Changed Marathon Trials numbers

I am quite pissed at this for a lot of reasons, but did want to actually defend Wittenburg. I use to carry the same opinion of her several months ago until I saw her in action at the 8k champs in March. This woman should be in charge of USATF. She and NYRR role out the red carpet for everyone and try to take care of everyone as well as they can. She remembered every B qualifiers name in NY, and addressed them by name constantly and asked them if they needed anything just as much as she did the 2:12 guys. She recognizes that B guys are viewed as special as the elites and plays them up as much as she can when she gets the chance. She knows every aspect of her races. During the technical meeting at the OT, she reminded 3 of the speakers they forgot something because she knew it was important, and knew every aspect of the race needed to be well taken care of. She flew to Ethiopia last week just build relations with good runners. The more good runners come over to race in the US, the more interest it gains amongst US sports writers, thus aduience, thus generates more dollars, then improves our sport for the better. I can't believe I just advocated trickle down economics, I'm a democrat. This decision f***ing blows, but leave Mary out of this.

taken from another forum

"Latimer's stated goal of reducing the field to 65 to 85 people by changing the standard to 2:19:00 is interesting. Looking at this year's results, the number of people who ran 2:19:01+/equivalent but finished in the top 85 is 48--well over 50%. Included in this is 7 in the top 30, including the 16th place finisher (Christopher Raabe) who ran 2:17:01 on race day.

The fourth place finisher from the 2004 trials (Trent Briney--2:21:01 to get in) would not have qualified for that race, and he ended up being the alternate for Athens."

He wouldn't have qualified with the seed time he used for 2004, but how do you know that he wouldn't or couldn't have achieved a qualifier if the cut-off were 2:19 for 2004? You can't consider his qualifier from 2004 in a vacuum.

Not surprising that people who feel that they would be or would've been personally affected by this would feel strongly about it. Just realize that you're biased sources, though. The primary goal of the OT is still served well with the new standard and it may turn out to be served even better than it was under the old qualifying time standard. Bruising egos and deflating senses of entitlement are just an inevitable part of moving the sport forward.

Exactly. Who knows - if the carrot he was chasing back then was 2:19, maybe he runs it. Guys like Briney can still pop their "out of nowhere" performances - they are just going to have to do it at races other than the Olympic Trials.The whole Briney issue is a 20/20 hindsight issue, anyway. You could keep the A/B standard forever, and what he did may never happen again.Besides - a 2:19 qualifier placing fourth at the OT would be an "out of nowhere" performance. You still have room for the Cinderella.

red herring detector wrote:

He wouldn't have qualified with the seed time he used for 2004, but how do you know that he wouldn't or couldn't have achieved a qualifier if the cut-off were 2:19 for 2004? You can't consider his qualifier from 2004 in a vacuum.

Or, people can sack up and just continue going after it. For guys who were trying to hit 2:22 it's more work, but it doesn't really change what any of us would do anyway.

No matter what the standard is -- 2:19, 2:20, 2:22, 2:25 -- there will always be guys who will have stories like yours. Your experience doesn't favor a 2:22 standard any more than a 2:25 or 2:30 or 2:50 standard. Personally, I would be fine with any time standard between 2:18 and 2:20. A faster standard could knock out legitimate contenders and discourage good runners from running on tough courses or in unfavorable weather conditions. (Mark Conover, for example, won the 1988 trials after a 2:18 qualifier in bad weather conditions.) A slower standard, at least from my perspective, devalues the achievement and provides less of an incentive to push on to faster times. While the 2:22 standard has been in place, there have been a fair number of 2:20 to 2:25 U.S. marathoners (many of of whom have run under 2:22 on aided courses), but relatively few U.S. marathoners in the 2:12 to 2:20 range (excluding the ones who ran such times on aided courses). I am confident that the new standards will help to increase the number of runners in that range.

As I've said, the most important change for me is to get rid of the majority of aided courses, since that goes directly to the integrity of the sport as a whole. I'm bothered by the exemption for Boston (less so for NYC, which is generally regarded as unaided, despite not being of record quality), but it still sounds like a big step in the right direction.

