Changed Marathon Trials numbers

That's a fine point, but how many times has that happened? Also, if you're gonna make it just about the guys who appear to have a chance to make the team going into the race, then the standard needs to be at least 2:14 and we would line up a max of maybe 15 guys.

Here is a question for anyone.

If, as the arguement goes, that changing the standard will hurt the development of US distance running. Then the old standard must have been part of the reason for the current rise of US distance running.

How long has the 2:22 - 2:20 standard been in place?

Milton Friedman wrote:

What's lost in the discussion is how few guys actually ran sub-2:19 on "approved" courses during the '08 Trials qualifying window. I posted these stats a few days ago, but here they are again:

35 - sub-2:19:00 (the 2012 standard)

63 - 2:19-2:22

28 - downhill courses (not including Boston)

8 - 10k time

134 runners total

This is an excellent point. After doing a little looking, I'm gonna take it a step further. I know some of these guys may have gotten in under the half marathon standard, but just looking at how they actually qualified for the 2008 Trials, 10 of the top 30 finishers, so a third, would not have been in the race. 22 of the top 50 finishers would not have been in the race. If you remove those who qualified in Austin, then it's 14 of the top 30 finishers and 27 of the top 50 that would not have been in the race. Looks to me like the new standard could cause the 2012 field to have a lot less depth, and to me that's not good for the sport.

I can understand the point you are trying to make here, but you just can't convince me that the 2008 OT participants (especially those whose PBs are closer to the cut-off) would have run the same times in their qualifying marathons if they had had 2:19 as their goal as opposed to 2:22. You just have to consider that before using your list as hard evidence. Just my opinion.

But, someone such as yourself that has never run an A OR B mark is allowed to keep posting your drivel?

xyz wrote:

How would you feel if you where a runner with a real chance of making the team who got tangled up with a runner who had no chance? Or a lapped runner gets in your way when you are making a move!

The trials should be limited to only those athletes who have a realistic chance of making the Olympic Team. The purpose of the trials is to try and determine the best athletes that we can send to the Olympic Games.

The goal of the USOC is to win medals. Medals means more sponsorship, more money for the sports programs. This a fact of life.

You have never run a marathon have you? People don't tend to get "tangled up" in a marathon! And if you do... 26.2 miles is USUALLY a sufficient amount of time to untangle yourself.

This argument just sucks. There's no way around it.

Meb won the silver medal when the standard was 2:22. Ryan Hall is a gold medal contender and the standard was 2:22. Even better, a former 2:19-2:22 guy, Sell, made the Olympic team this year!

New Zealand and Canada have adopted your idea for high standards and their talent base is DESTROYED and they have NO locally developed contenders! (Canada now has Jon Browne, who jumped across the pond.) We know what your system accomplishes. Your system = failure.

Then we have the second part of your argument, which is embarrassing for me to read. You address the worries that kept Ritz tossing and turning in his sleep for months before the trials. "What if I lap a guy and he randomly lurches into me, trips me and I smash my knee on the street!?" "What if a crazed 2:22 marathoner tackles me at the start!? How could my training possibly prepare me to deal with these 'B' qualifier wackjobs!?" Hey, neither came even close to happening to anyone, but thanks for looking out for our top guys.

In fact, the only notable person who I can remember that got "tangled up" with a non contender on the way to a sure victory was when that Brazilian guy got attacked by the defrocked Irish priest at the Olympics! At the risk of judging a book by its cover, no way that nutbar had a 2:22 PR.

There still has yet to be a single coherent argument why this change was necessary. People in support of it here just want to bash 2:22 types, defend their buddies in the USATF, or defend the institution of the USATF. This reeks of a power trip to me.

Idiots Running the Asylum wrote:

There still has yet to be a single coherent argument why this change was necessary. People in support of it here just want to bash 2:22 types, defend their buddies in the USATF, or defend the institution of the USATF.

After 24 pages, this sentence summed it up perfectly.

