Glenn Latimer - Qualifying Standards Contradiction?

BS wrote:

The trials are different because there is not nearly the same amount of money involved but the principals are the same.

Who are the "same" principals involved with both the NCAA Tournament and the OT marathons?

dukerdog wrote:

So far the only argument anyone, including Latimer as far as I know, has made for excluding the 2:19-2:22 guys is that they have no chance of making the team. Is that the best you can come up with?

Exactly! I have not seen anything that even remotely resembles a compelling argument against allowing them to compete. In stark contrast, people like Kevin Hanson have gone to great lengths to provide us with good reasons why they should compete.

Well? Let's hear it from the "condescending crew," because you're shooting blanks!

Uh, malmo already replied above.

Condescending much? wrote:

dukerdog wrote:

So far the only argument anyone, including Latimer as far as I know, has made for excluding the 2:19-2:22 guys is that they have no chance of making the team. Is that the best you can come up with?

Exactly! I have not seen anything that even remotely resembles a compelling argument against allowing them to compete. In stark contrast, people like Kevin Hanson have gone to great lengths to provide us with good reasons why they should compete.

Well? Let's hear it from the "condescending crew," because you're shooting blanks!

dukerdog really wrote:

In who's eyes?

There guys have no chance of making the team anyway, right?

I think an argument can be made from the standpoint of the event organizer (such as NYRR or BAA or the Houston crew) that having two separate standards, as in an A and a B standard, where A athletes are treated differently than B athletes, it makes sense to go with one standard where all qualifiers are treated the same. In my opinion, it would have been a good move to drop the B standard and go with a single standard of 2:20, or even 2:21 as a comprimise.

Sure, you have to have the $$$ to pony up for all those qualifiers, but if you're investing $1.5 million (or whatever it is) in the case of Houston, the additional expense is a drop in the bucket to take care of 20 or 30 more guys. Or, given the 28:30/1:05 options, the number of qualifers might net out the same from 2008 to 2012.

With A and B standards, the event organizer has to account for flights, hotels, meals, etc., for the A qualifiers, and then just turn their backs on the B guys? Have them fend for themselves. Sounds simple enough, but not really.

The B guys are still IN the race, so you still have to account for them, and they're probably still looking for help with hotel availibility, rides to/from the airport, rides to/from the start line, flight info, dinner info, course info, hospitality, credentials, and goodness knows what else. If you're going to have a pasta party for the athletes, do you invite the A and the B guys or just the A? Or comp the A guys and charge the B guys? Who gets to have their own drinks on course? Just the A guys? Or the B guys too? Who gets invited to the press conference? Both A and B? Or just the A? These may seem like petty things, but they add up.

So why not just have one qualifying standard and treat everyone the same? That makes things A LOT simpler for the organizers.

Is 2:19 the best standard? In my opinion, no. But that's beside the point. My point is that having a single standard makes things a lot more sraightforward when you're planning the event and working to best accommodate the needs/wants of the athletes. No second-class citizens and no double standards.

What I don't understand is why the OT marathon is so magical in the eyes of 2:20-2:30 runners that it has become the only place where "development" can take place. Is there some magic elixir in the water that causes huge performance drops? Maybe an EPO table in the athlete suite?

There are hundreds of good marathons around the country (not to mention abroad), and dozens of very competitive, decently fast ones perfect for the near-elite. You'd be paying your way to the OT marathon, so what's the difference between it and running a fast time at Chicago/CIM/LA/wherever? Unless you're going out and winning every marathon you enter (which you're not), you can always find competition. Is the OT marathon supposed to be a mark of valor, a source of validation for the running lifestyle? Something to brag about to the office mates?

The way I see it, the argument from one side is "look, you have to draw the line somewhere, and 2:19 is pretty reasonable for an elite or semi-elite guy" and the other side is "a lower standard doesn't hurt anyone, and it helps development." As with most things, reality falls somewhere in the middle.

RD wrote:

With A and B standards, the event organizer has to account for flights, hotels, meals, etc., for the A qualifiers, and then just turn their backs on the B guys? Have them fend for themselves. Sounds simple enough, but not really.

Every single marathon with elite athletes is that way.

