A Little Good News: USATF is appealing to get top 5 at US Olympic Marathon Trials the standard

Ottawa this spring just became a pretty atttractive option for anyone not already committed to Boston (or London). . . And Toronto in the fall for anyone who doesn’t get the standard this spring.

I don’t know why the ramifications of this would be, but what if marathon qualification were almost entirely place-based—you would be automatically eligible for selection if you finished top-10 in the most-recent edition of a WMM, top-5 in a gold label marathon, top-3 in a silver label, or won a bronze label—and only a small number of runners were eligible for selection via a stiff auto time—like, sub-2:07 and sub-2:24–and the field would only be rounded out, if necessary by world rankings. With the limited number of times marathoners can compete, this might make more sense (and would still achieve the IAAF’s goal of emphasizing specific major races—which, in the case of the marathon are WMMs and label races).

Best shot for 2:14/5 Guy or 2:32/3 Woman

is it

10 most recent WMM

5 at Gold

3 at Sliver

1 at Bronze

entry specs

3.2 Gold, Silver and Bronze Level Elite Runners 3.2 Gold, Silver and Bronze Level Elite Runners Gold, Silver and Bronze Level Elite Runners

The following athletes qualify as “Gold level elite runners”:

• Those having recorded, in the 36 months preceding the race, or in the race itself, at least

one performance within these standards:

o Marathon: Men: 2:10:00 and Women: 2:28:00

o Half Marathon: Men: 1:01:00 and Women: 1:11:00

o 10km/10,000m: Men: 28:00 and Women: 32:00

• Those having finished in the first 25 places of the Rio 2016 Olympic Games marathons

• Those having finished in the first 25 places of the IAAF World Championships marathons

Beijing 2015

• Those having finished in the first 20 places of the IAAF World Half Marathon Championships

Cardiff 2016

• Those having finished in the first 20 places in the senior races of the IAAF World Cross

Country Championships Guiyang 2015

• Those having finished in the first 20 places in the senior races of the IAAF World Cross

Country Championships Kampala 2017

“Silver level elite runners” are those having recorded, in the 36 months preceding the race, or

in the race itself, at least one performance within these standards:

o Marathon: Men: 2:12:00 and Women: 2:32:00

o Half Marathon: Men: 1:03:00 and Women: 1:12:00

o 10km/10,000m: Men: 29:00 and Women: 33:00

“Bronze level elite runners” are those having recorded, in the 36 months preceding the race, or

in the race itself, at least one performance within these standards:

o Marathon: Men: 2:16:00 and Women: 2:38:00

o Half Marathon: Men: 1:04:00 and Women: 1:15:00

o 10km/10,000m: Men: 30:00 and Women: 37:00

Athletes/Agents should note that the performance does NOT refer to an athlete’s Personal Best,

which may have been recorded well outside the 36-month qualifying period.

This is so ridiculous. You were always certain that "Olympic Standard" meant time standard yet you always acknowledged it also meant a top finish at a WMM or Gold Label event. How could you be so certain it allowed for that but didn't consider the rankings?

It just doesn't make sense. And that is why LRC is getting heat for blowing it out of proportion.

But it is getting clicks (I'm falling for it), and at the end of the day that's what it is all about so kudos to y'all.

darkwave wrote:

Not An Expert wrote:

The IOC has capped the IAAF at 1900 athletes across all events (down from over 2000 in 2016). That’s the reason for the smaller marathon fields.

Also worth noting that this isn't just limited to athletics - other sports are being told to reduce their total # of athletes as well.

In equestrian sports, countries have traditionally fielded a team of 4, with one drop score, so that only your best 3 performers counted. That's now been reduced to 3, with no drop score, for the 2020 games.

Don't forget less horses too bro, that equals to less horse manure to scrap off

2 points.

1. Let's assume that whatever USATF Official told Gault the 'top 3 with the standard' plan was accurately reporting their policy AND that Gault's interpretation of that statement was correct. I actually think that the second assumption is more likely accurate. Meaning, I believe USATF did mean the time standard, period. No ranking considered. I will defend LRC on that point as its what I believe the official meant. There is the question of whether or not that particular person knew the deal or not but I suspect that time only is what was meant.

OK, if that's the case, and as of now it seems to be still, then petitioning IAFF has no effect. It would certainly change the IAAF ranking of the top 3 or 5 or whatever exception could be granted, but this changes nothing as USATF has already decided that the ranking won't be considered when selecting the team. The first 3 across the line who have the time standard will be it. So their Wold Rankings go up. So what? Who cares? You're not going to the Olympics. Again, this started with the assumption that Gault's (reasonable, to me) claim that USATF requires the time standard for team acceptance is accurate.

Therefore this petition, if granted (unlikely), changes nothing.

2. I believe both the stiff standards (from IAAF) and rigid requirement of achieving them (from USATF) are good. Cut the bush league out of the Olympics. No more of this, 'I'm running an event I may be able to finish since I'm the only one from my country who can' nonsense. Do we need someone to prove a point other than 'I'm the best in the world'? Not in the Olympics we don't. No one with a 2:15/2:35 PR is winning it. They don't need to be there. The marathon is exactly the event to cut total participants if the IOC demands IAAF do so.

one simple rule for USA Trial

The only path of entry to the USA Trials is by having equaled or bettered the published OG minimum time, distance or multi-event point total standards.

distill the entry path wrote:

one simple rule for USA Trial

The only path of entry to the USA Trials is by having equaled or bettered the published OG minimum time, distance or multi-event point total standards.

Meet within a meet so they really need two

To be eligible for the OG Team section portion of the National Championship Meet -the above -

The first three across the line will be awarded National Champs first,second and third place honors regardless of their position in th OG Team selection portion of the meet.

How could I be certain it allowed for the WMM/Gold Label finishers? By reading the official Olympic qualification system document.

Again:

"An athlete can qualify in one of two ways:

-Achieve the entry standard within the respective qualification period

-Qualify by virtue of his IAAF World Ranking Position in the selected event at the

end of the respective qualification period."

The "standard" and the rankings are two separate things, according to the IAAF.

And then...

"The first 10 runners in the Men’s Marathon and in the Women’s Marathon in the IAAF World Athletics Championships Doha 2019 and the top 5 finishers at the IAAF Gold Label Marathons and the top 10 finishers at the Marathon Major Series (Tokyo, Boston, London, Berlin, Chicago and New York) held during the qualification period will also be considered as having achieved the entry standard."

(Emphasis mine).

Top-10 at a WMM = standard. When you get in via the world rankings, you're not considered to have the entry standard. You're qualifying in an entirely different fashion. Again, seems fairly straightforward to me.