Ed Torres Writes: LA Got 2016 Olympic Marathon Trials Despite Offering $100k Less in Prize Money

What's the prize money at the Olympics again?

Right, that's what I thought.

Mitt the Plumber wrote:

What's the prize money at the Olympics again?

Right, that's what I thought.

Prize money for Olympic trials/USAs:

Prize money for Olympics:

Prize money for WC:

uyb wrote:

joho wrote:

That is no excuse to waste money on a poor product.

How is it a poor product? How else would you see any of these meets, races, and interviews? If it's such a poor product, then why do you use it? And exactly what is poor about it? Who is doing a better job?

I don't use it. I've seen enough of their races and interviews to know I don't want to spend my money on it.

I've read the threads here on LR about all the difficulties their customers have had with billing issues. Flotrack had to come to LR to find out they had billing issues with their own product. I would not give my data to any online operation that is run like that.

It doesn't matter to me if anyone is doing a better job. I won't pay their price for their product regardless.

Can anyone verify exactly where the 100k was taken from? Was it evenly spread, taken from the top spots, or did they take some of the bottom earners and now those spots no longer make any prize money? Could there be some sort of non monetary prizes involved? Maybe a car for 1-3 or something like that? Just asking because lots of competitions have sponsors who give away big money prizes that may not be in the official prize pool.

This was the prize money in Houston for the 2012 marathon trials:

I assume that the Houston organizers came up with the basic prize money from their sponsors and the USATF paid the Additional Prize Money.

Presumably, the Houston proposal was similar for 2016 but that would be speculation.

I agree that marketing golf is easy. It is very leisurely, you can stop when you want, sit, drive a cart, etc. You are never of of breath. Even when people of different levels play, they re-group on the green or tee. Obviously, running has none of that (maybe jogging does :-) )However, you can run a race -- at the same -- that a pro runs. You just will finish minutes behind. But certainly the average person can relate or appreciate what these guys/gals do.

Caddyshack wrote:

It's much easier to market Golf because everyone can relate to it. Any out of shape fat ass can go out on the course and play a round of golf. They can even play the same course as the pros. You can compare yourself and appreciate how difficult what the professionals do is. Most of these people have no way at all to relate to running a mile, 5k or marathon. It isn't interesting to them.

Rick Grimes wrote:

My question is, what is the LDR committee doing now to prevent this in the future? All that statement did was point out the obvious and give some numbers as to why it hurt the athletes but there seems to be no plan going forward. Will they meet with Max and express this in person? Put new procedures in place? Tell athletes to abandon USATF as a protest? Just seems like everyones talking about how unfair it was and if nothing changes it will happen again.

The future is now , how do they reverse what is wrong now. It far better to get this prize purse up to par now. LA needs a little pressure , USATF need's to give an explanation why they think prize monies were no taken into consideration.

What is shows is that the LDR committee/head is a powerless structure with little or no say on their future or sport.

Marathons a hug factor in exposure for USATF , this shows how poor the management team is when it cannot leverage the american talent in athletes to support a competitive price purse specific to the the marathon trials. It clearly shows they devalue the athletes and are only concerned in making sure they gets their rights fee's and whatever other perks the officials may get as apart of the package. Like it or not it takes the sport back two steps of years ago.

Rick Grimes wrote:

My question is, what is the LDR committee doing now to prevent this in the future? All that statement did was point out the obvious and give some numbers as to why it hurt the athletes but there seems to be no plan going forward. Will they meet with Max and express this in person? Put new procedures in place? Tell athletes to abandon USATF as a protest? Just seems like everyones talking about how unfair it was and if nothing changes it will happen again.

Since it sounds like you weren't at the National Meeting, here's a refresher on the "strife" that happened regarding Regulation 18 (pertaining to National Championships) and a USOC rule (anybody want to help us out on which rule?) that permits the CEO to make the final decision regarding the Olympic Trials. I don't believe the USATF Committee has the power to change the USOC rules. Also, 2013 was a Bylaws-changes year, so next year is for changes to the Competition Rules. The Bylaws won't be able to be changed again until 2015.

You scrawny runners are all hot air. A lot of anonymous talk with no action. The last guy that had any guts to make an uproar and back it up was your beloved "PRE." You all don't have the guts to do anything about it.

Hall, Ritz, etc. and the entire American public boycotting the trials for the greater good? Ha. You are all selfish, self centered egomaniacs. So we will bend you over and have our way with you. Thank you, and don't call in the morning.

Sincerely,

USATF, Your governing body

You are trippin. The last TFAA survey shows only a scant few of our so-called "professional athletes" are 100% independent of financial support from parents, siblings, and spouses.

uyb wrote:

Understanding is fine, but there's no reason to respect such lazy and entitled attitudes. Making $20 is easy.

