Changed Marathon Trials numbers

lets just make the standard 2:10 and we can have a five person marathon. wouldnt that be fun!

God forbid you should understand the meaning of the word elitist. (hint: it encompasses more than just supporting the elite and encouraging them to get better).

No, make it 2:50 just like the old Boston standard, then we can have 2000 people jumbling up the multi-loop course.

If you'd watched the OT coverage then you'd know that, really, outside of the top 30 or so qualifiers nobody contributed to the actual race for the top 3. Suggesting that the field be whittled down further from USATF's stated goal doesn't present any logical refutation of said goal. Some guys got to run at the OT because the sport has been weak and the powers that be have been charitable to them. Be happy for them and stop whining about how a stronger sport is leaving your butt behind.

I do understand it, silly.

This is complete bullshit..... This is completely going to destroy the upswing we have for distance running in the United States. In order to improve distance running we need to improve things from the bottom up. By having 300 people qualify for the trials would be much better than 50. As a decent college runner, I have a dream to someday make it to the Olympic Trials in the marathon & this really sucks. A 3 minute gap in the marathon is big. If you are saying you shouldn't even be there if you can't run a 2:19- I say f*** you. Get off your high horse & realize that the 2:18-2:22 crowd is an amazing group of individuals. These people are blue collar & deserve getting a chance to run at the trials.

They really need to rethink this. If they want to save so much money- why not lower the A stardard to 2:19, heck 2:18. Most of the guys that run slower than that work full time doing something other than running & can afford paying for the race. Jack up the B qualifiers entry fee to $75-$100. If it is that much of a "hassle" for the race directors to put on a race for 200-300 people- come talk to me- I am a college student taking 18 credit hours during the school year, work full time during the summer, run 80-110 miles a week & put on a pretty decent road race. That is a crock. I challenge the USATF to figure out a way how to work this out themselves... Get some input from the entire running community instead of a bunch of fat cats in Hawaii making igorant decisions in the best interest for a few people that it doesn't even really affect.

A slight change to a race that happens but once every four years is allegedly going to "completely" "destroy" the marathon revival? Why can't you pursue other running dreams without the OT? Many, many other runners have and do. I agree that 2:18-2:22 is highly commendable, but that doesn't mean that they should necessarily be at the OT. Times change, deal with it man. Don't be surprised if you "challenge" fails to motivate USATF to reconsider.

This would have left Steve Sundell out of the trials. He qualified with a 2:20, but went on to run 2:16 at the trials and finished 15th.

Is this by any chance a result of the uproar on letsrun over fueling for B qualifiers? Perhaps they decided that the 2:19-2:22 guys were more trouble than they are worth and caused too much drama over fluids.

Are they paying admission? wrote:

So you're saying that there'd only be "a few people around to watch" if the 20 per B qualifier weren't there to cheer on their pet runner?

I'm saying you're the only one here who sees no value in having more spectators at the trials.

My #1 problem with the change is USATF seems to make a lot of decisions without consulting the athletes themselves. They did the same thing with moving the Trials Marathon to the fall. Sure they'll say they have their "committees" and athletes have input on them but as a (former) elite athlete myself and operator of the main website for elite athletes, no one from USTAF tried to get the word out that these things were up for change. I think that is a major mistake. With any change you need to solicit input from your constituents and that includes the elite athletes themselves.

As for the changed standard I was generally thinking that they would get lowered (I remember having a discussion with someone whether the standard should be set at the women's AR). But as others point out there are a lot of trickle down affects to the Trials standards. Brian Sell doesn't qualify in his first marathon so perhaps he doesn't make the team this time around. Trent Briney doesn't almost make the team in 2004 and I just realized I wouldn't have qualified in 2000. I had made the World Half Marathon team but got food poisoning and ran 2:19:5? at Chicago.

Not sure if I would have quit running but I wouldn't have moved to Flagstaff to train full time, etc. I just think a decision like this should be publicized beforehand for input. I haven't had much time to think about it as I just saw this but this was the first I had heard of it and that is my problem with it.