Here is a plan wrote:

I can understand the point you are trying to make here, but you just can't convince me that the 2008 OT participants (especially those whose PBs are closer to the cut-off) would have run the same times in their qualifying marathons if they had had 2:19 as their goal as opposed to 2:22. You just have to consider that before using your list as hard evidence. Just my opinion.

I'm not sure I totally buy the argument that times are so closely related to goals. I'm guessing most people, particularly at that level, are like me. They train as hard as they possibly can, try to determine what shape they're in based on some indicators of fitness, and then set a goal for the race based on that. I had time standards to meet in college and those were "goals." However, not once did I say "I just need to run X so that's what I'm gonna train for." I trained to run as fast as I could with the hope that I would exceed the goal time not just barely meet it. I don't think any 2:18 or better guys are out there saying "Well, I only need to run 2:22 so that's all I'm gonna train for and I'll just run the first half in 1:10:30 even though 1:09 would be possible." If times and goals were so closely related, everybody would set really fast goals and then run really fast races. Too bad things like talent level, weather, and off days happen.

Some good points above, on both sides of the issue. I keep coming back to "The System Wasn't Broken!", however I do like the idea that you can only run as a "B" qualifier once.

Another point that came to mind related to this regarding publicity for our sport...When you think of the local newspapers, how often does Track/XC/Road Racing get any kind of coverage? You might get a little coverage for high school XC/Track or the occasional college meet writeup (usually supplied by the college's Sports Information department I would assume). If you have a big race in town the paper will cover it. A few papers have a running or fitness columnist that might occasionally cover our sport. On the whole I think we can agree that general media coverage of our sport is minimal.

However, get a local runner into the Olympic Trials and you are guaranteed at least a few articles; when they qualify, before the trials, and after the race. Less qualifiers means less chance someone from your area qualifies which means less coverage for our sport at the grass roots level.

I generally agree with your points McV but I just can't agree when it comes to this one. You're talking about the governing body that is supposed to set the standard for how these races are run. If they can't figure out a way to run a race with 130 or even 200 runners, with a 1.2 million dollar budget (or whatever they spent this time) they have no business running the sport.

Think about this, for instance: if the length of the criterium course is critical to ease the placement of water stops, shouldn't that be one of the specifications for the bidding city? You tell the bidder they have to come up with a course that is X.XX miles long + or - some margin of error.

All the pampering at the airport and getting to the hotel seems blown out of proportion here. My god, how difficult is it to grab a cab? And most hotels have an airport shuttle. Why does anyone, even Hall, need someone at the airport to help him get across town? I travel for a living and I can tell you that the one thing I hate is when I have a special shuttle or limo waiting. The majority of the time something gets screwed up and if your bags are delayed you're all stressed out wondering if the guy is going to wait. It is so much more simple to just get a cab. They are always there waiting for the next fare, and they all know their way around town.

Hotel space can be arranged way ahead of time and any hotel would be thrilled to be booked out on a particular weekend two years in advance (assuming they chose the location that far out). Going back to my last point, said hotel would probably go out of their way to make sure there was always a shuttle within 15 minutes of the airport.

So in summary, if the USATF is telling America's marathoners it is "time to step it up", we should say the same thing to them. Step it up. Putting on a 65 person race with a million dollar budget is not an elite performance. We want to see you do better.

JMoore wrote:

I'm not sure I totally buy the argument that times are so closely related to goals.

That's the problem. Wimps like you have it all wrong. The only reason US Distance running sucks is we don't set our goals high enough. We have to raise the bar. The only reason Brian Sell hasn't run 2:06 is because he's been training for a weak sub-2:10. If he hadn't stuck to his plan of running 5:00 miles in NY because that was his "goal," he would have been up there with Ryan Hall. So would a bunch of other guys. What USATF should have done is set the time at 2:08:00. That way pansies like Ritz, Meb, Abdi, etc. would have to man up and run a time that could be competitive on a world stage. Jeez what a bunch of wussies.

You are the f***head of the day.