0.1/10

I guess you're not as funny as I thought you were.

Hmm , Max did make the decision and favored LA if you read the article completely , to bad. Reading the article also gave a little view for the new LDR chair Ed , he is an elitist , making the standards for the marathon harder for the A and B standard. He doesn't get it in understanding the development of the sport for americans. Ed , we know you were at the top of the game in your career as an elite , you need though to expand your vision beyond your personal experience.

Stepping up to the plate , ok, I will donate the first $1000 to build a kitty to sue USATF for gross negligence in the site selection.

We are going backwards.

I think this sport needs to burn completely to the ground and start over. We are squeaking mice that have zero influence over the USATF governing body, which is an elephant.

USATF wrote:

You scrawny runners are all hot air. A lot of anonymous talk with no action. The last guy that had any guts to make an uproar and back it up was your beloved "PRE." You all don't have the guts to do anything about it.

Hall, Ritz, etc. and the entire American public boycotting the trials for the greater good? Ha. You are all selfish, self centered egomaniacs. So we will bend you over and have our way with you. Thank you, and don't call in the morning.

Sincerely,

USATF, Your governing body

If Max Siegel "has to go along with the IOC and IAAF", then what are we paying him for? In other words the King has no clothes. This is either an out for him to point a finger if it goes badly, or he has no backbone, or he is an unneeded personnel of USATF. Either graft or incredible incompetence is what it looks like.

not so slow wrote:

Hmm , Max did make the decision and favored LA if you read the article completely , to bad. Reading the article also gave a little view for the new LDR chair Ed , he is an elitist , making the standards for the marathon harder for the A and B standard. He doesn't get it in understanding the development of the sport for americans. Ed , we know you were at the top of the game in your career as an elite , you need though to expand your vision beyond your personal experience.

Stepping up to the plate , ok, I will donate the first $1000 to build a kitty to sue USATF for gross negligence in the site selection.

We are going backwards.

Ed Torres was not even close to "the top of the game" when he was an elite. Dude broke 2:18 by the skin of his teeth. It's not like his other PRs are great either, 63:30 half, just under 14 in the 5K, I'm not even sure if he could beat Dibaba over 3k. ... so he would have barely made the marathon trials under the new standards and wouldn't have a prayer of making the track trials.

If someone who runs 2:19 is a "fun runner" as he's called them, then so is he. Really everyone who isn't running under 2:08 is a "fun runner". Just a bitter old man who never made it to the top.

I'm sorry, I have to admit his 10K PR was actually a lot better than the rest of his times (28:16), but that's still not anywhere close to what the top Americans even then were running and he never ran at the Olympics or World Championships (in track), so still not "at the top of the game". The only Marathon Trials he qualified for was in 2007 and he was a DNF. And you want to know what his marathon PR was when he stepped on the line for those trials? 2:22.

not so slow wrote:

Hmm , Max did make the decision and favored LA if you read the article completely , to bad. Reading the article also gave a little view for the new LDR chair Ed , he is an elitist , making the standards for the marathon harder for the A and B standard. He doesn't get it in understanding the development of the sport for americans. Ed , we know you were at the top of the game in your career as an elite , you need though to expand your vision beyond your personal experience.

Stepping up to the plate , ok, I will donate the first $1000 to build a kitty to sue USATF for gross negligence in the site selection.

We are going backwards.

Of course Max favored LA, and whatever rule with the USOC says he has the power to decide and defy the 5-person committee. The committee can't change this rule because it's the USOC that owns the Olympic Trials and who's rules apply, not USATF.

No, that was a typo in the article. The committee adopted the IAAF standards. Not sure what you mean by "not understanding development". Based on the new standards, there were 120 men and 109 women from the 2012 qualifying times who meet them. How is development being hurt by having what will likely be 120-140 runners at the 2016 Trials?

Not Cool Bro wrote:

I'm sorry, I have to admit his 10K PR was actually a lot better than the rest of his times (28:16), but that's still not anywhere close to what the top Americans even then were running and he never ran at the Olympics or World Championships (in track), so still not "at the top of the game". The only Marathon Trials he qualified for was in 2007 and he was a DNF. And you want to know what his marathon PR was when he stepped on the line for those trials? 2:22.

And this matters why? The guy may not have been the best, but he's been involved in the sport at a high level going to back elementary school and knows the ins and outs. Development is not being hurt when you're going to have 120+ guys on the starting line, 4x + what's allowed for a track 10K.

What the heck do his PRs have to do with whether LA is paying less prize money?

He's explaining the committee's recommendation was partly based on getting more prize money for athletes - which is was a valid point in Houston's favor - and encouraging LA to increase their prize money. That's just doing his job and trying to help the runners in the trials.