This doesn't surprise me much with people like Glenn Latimer and Jim Estes having a influential say in the matter.

The 10 or so times I have met them (I am an athlete), left me disappointed they had the jobs they did. I don't want to say too much disrespectful stuff on a message board. Those two would probably be great in different careers, but why would they even want these jobs. They never gave me the impression they cared, that is fine, but not for the positions they hold.

cougarrunner wrote:

This is complete bullshit..... This is completely going to destroy the upswing we have for distance running in the United States.

If you guys are going to spout such nonsense, you should at least provide some evidence to back up your statements. The evidence that I've seen indicates just the opposite.

As far as I can tell, most of the complainers are just guys who think that they might be able to run a legitimate 2:22, but doubt that they can run a legitimate 2:19. Well, guess what? When standards are tightened for anything -- school admissions and graduations, professions, varsity athletics, whatever -- some people get left out or left behind. That's life.

In this case, the 2012 standard basically just returns to the standard that was in place 28 years earlier. In the interim, the rest of the world has gotten a lot faster in all of the distance events. The U.S. marathon trials standard will still be relatively soft, just not as soft as it has been in recent Olympic cycles. I think that the new trials standards (both time and course standards) seem to be a pretty reasonable compromise, and give everyone (runners and race directors) plenty of time to adjust plans and expectations. I still want to see the final list of qualifying races, though. I would be disappointed to see only the really extreme races like St. George get cut, while significantly aided courses like Cal Int'l make the cut merely because they're popular races with net elevation drops similar to the net elevation drop of Boston. It would be nice to see U.S. course standards approach, if not precisely mirror, international standards.

Standards are tighter for school admissions because facilities and staff are limited and only a certain number of students can be served at any given institution. If this is the analogy you want to use, it would be like Harvard saying that they're going to only going to accept 20% as many students as last year, so that everyone will have to keep working harder to make it.

2:22 is still extremely difficult. I bet that for every runner under 2:22, there were 10 more dreamers who trained their asses off, trying to chase the standard. I know many such dreamers myself. Many of them never had a chance, but it's still good for US distance running that they're trying.

This much is certain: if the standard becomes 2:19, there will be fewer people in this country who are training seriously after college. I can't possibly imagine how this is good thing.

This is f***ing bullshit. 3 minutes is alot of f***ing time, too f***ing much in the marathon. This makes me feel so sick. I could give a f*** about everyone saying the the trials should not be a runner's ultimate goal. Well, they were MY ultimate goal and I just took a giant step backwards because of some f***ing bad decision. People complained about US marathoning, people listened, and runners stepped up. 2000 had a winner of 2:15+, at the 2008 race there were like 20 qualifyers that qualified with under that time. I don't want to run in f***ing London, and I never gave a f*** about being one of the best. I just wanted to run a goddamn 2:21:59 and move on with my life, having accomplished a serious goal in my life. f*** THIS!

800 dude wrote:

This much is certain: if the standard becomes 2:19, there will be fewer people in this country who are training seriously after college. I can't possibly imagine how this is good thing.

How can you possibly say that it's "certain"? When the standards were tougher, a lot more guys trained "seriously" after college.

As I said earlier, the evidence suggests precisely the opposite of what you're saying. Faster trials qualifying times seem to have produced more, not fewer, fast runners.

I suspect that the same is true of Boston, the other U.S. marathon that, at least nominally, has qualifying standards. When the standard was 2:50, lots of guys trained fairly seriously to qualify for Boston. Now, nobody trains "seriously" to qualify for Boston, because the standards don't demand it.

As a final, somewhat philosophical observation: I'm pretty sure that most 2:30 marathoners would be better off spending more time "training" to be good husbands, fathers, doctors, teachers, and so on, and less time training to qualify for the Olympic trials. So let's not pretend that it would be so horrible to have fewer post-collegiate men chasing their athletic dreams with 120-mile weeks instead of moving on with life.