Drop the prize money - go back to the Shorter/ Rodger era - If you want to make the team - show up and race. Too much bullshit about financial obligations to the runners.

What is wrong with paying your own way to compete. Worked before - and don't tell me that the marathon runners today are better than they were 20-25 years ago!!!!

It's a different animal when considering a "normal" marathon where you might have a handful of elites and then a mass field. At the Trials, you only have 100 or so runners, and everyone either IS elite, is ALMOST elite, or THINKS they're elite. I guess you have to define "elite" and then treat them as such. It's a challenge to differentiate among that particular group.

In whose eyes? After the first quarter of the race all but 20 or so will be invisible to the viewers at home, anyway. Might as well be 50-80 on the starting line as 200-300.

So we're talking about instilling higher expectations into our talent pool. If these are guys who wouldn't make the team, anyway, then those expectations aren't appropriate or intended for them.

US Marathon Champs every year, Elite Development Clubs, numerous US road racing champs every year, etc. These are all nice stepping stones and incentives for those who aren't quite international class/OT caliber.

Bingo

And then we wind up with WC type teams for the OG.

Still Running wrote:

Drop the prize money - go back to the Shorter/ Rodger era - If you want to make the team - show up and race. Too much bullshit about financial obligations to the runners.

What is wrong with paying your own way to compete. Worked before - and don't tell me that the marathon runners today are better than they were 20-25 years ago!!!!

Condescending much? wrote:

I have not seen anything that even remotely resembles a compelling argument against allowing them to compete. In stark contrast, people like Kevin Hanson have gone to great lengths to provide us with good reasons why they should compete.

Well? Let's hear it from the "condescending crew," because you're shooting blanks!

I haven't seen any arguments, from Kevin or anyone else, that persuasively show why a 2:21:59 marathoner should be permitted to compete in the Olympic trials, but a 2:26, 2:31, 2:51, or 3:51 marathoner should not.

I understand that some people believe that anyone should be permitted to run in the Olympic trials. That, at least, is a principled position. But if you accept the premise that there should be a cut-off time, then your choice of a cut-off time is inevitably going to smack of elitism to some, and probably going to seem too inclusive to others.

My own sense is that something between 2:18 and 2:20 is about right. Anything much tougher discourages top American competition on more challenging courses and under more challenging conditions, and perhaps also fails to account sufficiently for other variables that constitute what malmo referred to as the "capriciousness" of the marathon. Anything much softer both diminishes the accomplishment of qualifying for the Olympic trials and encourages a number of athletes to settle for a lower level of accomplishment. (Some people will dispute both of those points, but I can say, from personal experience, that they are absolutely wrong.)

A number of posters have wondered who is "harmed" by softer standards. Similar questions are, or can be, raised in a number of contexts, from determining who receives All-America honors in NCAA competition to who gets an offer of admission to a particular school, who gets an "A" in a class, who is given the title of "vice president" in a bank or "partner" in a law firm, or who gets an Academy Award nomination or a Nobel Prize. Certainly, some who are "harmed" by lower standards include individuals whose accomplishments are diminished or depreciated by more inclusive standards. Others who are "harmed" are those who are capable of greater achievements, but lose some of the incentive to work harder and achieve more when a bar is set too low. You may think that the avoidance of such "harm" is insufficient to justify various standards, but you are simply wrong to suggest that no one is "harmed" by lower standards.

Reasonable people will draw the line at different places. I happen to think that the committee got it just about right (although I probably would have lowered the alternative half-marathon qualifying time to 1:04:30 or even 1:04:00). To me, an issue more important than the precise time standard was the standard for qualifying courses. The committee chose a standard that permitted Boston to be a qualifier. I might have bitten the bullet and eliminated any course that wasn't record-quality or acceptable to the IAAF for achieving qualifying times for the Olympic Games, but I acknowledge that the exclusion of Boston as a trials qualifier would have upset some important people. In any event, I think that it was an excellent step to eliminate races like St. George's, Steamtown, and Tucson, which -- unlike Boston -- were designed specifically to allow runners to record "marathon" times that they could not obtain on record-quality courses.

