Changed Marathon Trials numbers

You must not be that old or have been running for that long. Our sport has always been a sideshow event for skinny freaks. Always. Even during the "glory years" of the 1970s, running was nothing but a fringe sport in this country. The average sports fan did not care about the nation's top runners except during the Olympics or select record attempts, much like today.

Idiots Running the Asylum wrote:

But what should we expect from the USATF? People used to care about running, and under the guidance of our fearless and ever so wise leaders, our great sport is now a sideshow event for skinny freaks. We can trust them.

Wake me when they manage to get the US OLYMPIC TRIALS marathon, a race that took place early on a Sunday morning when no other sporting event in the US was taking place, onto live television even via PPV. Nobody cares except for us and there obviously aren't even close to enough of us to make any difference. In today's market there is nothing to be gained from giving charity to wannabes, if the sport wants to market itself more professionally then it needs to appear much more professional. Mike Wardian, bless him, leading the OT marathon for so much of the race highlights the rinky-dink circus sideshow nature of professional distance running in the USA.

For starters the race was on SATURDAY, but I understand your point.

I agree that we are a fringe sport and we are the only one's that care. Hence the problem. WE CAN'T AGREE. There are very few of us and we don't agree with our governing body on how things should be handled. This thread is a perfect example. We could be very strong if our small group was all on the same page and fighting for the same thing. That can't happen while Glenn Latimer is in charge. He has seperated the forces from day one. His personality divides a group.

"I.R.T.A." wrote -- "If you can't run a road race with 130 people, perhaps you should hire the dude that puts on the local fun run on the Fourth of July in every town in America."

Will repeat here what I wrote about 18 pages ago...

>"Field management" includes a lot more than water

>bottles. Hotel space, airport pickups, etc. etc. enjoy

>benefits of scale to a point, then that relationship goes

>negative. Anyone who tried to get NYC hotel space Nov 1-4

>knows that. And if these ancillary things are dropped or

>curtailed in the interest of field size (e.g., a 2:25

>standard), there would be a powerful issue of "lousy

>treatment" and in turn potentially unfair competition.

And even with the bottles, there's other scale issues that come into play. It's not assured that every site that will bid for the 2012 USOTMs will have the convenience of a criterium course with evenly-spaced water tables like the past year -- 2 spots on the five-mile loop. What if it's a great course with an 8-mile crit loop? 4 mi between drinks is ~1mi longer than the int'l standard of every 5k.

So for a field of 130 runners, you are either mobilizing for 2x as many 130-bottle tables -- that's a lot of staff, and for special fluids it takes a lot more effort and equipment than fun-run cups-of-water tables -- or moving each set of tables 1 mile up the road every loop, three times....not with 40-45 minutes between, but approximately 30-35 minutes -- from when the last guy (McVeigh) passes at 5:30-45 pace to when the first guy (Hall) comes thru at 4:40 pace.

Think thru these things before grabbing the keys to the asylum.

I want to bring up another point that I don't think has been mentioned yet. Lowering the standard to 2:19 and also removing many races from consideration takes out much of the margin for error. I would say a guy could come into a race in sub-2:17 shape, and if he doesn't have the best of days or catches a crappy weather day (like Grandmas and Chicago this year), he might not qualify. Then, because there are fewer eligible races now (especially with fields that will give you help running sub-2:19), it becomes more difficult to find another race. In the past, if a guy was in 2:17 shape and had to battle the weather or a bad day, he might run 2-4 minutes slower than what he was capable of but would still qualify. Even if he didn't, he might could drop out and get in another race soon afterwards. Now that guy, even though he might be in 2:16-2:17 shape, better hope everything comes together just right on race day or he could be screwed. A lot can go wrong in a marathon, so a little margin for error helps even the guys who are not just trying to slip under 2:22.

"DAC" -- As I also said about 18 pages ago, men will now have conceivably 8-10 chances a year at the half-marathon standard.

And training for a sharp HM will presumably involve less volume than for a full marathon, so that's even a friend to the "amateur working family man local hero inspiration to all backbone of the sport reason Hall is so good and don't you dare dispute that assertion" types.

Expect the Philadelphia Distance run to be packed every September.

Good points by Joe McV as usual. There's a lot more to putting on a race than drawing a start and finish line and shooting the gun, and that increases exponentially w/ an event like the Trials.

To get back to the issue at hand, let's look at baseball as an analogy. MLB has a huge feeder system in the Minors, whose teams are stocked w/ 3 types of players: The MLBers of the future, those of the past ("has beens" on the way down, trying to hang on for one last chance at "the Show" - see any number of baseball movies), and "Wannabes," guys w/ some talent but who will never make the bigs, stalling out somewhere around AA ball.

Now, it takes all 3 types to make the Minors a viable concern, but it is only the first group that is of any interest/value to MLB. Basically what USATF is doing would be like baseball eliminating Single A or rookie league teams, figuring most of those players will never benefit the big clubs. So the more talented players would be able to make the AA rosters, and the rest would have to go find real jobs. That's essentially what the new standards do to the 2:20-2:22 guys - either make the 2:19 cut or get a life. My only fear is that some of those guys might be the 2:12-2:14 guys of the following Olympiad. Remember, the big the base, the higher you can build the pyramid.

USATF need look no farther than north across the border to see the possible danger in this philosophy. Canada (and New Zealand also) decided it would only send athletes who could be "competitive" in world events and so the 2nd & 3rd tier guys were ignored and that talent pool basically dried up, and now there's no fruit on the elite distance vine.

Idiots Running the Asylum wrote:

People used to care about running, and under the guidance of our fearless and ever so wise leaders, our great sport is now a sideshow event for skinny freaks.

