VALBY's 5k world ranking is LOWER than TUOHY

You are so small minded. How can you not see the obvious PAY TO PLAY where you need to spend big $$$$ just for a chance of qualifying? It can happened to unsponsored pro athletes in USA or any other country, especially countries that are poor. Suddenly who you know and how much money you have is more important than how fast you can run.

This qualifying benefits Tuohy for 2023 but can HURT TUOHY NEXT YEAR. Tuohy can get into the big meets but she currently has zero marks with the 2024 qualifying window. 14:52.00 is a big stretch for her even though she may be able to outkick all but 2 people at the Olympic Trials. She can finish in the top 3 and be left at home.

Please give your opinion who qualifies in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. Is it possible in those scenarios that Tuohy, even with the slower times, would get picked for the third spot, ahead of Valby, because Tuohy was running at the Armory while Valby ran at BU?

We are talking about a sport that is dominated by Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda etc., and you think pay to play is what is killing the sport? You dont need to spend big to qualify, run the standard and finish top 3 at USA's. Its very simple.

But again, please answer: what if USA’s is tactical, slower than the standard, 1st & 2nd have the Standard, but 3rd does not. Who will go in the 3rd spot? The next one in line that has the Standard, or the next one in-line that has a higher World Ranking?

Natosha rogers placed 3rd at usatf, finishing ahead of Schweizer in the 10k this year but did Not have the standard. (Only schweizer, monson and cranny had it). She went to Worlds...

Maybe that’s the answer to Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: it depends upon the final ranking of the third place finisher, which may not be determined until days after the race is finished.

A side question is whether the BU Valentine will get a 5000m pacing-setup for chasing the Oly Standard?

Will Millrose do the same?

If a paced 5000m is set up at the BU Valentine, should Valby grab that opportunity to try and get the OlyStandard, or instead run the 3k there because of its potential implications in NCAA Indoors qualification?

It depends how many people hit the auto standard because there is a max limit in each race at the Olympics. In the 10k for example, if 19 get the auto standard, and 8 are guaranteed based on XC rankings, then NO athletes will get in via world ranking because the max is 27.

After auto qualifiers, all remaining spots will be filled based solely on world ranking in exactly that order (with a limit of 3 per country). World Athletics will not prioritize who beat who at Olympic Trials. 4th place at the trials would get in above 3rd place if neither have the standard and if 4th has a higher world ranking. 10th place at trials would get in above 3rd place if 10th place has the highest world ranking among those without the auto standard.

It is uncertain if USATF might reject the entry of the 4th placer so that opening could go to the 3rd placer (but in theory that can only world if the 3rd placer is immediately behind the 4th placer in the world rankings). USATF always has a convoluted selection process and they never announce it until RIGHT BEFORE the trials. Just look at the controversy in the marathon.

It's almost GUARANTEED to happen in the javelin this year where we will likely have zero men with the auto standards and only 32 olympic spots. Last year Ethan Dabbs placed 14 at the USATF championships and got in via world ranking.

That's the correct summary. Power ratings don't move quickly. Fans have a screwed up fixation on recent results and fastest times. The math-based sources don't work that way.

I was impressed with another track and field forum recently and the all-time list at women's 400 hurdles. Muhammad was ranked first and Bol 10th. That was exactly correct. Even Bol fans in the thread were agreeing with it. She simply hasn't done enough.

Contrast to slop fans who would hear that question and immediately spit out Sydney first and Bol second based on time alone.

On a college football site in mid September I pointed out that if fans made the power ratings Colorado would be rated higher than Alabama. I thought I was offering an ultra absurdity and speaking to a rational bunch. Hardly many chimed in that Colorado should be rated above Alabama.

Depends on what the objective of the rating is, e.g. whether to rate a long standing body of work, or for purposes of speculating who likely wins a race scheduled in the near future.

The WA has made clear what the objective of the rating is. Who has the been the been the best and most consistent over the last 12 months. If you dont race often or dont race in meets that they rate highly then you dont get rewarded.

Clearly, running the 5k standard overwhelmingly trumps the ranking in importance.

Even if that is accomplished in a little meet at BU.

The Boss Babes have a big enough team where maybe they could prioritize one or more time-trial meets where they provide their pacing; pace lights optional.

An example would be Centro winning the Olympics in 3:50. That doesn't make him worse than 50 high school guys who ran faster that month.

How is Tuohy going to steal Olympic spots?? Norris is lower because she didn’t place high in her 15:01 and 15:04 races. she came in 16th!! in the London race. Sorry but she’s not a contender for any Olympic spot.

Why the disrespect of Norris? She has 4:21 mile speed, and run 14:43 in the past year. Currently, she should be considered the favorite, behind Monson and Cranny, to make the 5k team.

Not disrespect. Fact. She couldn’t duplicate anywhere close to that time after May. One good race a year doesn’t cut it. She is NOT right behind cranny and Monson. You have Henes, Roger’s as the top. Frerichs, Morgan and even Valby will give her major competition. She doesn’t compete well under pressure. And she’s not getting any younger.

True. Tuohy has no chance. The idea of this therad is good, to discuss the qualifying process but it ignites a lot of emotion by using two frequently discussed runners.