Walter Warned You wrote:

Kastor met the "A" standard for the men's Trials with her 2:19:36 performance at London in 2006.

Seems to me that 2:19 is a reasonable standard given that we have women running under 2:20 now. I don't know if the change was really needed and this may be a let down for some men but it is a positive for our sport that we now are at a point that we can toughen standards. The US is now one of the top countries for distance running again maybe it's ok that we have tough standards for our championships.

And get off the Hawaii crap. This convention was in Indiana last year and hasn't been in a location like Hawaii since 1987. I usually go but can't afford to this year so yeah I think Hawaii was a bad location and a bone head move. However, the location of this convention has nothing to do with this decision and be real 99% of you wouldn't have been there even if it was in your home town.

dukerdog wrote:

Don't these guys know that the 2:19-2:22 qualifiers are the ones that bring 20 spectators each with them

Haile Skeptical wrote:

Where are you getting this info?

dtmack wrote:

The other thing I want to mention is between me and a different close friend (also a shitty "B" guy) we had about 35 people between the 2 of us fly into NYC.

I heard many stories like this at the trials I was at (not NYC).

And bringing 20 spectators each with them is really relevant to selecting the Olympic marathon team how?

so in 1984, when the WR was what..2:08/2:07 ish..the standard was 2:19:04...and 200 people ran it..

now..with the WR @ 2:04, the standard is 2:22,

not only has mainstream america gotten considerably slower...so has the "elites"

dukerdog wrote:

Don't these guys know that the 2:19-2:22 qualifiers are the ones that bring 20 spectators each with them

I agree with this guy. there were at least ten people from my current team and then 10-15 more recent alumni from my team at this years trials because a few alumni from our program were running. I doubt more than 3 of those people would have been there otherwise.

Well what of it?

stevebilmar wrote:

I agree with this guy. there were at least ten people from my current team and then 10-15 more recent alumni from my team at this years trials because a few alumni from our program were running. I doubt more than 3 of those people would have been there otherwise.

Are they paying admission? wrote:

And bringing 20 spectators each with them is really relevant to selecting the Olympic marathon team how?

Well, it would be nice if there were a few people around to watch them being selected. Not necessary I suppose, but nice.

So you're saying that there'd only be "a few people around to watch" if the 20 per B qualifier weren't there to cheer on their pet runner? What would that have eliminated, maybe 1000 out of the crowds we saw lining the course in NYC? What is it worth to USATF, are there gate receipts and concessions for the event? (No, I'm suggesting a defense of USATF, even if I happen to agree with the decision, just an understanding of their position and priorities and goals.) I see where it might be of marginal substance for a venue such as Pittsburgh or Birmingham, but not in NYC on marathon weekend. Little if any impact, certainly not reason enough to keep bringing in 2:20-2:22 marathoners.

Correction: No, I'm NOT suggesting a defense of USATF.

doesn't bother me. im not running on the trails

"TIGHTENED FOR USA MEN'S 2012 OLYMPIC TRAILS MARATHON"

What a disastrous decision by an out-of-touch elitist. I agree with Division2 Coach. This doesn't need fixing. Too bad Latimer didn't have the balls to propose this during the Trials technical meeting. I hope this gets changed.

The best news from this release is that there will be a 2012 trials. Remember after 2004 they were talking about a selection from chicago, boston and nyc or somthing. I'm just glad I still have trials to shoot for.

As a 2:32 guy who hasn't been prepared to race 26 miles, I see this as just requiring me to work a little harder and run a little faster. My goal was 2:22, now it is 2:19. I kinda like that, if I end up running 2:20 and not in, I would know I pushed for a higher goal. Plus there is now the option to run a fast half and get in, now I have a concrete goal to shoot for in that.

One last thing, all this talk of Briney in 2004, yeah he made a huge jump and would not have been in with his 2:21, but picture this: With a 2:19 standard I think he would have prepared differently and hit that time, with a faster qualifier under his belt he might have been more prepared for faster race at the trials and he could have placed 3rd instead of 4th, you never know.