Ritz quote on front page -- HIS TIME MAY NOT GET IN!!!

I want Ritz in. I am not one of the top 24 times but I am ahead of Ritz. If he gets in, then I am in. I would sit on the track and have to be removed in handcuffs if they allowed a slower time than me in and left me out.

I sounds like the 24 is a minimum, at least in the sense that they think that it will help them get a competitive race. Having Ritz in would probably do that. Furthermore, I think that he would still do the marathon and not the 10,000, so there is not an issue of him taking someone else's slot.

As for "irregardless", my understanding of the story is that President Taft used the word in a speech and the writers were not going to change it. Not sure on this story as Taft had pretty good school credentials (second in class at Yale?). It might have been a not-uncommon mis-use of language at the time made famous. It has been so heavily used over time as to be in the 'vernacular' even if 'proper writing' would not use it without purpose.

26mi235 wrote:

I sounds like the 24 is a minimum, at least in the sense that they think that it will help them get a competitive race. Having Ritz in would probably do that. Furthermore, I think that he would still do the marathon and not the 10,000, so there is not an issue of him taking someone else's slot.

As for "irregardless", my understanding of the story is that President Taft used the word in a speech and the writers were not going to change it. Not sure on this story as Taft had pretty good school credentials (second in class at Yale?). It might have been a not-uncommon mis-use of language at the time made famous. It has been so heavily used over time as to be in the 'vernacular' even if 'proper writing' would not use it without purpose.

eugene cops would be happy to oblige - they have plenty of experience with grungy hippie types and their protests. every now and again, one of them nasty long haired hippies gets a little haircut and a shower courtesy of the po'lice.

yes, but wait! wrote:

Two possible scenarios:

-anyone on the marathon team is in, irregardless; or

-anyone on the 2007 10k world champ team is in, irregardless.

Chaplin/Men's track & field committee could pull this off.

Also don't forget where this meet is and who one of the major sponsors of USATF & the USOC is, not to mention what brand of shoes Ritz wears (at least they don't have to pay travel money for him).

Money talks.

irregardless

paulie wallnuts

Ritz is listed Astandard in the 5000

I've thought for weeks now that it did not look as though Ritz was going to get in with his 10K. And, if this was true, it was pretty irresponsible of he and his coach to assume he would get in with his relatively weak time (he's been #32 on the list for over a month) and instead chase a road 10K (Healthy Kidney) and ignore the opportunity to qualify "in his own backyard" (Prefontaine). Granted, the OT is not a priority for him, but it would seem as though it should: (a) either be enough of a priority to qualify if he wants to race it or (b) not assume he's going to race it.This thread hasn't really cleared anything up for me. I'm not sure what to think. One section no one yet has highlighted from the USATF Qualifying Standards info (http://www.usatf.org/events/2008/OlympicTrials-TF/entry/qualifyingStandards.asp ) is that there ARE exemption for people who have not run fast enough to have the time alone merit inclusion:

A Track & Field athlete is eligible for automatic qualification into the Olympic Trials in the same event if that athlete has:

* Earned an individual medal in an Olympic Games or in an IAAF World Indoor or Outdoor Championships during the year 2008, or during the four previous calendar years (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007)

* Won an individual 2007 USA Outdoor Track & Field Championship event

Clearly he doesn't fit the bill for either of those. Then again, that's only for "automatic qualification;" I suppose it remains possible that there could be some exemptions for provisional qualification that just aren't spelled out. Although in today's day and age, I doubt that's the case.

2miler wrote:

Does anyone know if Seth Summerside will be at the trials to compete? I haven't seen any results out of him this spring. Post info if you know it.

Check out the Summerside interview on Flotrack. He says he's running the 5 and 10.

Which event is Herman Ferandez running?

I am a big Ritz fan and a part of would love to see him win the 10k, but does anyone else think that running this race (assuming he's qualified to) is a lose-lose proposition(conflict of interests)? Let me explain. Considering that Ritz's prioirity is preparing as best as possible for the Olympic Marathon, it wouldn't be in his best interest to run the OT 10K 7 weeks before the Beiijing. If he does well at the OT 10K, that means he's probably not gearing all his training toward the Marathon(not marathon fitness)

Consider Hall's relative poor performance at USXC 08 7 weeks before London, and how in retrospect, he said that if he had raced well it probably would've shown that he didn't have proper marathon fitness. And if Ritz is in the stages of marathon fitness for the OT 10K (as he ought to be), then why would he risk a poor performance when he knows he wouldn't be in 10 race shape? Bottom line is that there is a conflict of interests.

it's not an excact science

Ritz could win it without being in the "correct" fitness.

One word...

SCOTTY!

If you think Scotty will win the trials I hope you know how to handle dissapointment.

jjjjsssss wrote:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless

"...an erroneous word..."

"...an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term."

"..is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less."

..etc..

Ritz will be injured as usual during the track trials, and not capable of running the 10k.