What a joke.

When were fat people the best marathoners? Was this televised?

JIMG,

Good points. Is there any possible way this can be reversed? How long will Latimer be around? Is it possible he will be voted out and the new President can change it?

Joseph McVeigh -- For the reasons you and DAC stated, I would be willing to bet more than 50% of the '12 Trials competitors qualify with a sub-1:05 half marathon or sub-28:30 10k than a sub-2:19 marathon. I don't see how this is good for the development of marathoners.

This is an honest question, not a judgement: Do you really think a 2:20-2:22 marathon loses all value now that it's not an OT qualifier? Are groups like Hansons, Team Running USA, Zap, et al, going to shut the door on these guys and deny them support to get to the next level because USATF has shifted its OT standard? I think these development groups and teams, and more importantly the runners themselves, just have to find new stepping stones to get to the next level (to make the Brian Sell-like progression from 2:20 to 2:17 to 2:13 to 2:10). Maybe the 2:20 guys now focus on the USA Champs rather than the Trials. Maybe that becomes the "B" level championship. It would be great if USATF could offer more incentive to compete there. I just don't see how the Trials was and is the only carrot dangling out there for the 2:20-2:22 guys, and the only platform for them to make it to the next level. I know the Trials has been priority No. 1 for a lot of marathoners and a primary focus for a group like Hansons, but it's a single race in a 4-year span, and while an important one, does not disassemble the entire structure and progression of U.S. marathoning due to its new standard. Again, I'm not saying USATF made a flawless decision, but I'm curious to know if I'm the only one who thinks that maybe we're focusing a little too much on a single event.

Joseph McVeigh wrote:

"DAC" -- As I also said about 18 pages ago, men will now have conceivably 8-10 chances a year at the half-marathon standard.

So the best way to develop marathon talent is for guys to chase the Trials standard by running the half marathon time rather than competing at the full distance because the half marathon standard is easier??? That sounds like a wonderful idea to me! I really think this whole thing is bad for US Distance running, and I don't think anyone yet has provided a good reason why it's a good thing. The post that shot down every argument in favor of this change was excellent. Plain and simple this is a bad move by USATF. It's not the end of the world, but it certainly isn't a good thing either.

JimG, I am trying to follow your analogy. The USOTM is a minor league event?

There are a bunch of really good marathons in the US in which aspiring marathoners can cut their teeth. Not to mention 1/2 marathons that JAM has mentioned, and a bunch of USATF road champ events. If the goal is to get the US better at the marathon there are plenty of races in which those that are interested can get there.

? wrote:

JimG, I am trying to follow your analogy. The USOTM is a minor league event?

There are a bunch of really good marathons in the US in which aspiring marathoners can cut their teeth. Not to mention 1/2 marathons that JAM has mentioned, and a bunch of USATF road champ events. If the goal is to get the US better at the marathon there are plenty of races in which those that are interested can get there.

A 2:20-2:22 marathoner can't pay the bills training his butt off to do it...without the incentive, why? We can ba all noble and tell them they should chase their potential out of principle but get real. You should quit your job and dedicate your life to helping other people on principle too but it isn't going to happen because it's not realistic. So they don't, some with potential won't find it, and down we go.

If an organization can't handle 150 water bottles they shouldn't be running our sport on the national level. The Trials have had that many people or MORE before and somehow got it done just fine.

The word pathetic doesn't even begin to describe the weak argument that the size of the field needs to be reduced. While I might not have served as director for a race with the importance of the Olympic Trials, I have directed several races, and I wouldn't be the least bit worried if I were told I had to organize and event with 200 elite runners. I think the local running club in the podunk area I'm living in now could even pull that off. If you can't handle 200 runners, then you shouldn't even bid, much less win, the right to host the Olympic Trials.

At most, if you wanted to keep the "B" standard, then runners should only be allowed to qualify for the trials once with a "B" time. Thereafter, you must run an "A" standard to compete in a second, third, etc. OT race. In other words, no qualifying every four years with a time under 2:19 (the new standard). If the "B" standard is about developing and encouraging talent, then in turn, the talent should show progress in the years following their first OT race.

I think the 2:19 standard is a fine time, but I agree even more with the removal of the aided courses.

If people are crying about extra tables for water or having to pick people up at the airport make it an open race. Like I said, stick them in any road race in America. Give them a special elite startign line...whatever.

To think that people need their special drinks or to be pampered is nice but not necessary. At the olympics there is no special drink table, the have sealed water bottles the have to open themselves. Do the same thing!

I have put on races myself and 130 is a cakewalk.

Here is a plan wrote:

At most, if you wanted to keep the "B" standard, then runners should only be allowed to qualify for the trials once with a "B" time. Thereafter, you must run an "A" standard to compete in a second, third, etc. OT race. In other words, no qualifying every four years with a time under 2:19 (the new standard). If the "B" standard is about developing and encouraging talent, then in turn, the talent should show progress in the years following their first OT race.

I think the 2:19 standard is a fine time, but I agree even more with the removal of the aided courses.

Great Post. I think that guys that have run several Trials as "b" guys have proven that they are not in the sport for DEVELOPMENT. These 2:20 guys, are the same guys, that cry about Brian Sell or Nate Jenkins. If you have run more than one trials as a "B" guy, PLEASE SHUT UP.

I agree. If the goal is to qualify for the USOTM, then yes, changing the standard will put a crimp in that. If it is to see how good one can become, then no, it should not.

Also, I don't buy the slippery slope arguement that changing the standard will be the bane of US distance running. If a guy that misses his first chance at the trials but know that have 2:1x potential they are going to stick with it because the know that it is a long process.