualified athlete), and then withdraws on the day-of (or soon before) the competition, are they then prohibited from subsequently competing in other events at the Trials?

Anonymous Poster 123 wrote:

Here's Elise Cranny's qualifying situation in the 10,000:

15 women have the standard, with 8 spots going to XC ranked athletes, leaving 4 spots by world ranking. So she has to have more points than the 4th athlete in by world ranking, which is 1236 points. Cranny's best performance in the qualifying window so far for ranking is 1206, so she needs a 10,000 performance scoring 1266 points or higher. The U.S. Olympic Trials is a B-level meet, which will award 60 points for a win. This means her time at the trials needs to give her 1206 points, and the time that gives this is 30:45.87. Basically she would need to win the trials in a time of 30:45.87 or faster, or place top 3 and run the standard either there or at another meet.

vvvvb wrote:

Why do you think getting the standard is essential, when ranking may or may not suffice. The odds of running the standard sometime after the race but within the window are slim.

Anonymous Poster 456 wrote:

vvvvb wrote:

Why do you think getting the standard is essential, when ranking may or may not suffice. The odds of running the standard sometime after the race but within the window are slim.

Right, ranking alone may suffice for Cranny, Henes or Rogers if either finishes 2nd (less sure about 3rd), but the time would have to very quick (sub-31). This is highly unlikely to happen. To correct my previous comment--if Cranny places 3rd and runs the std before the window closes, she's in, obviously.