Condescending much? wrote:

Well? Let's hear it from the "condescending crew," because you're shooting blanks!

DUH. wrote:

Uh, malmo already replied above.

And with all due respect to him, that really doesn't change what I said. Of course, he made some good points and isn't an immature jerk like Red Glare, but I still haven't seen a compelling argument against.

Avocados Number wrote:

Anything much softer both diminishes the accomplishment of qualifying for the Olympic trials and encourages a number of athletes to settle for a lower level of accomplishment. (Some people will dispute both of those points, but I can say, from personal experience, that they are absolutely wrong.)

On the other hand, based upon my personal experience, I think that those are both easily disputed. Then again, I wouldn't really word it in such a know-it-all tone of voice like you do!

Condescending Much?,

I failed to see how my post was so condescending, and now you're saying Avocado has a know-it-all tone of voice? When did it become a crime to have an opinion and express it like you believe it to be true.

I get it. We disagree. Just because people believe one point and defend it doesn't mean they're condescending, arrogant, or know-it-alls. We're not name-calling, or saying you're ridiculous for having a certain point of view. We're just disagreeing with, stating our case, and commenting on other peoples remarks. That's it. This is one of the most civil threads I've seen on here and I don't see any condescension here.

Some people place more of an emphasis on using the trials as an encouragement and development tool, while others think it should be kept 'pure' and have a high standard to separate the 'truly elite.'

Some people like 2:19 as a standard, while other like 2:22. In reality, this is not an either/or argument, but a matter of picking a point on a spectrum. I think everyone can agree that there needs to be a standard somewhere, it's just a matter of where. Interestingly, when the standard was 2:22, I heard some people asking why it wasn't 2:24.

Kevin Hanson has raised some interesting points, and he obviously has more experience working with 2:15-2:25 guys than just about anyone. It caused me to rethink some of my viewpoints. I'm still not sold on some of the other arguments though. Yes, I agree, every local runner who hit 2:21 and made the Trials got some press and attention in their hometown, and I guess that's a good thing. But ultimately, I'm not convinced that this really 'advances the sport' or benefits anything other than rewarding the 2:21 guy for his hard work.

Ultimately, I think malmo said it best. While I stand by my statement that the purpose of the race is to select the best team, his statement that the purpose of the standard is to reduce the field to a reasonable size makes sense.

It seems to me that if we reframed the question into something more objective, this whole thing would change. Make it a manageable size...maybe say the top 100 times on legal courses, or anybody who beats the Olympic A standard gets in (currently we don't have the 'problem' of more than 100 guys bettering the Olympic A standard).

Or pick a number and base it off the Olympic A standard. Anybody who runs within x minutes of the Olympic A standard on an IAAF accepted course gets in. Then it's just a matter of defining x.

Red Glare wrote:

In whose eyes? After the first quarter of the race all but 20 or so will be invisible to the viewers at home, anyway. Might as well be 50-80 on the starting line as 200-300.

I was going to argue with you, but then I realized that you're right. For 99.9% of Americans, whether or not you include the 2:20-2:25 guys has no effect on the prestige of the event. Got it. Thanks.

So we're talking about instilling higher expectations into our talent pool. If these are guys who wouldn't make the team, anyway, then those expectations aren't appropriate or intended for them.

Whether a 2:19 standard or a 2:22 standard does a better job of motivating guys who may eventually end up contending for the team is the only argument that matters. Maybe we can all agree on that.

US Marathon Champs every year, Elite Development Clubs, numerous US road racing champs every year, etc.

Again, this is not an argument for why they should be excluded from the OT. Why not add another incentive for them?

Avocados Number wrote:

but I can say, from personal experience, that they are absolutely wrong...

but you are simply wrong to suggest...

Problem is, last time you told us you had intimate knowledge of a situation that we did not, and that we were absolutely wrong, it turned out not to be the case.

MLDR attempt at making this event "more elite" has actually done the opposite. We were discussing this topic at our club run last night. The event is so small that the average guy doesn't care about the event.

More people are impressed with a "Boston Qualifier" than a "Trials Qualifier".

Why is this the case?

Because MLDR is out of touch with promoting the sport. Like Mr. Hanson said "they have no $$ for development" THEN PROMOTE THE SPORT.