Just like Canada and New Zealand, you mean? Similarly, we should adopt the government of the Congo, the environmental policy of China, and the legal system of the Sudan.

Idiots Running the Asylum wrote:

There still has yet to be a single coherent argument why this change was necessary. People in support of it here just want to bash 2:22 types, defend their buddies in the USATF, or defend the institution of the USATF.

We have a winner wrote:

After 24 pages, this sentence summed it up perfectly.

Likewise there has yet to be a single coherent argument why 2:19 or better only on non-aided courses is bad for anyone besides 2:22 marathoners

Good discussion. But the thread appears to be going around in circles

Obviously posters on both sides of the issue are passionate about their views.

There are many directions that we could go with this -

USATF could take a hard line and adopt the standards of the IAAF for the Olympics:

http://iaaf.org/statistics/standards/xml=beijing_2008/index.html

.

Their "A" Standard is 2:15 and "B" is 2:18! With courses restricted to a separation not greater then 50% and a net drop greater then 1 meter/kilometer.

I believe that this is a little too restrictive for our program.

Presently USATF accepts times run on any Course regardless of the separation or drop.

A possible compromise:

Allow an athlete to qualify if he:

1. runs "A' standard sub 2:15 all expenses paid.

2. runs "B" standard sub 2:20 gets him in the race + room??

3. runs a half marathon sub 1:05

4. runs a 10K sub 28:00 - I might be off on this one and don't have the stats infront of me right now.

All of the above run on IAAF approved courses (50% sep & drop not greater then 1m/km)

or

5. Top 10 US finishers in selected marathons:

NY, Chicago, Boston, National Marathon Championship + others based on that races prize money, previous results, etc. A committee made up of experts can decide (hey Monti - you have time for this?). This will allow a runner to run and qualify in one of the major marathons even if the conditions are less then favorable.

Just some ideas.

David Katz

How about it's bad for the sport. Fewer participants = smaller races = smaller crowds = fewer fans.

realistic wrote:

Likewise there has yet to be a single coherent argument why 2:19 or better only on non-aided courses is bad for anyone besides 2:22 marathoners

With a more relaxed 2:22 B standard, the 2:16-2:18 guys have a greater incentive to put it all on the line, knowing they can have a bad day and still qualify for the Trials.

With a 2:19 standard, you're more likely to see 2:16-2:18 guys run more conservative races (i.e. hit the half in 1:09:15) just to make sure they qualify.

Also, if you're a 2:16-2:18 guy, why risk devoting 6 months to marathon training knowing a single bad day or poor weather could cause you to miss the new standard? You'll have plenty of opportunities to run sub-1:05 instead.

Milton Friedman wrote:

realistic wrote:

Likewise there has yet to be a single coherent argument why 2:19 or better only on non-aided courses is bad for anyone besides 2:22 marathoners

With a more relaxed 2:22 B standard, the 2:16-2:18 guys have a greater incentive to put it all on the line, knowing they can have a bad day and still qualify for the Trials.

With a 2:19 standard, you're more likely to see 2:16-2:18 guys run more conservative races (i.e. hit the half in 1:09:15) just to make sure they qualify.

Also, if you're a 2:16-2:18 guy, why risk devoting 6 months to marathon training knowing a single bad day or poor weather could cause you to miss the new standard? You'll have plenty of opportunities to run sub-1:05 instead.

Bull. If you are a 2:16 to 2:18 guy you have zero chance of doing anything besides running 2:16-2:18 unless you at some point put it on the line. its not like you get only one chance to run a qualifying race. you have many opportunities. i would much rather see a proven sub 2:12 guy going to the olympics on a performance in which he held back than some guy who just ran the race of his life to get 2:12.

if that is your attitude towards that level of racing than the sad fact is that good as you are, you do not belong in the same race with the rest of them. as someone already pointed out before, there have been times in the past when that was the standard and the country was just fine.

the only people hurt by this decision are the people who have absolutely zero chance of medaling in the olympics for which the trials will be run.