800 dude wrote:

As a final, somewhat philosophical observation: I'm pretty sure that most 2:30 marathoners would be better off spending more time "training" to be good husbands, fathers, doctors, teachers, and so on, and less time training to qualify for the Olympic trials. So let's not pretend that it would be so horrible to have fewer post-collegiate men chasing their athletic dreams with 120-mile weeks instead of moving on with life.

I'm constantly amazed by the sentiment on this board that one should either be an elite runner or give up running at the highest competitive level that he or she can. What's wrong with someone giving their all to running. Many of us in our twenties are far, far from having a family and kids. And when I'm eighty years old, what's to say I won't look back more fondly on having trained my hardest to see what my body and mind are capable of than on having worked harder and made more money.

I respect the new standard, but the Olympic Trials were a hell of a goal for me. One I may never have reached at 2:22, and that is certainly not the only thing keeping me training, but it was one concrete thing. Without that, what do I have: chasing PRs, winning races, none of which are a certifiable accomplishment in the way "Olympic Trials Qualifier" is.

The reason many of us place so much importance on the OT is that in college, we had lots of these concrete sorts of goals. Nationals Qualifier, All-American, Conference champion, school records, etc. These goals were attainable by runners in all divisions, all schools. You or I may not have had a chance to achieve some of them, but they kept us going. After college, for all but the very elite, easily under 100 people in the country, the Olympic Trials is just about the only such goal available.

That's why this decision sucks.

wejo wrote:

My #1 problem with the change is USATF seems to make a lot of decisions without consulting the athletes themselves. They did the same thing with moving the Trials Marathon to the fall. Sure they'll say they have their "committees" and athletes have input on them but as a (former) elite athlete myself and operator of the main website for elite athletes, no one from USTAF tried to get the word out that these things were up for change. I think that is a major mistake. With any change you need to solicit input from your constituents and that includes the elite athletes themselves.

I don't think USATF has any responsibilty to alert the media (Letsrun.com) when they are considering what the standards for their championships need to be.

The committee that made this decision is below. That info is online so we know who we're supposed to contact and if they aren't contact us then that's on them. It looks like a lot of athletes were on there, including Clint Verran, so if the athletes were not heard those are the guys you need to slam.

Executive Committee

Chair: Glenn Latimer

Vice Chair: Keith Dowling

Secretary: Mark Winitz

Treasurer: Philip Greenwald

Daniel Browne

Fasil Bizuneh

David Coyne

Matthew Gonzales

Ian Dobson

Creigh Kelley

Matthew Gabrielson

Max King

Allan Steinfeld

David Martin PhD

George Regan

Robert Sevene

Tomy Sitton

Matt Tegenkamp

Clint Verran

Justin Young

Anyway, 720 guys (at least) ran 2:19 or better in the world so far this year. It seems like it is a standard a lot of people can run around the world so why not here? Maybe the change wasn't needed. I don't really think holding out the 2:19-2:22 guys does anything to improve the event. But it does look like 2:19 is a reasonable standard. Maybe the 2:19-2:22 guys will run faster because the challenge is greater? Time will tell but I bet we will end up with more sub 2:19 guys because that is now the new 2:22. Didn't Pete Julian say 27:43 is the new 28:30 for 10K? Times change in a lot of ways.

I was one of the 1st people to post on this thread way

back on page one and....Well after reading every single

post up to this point, I've had a slight change of

emotions. I'm not sooo mad and disappointed anymore, but

more determined to work hard for the next 4 or 8 years

(I'll only be 30 in 8 years) and try to get this standard

down. I know its gonna be one really really hard goal, but

who knows even if i were to only run 2:20 and not make the

trials when all is said and done I think I would be more

satisfied than only running 2:22 and making the trials. So

its time to sack up, and commit to this selfish goal/dream

of mine! Lets go run!

Not sure why my post came out written like a poem or something. weird.

Clint Verran is currently in Mexico and he was a surprised as anyone else of this decision.