I believe that the standard for the US Men's Olympic Marathon Trials has been a point of debate since it was first put in place in 1972. Up until that point it had been an open championship just like we have in every other non-Olympic year to this date.

Ironically (I think) we are the only country in the world that has an entire marathon set aside for only a handful of runners to compete in to determine our Olympic Marathon Team. Why we don't just have it as part of a major marathon like everyone else (like all other US Marathon Champs as well) is beyond me.

Certainly there are numerous compelling arguments from many angles of what the standard should be and what it involves.

However, I agree with Kevin when saying that if you are going to have a race every four years that attracts the attention of the running community and "Joe Public" then you need to use that as a positive tool to help the sport.

The difference between the marathon and the track trials is obvious....numbers. Track&Field is confined by lanes and schedules whereas the marathon is more like a cross country race, only longer. It doesn't matter if you have 100 people or 200 people in the race, it doesn't change anything. Realistically the financial expenditure is bib numbers and cups of water and Gatorade, both of which are drops in the bucket.

As for other costs, it's simple. Anyone who has achieved the Olympic A standard already then pay their expenses and everyone else has to pay their own way. Or if they hit the Olympic A standard at the trials then reimburse them. Fair enough?

As for who runs...this is a marathon, it is a different animal. It's not the 5000m or 10,000m on the track. There are so many unpredictable variables that determine success and on top of that 90% of this board would not argue that it takes time and years to develop in the marathon. Guys coming out of college are rarely going to run their best marathons before the age of 25. And as someone pointed out, the bigger the base of quality runners, then the more that will develop from that group and push upwards creating even more "elites" at the next level.

Again, this is just my opinion, but here are some safe and quality standards.

A) 2:14:00 (Olympic A standard - expenses paid)

B) 2:25:00 (pay their own way, simple as that)

Why 2:25:00? Seems like as logical of a number as 2:19, 2:22 or 2:30. I think most would agree that in order to run a sub 2:25:00 marathon takes a lot of work, however it is a mark that many good college runners could realistically shoot for within their first 3-4 years out of college. In return your base of quality runners overall is higher and hopefully with that experience will come the incentive to stay in the game and push forward into their prime years or early 30's.

And as we all know, for example say you have 200 men who actually qualify. That would be a pretty good group. To have 200 men under 2:25 in the US would be a step in the right direction. Also of those 200 men how many would actually make it to the starting line or finish the trials? There are always DNS's and DNF's. Unlike track, you NEED numbers to make a marathon interesting because of the attrition.

And as for the media side goes, you must be living under a rock if you don't think that having your local neighbor receiving press for running in the US Olympic Trials is a good thing. Any positive press this sport can get then the better. To run sub 2:25:00 is no joke and a majority of these guys are working regular jobs, etc. Our sport only survives because of the die-hard people, volunteers and folks who do it because they love it. Without them, you have no sport and no one would care what the "elites" do. You can't have a race without competitors and you can't have sport without people.

Just my 2 cents.

Condescending much? wrote:

Well? Let's hear it from the "condescending crew," because you're shooting blanks!

Well I'll shoot some...

Regarding the development debate... So I am a 2:30ish marathoner and the Olympic trials will pretty much be the pinnacle of my career should I qualify. So if I have a 2:30 standard to hit in order to qualify I am not going to require much more development. And why should I work much harder... I'll never make the team. Being there is the goal. However, if the carrot in front of me is 2:19 then I will likely work a lot harder to hit the standard and probably run way faster than 2:30 if not 2:19.

Now one could argue that just running a 2:30 will never satisfy many runners. We are all simply motivated by our own intrinsic desires. So what then is the purpose of having a lower standard for the Olympic Trials? These runners will find the time and the balls to train to race faster despite running in some mythical race.

Was I bummed when they raised the bar to 2:19? Hell yes. But that is because I saw 2:22 as a reasonable goal. But why not 2:19? But for some reason 2:22 was the limit. So how would an even lower qualifying standard be any less than that... a personal limit on one's talent? How does that do anything for development?

Argue for a 2:22 B standard. Fine. But 2:30 is ridiculous.