Womens Oly Trials Marathon Standards

Look, if there are a lot of guys out there feeling cheated by the fact that the women's B standard is 2:46, I have a solution:

From this moment forward, all men running 2:19:01-2:26:00 may consider yourselves "B" standard national-level marathon runners. You probably rank somewhere between 60th and 200th in the country in your event. A tremendous achievement.

If your gender had been racing at the Olympics for less than 25 years, we would be actively encouraging all of you to come and toe the line with the true Olympic hopefuls at the Olympic trials, in order to promote your sport and generate enthusiasm. However, this is not the case.

But still remember that you are critical elements of the national marathoning scene. You guys can win or at least contend at pretty much any marathon in the country that does not recruit from overseas. We want to see you guys in there battling the local Kenyans at races like Philly, Hartford, richmond, etc.

You are also encouraged to join groups like the Hansons, who are famous for taking guys like you and turning them into 2:10-2:15 guys. As far as I know, their standards for acceptance into the program have not changed based on the elimination of the men's "B" standard.

I honestly feel that what I've posted above reflects the thinking of USATF. The reason they implemented a "B" standard over the past decade was that men's marathoning was in a bit of a disastrous state, and they needed to find perks to encourage more guys to go after it, without costing themselves a fortune in flying guys out to the trials. Now the problem has been solved so they've gotten rid of the "B" standard; admittedly that logic is perhaps questionable, but their logic should not affect how you guys pursue your training.

Bottom line: you're still the "B" tier. Being invited to the trials doesn't make you part of the "A" tier, nor does not being invited to the trials cast you into oblivion.

Look at it this way: in 2007 most of you felt obligated to run at the trials and get yourselves whooped. In 2011 y'all can dominate the regional fall marathons and win some cash, while the "A" guys are getting ready for the trials.

As for people who say that 2:14-2:18 guys and 2:30-2:38 girls don't belong at the trials, I think given that these people would be easy picks for Olympic teams in many countries in the world means they ought to have a shot to run for ours.

For me making the US Trials was my Olympics if you will, and for most B standard runners it is likely the same, if I dare speak for any of them.

Most of us know that we are not vying for a spot on the Oly Team but making the Trials is often the culmination of years of hard work and even a pinnacle of one's running career.

I came over to the US when I was a teenager and became a US citizen in my late 20s, why? partly because of something you "Yanks" refer to as the American Dream.

That is what is so unusual and even great and perhaps in some instances unfair ( unfair if a faster runner is bumped off the team by not being healthy on the day), about our Trials process.

Forgive the run on sentence I am sure some Letsrun nerd will correct me :O)

Oh and Happy New Year to those reading this thread, I am still dreaming the dream!

Who has said that on this thread?

dont you wish you could run a wrote:

As for people who say that 2:14-2:18 guys and 2:30-2:38 girls don't belong at the trials, I think given that these people would be easy picks for Olympic teams in many countries in the world means they ought to have a shot to run for ours.

I guess I stand corrected. On another note, does anybody know the window for the men's qualifying standard? Is it the same as the women's? Any guesses?

Woman's Trial standard is soft BUT it promotes the good marathon runners to train hard, participate in an event and give them a chance to be great and inspire motivation to continue to train at a high level. This will increase the depth and performance of women's marathon running in the USA.

The Men's standard is tougher. Remember Brian Sell qualified with a 2:20. If he didn't make the trails in 04 would he have even continued running?

It will be interesting to see how many men will qualify with the new standard.

For someone who concedes that he doesn't know the "motives" of men who describe the women's trials standard to be "exceptionally soft," you seem remarkably casual about imputing "hate" to "anger" to me based upon my description of the women's trials standards as "exceptionally soft."

Regarding the the 2:22 and 2:47 standards for the 2008 trials: I considered them both to be too soft, and I think that the change to 2:19 for the men is appropriate. (More important to me was the elimination of some of the sillier downhill courses, since I believe that using downhill times to inflate achievements goes to the integrity of the sport. I don't think that the new standard for aided courses goes far enough, but it's a start.) They are not, however, equally soft. If you think that 2:47 for a woman is comparable to a 2:22 for a man, you're terribly misinformed. Even if there were almost as many men qualifying with a sub-2:22 as there were women qualifying with a sub-2:47, it doesn't follow that the two standards are equally soft. To a large extent, there is a certain subset of runners who have the goal of qualifying for the Olympic trials, and they will adjust their training and racing to meet the minimum standard for entry. If you were to reset the women's standard five minutes up or down, it's unlikely that the number of qualifiers would change dramatically (although it would certainly change). On the other hand, if you were to adjust the men's standard five minutes up or down, you would see a large change in the number of qualifiers, in part because the men's standards are closer to the practical limits of many of those trials hopefuls.

You've totally missed the point of my statement that a 2:40 standard might increase not only the number of sub-2:40 women, but perhaps also the number of sub-2:30 women. In general, when you increase the number of competitors at one level, you also get an increase in the number of competitors at a somewhat higher level, although the effects are obviously somewhat more attentuated. Whether and to what extent a 2:40 standard might generate more sub-2:30 competitors among U.S. women, I have no idea.

Finally, regarding the notion that I'm "angry," "mad," or a "hater": These matters have very little effect on me. I ran in the Olympic trials a long time ago, and have no desire to lead that kind of life now. Besides, no one who is my age is going to qualify for the Olympic trials anyway(except perhaps in the women's marathon, where is the standard is exceptionally soft). I suppose you can speculate about my "motives" for voicing my opinions about this subject, but I think that we can have a more civil and honest discussion if we focus on the truth or validity of various propositions and arguments, rather than the psychological states of their proponents and expositors.

Avocados Number, you ran in the OT marathon? What year? What is your marathon PR?

I'm not sure the argument comes down to haters and non-haters. Just because someone questions the worthiness of the Women's Olympic Trials qualifying standard it doesn't automatically make them a charter member of the He Man's Women Haters Club. The same could be said for supporters of the current standard which, I presume, would qualify them as women libbers.I agree with a lot of the posters who support the soft standard (I'm with AN in that it would be very tough to argue that 2:46 is anything but soft - so far none have succeeded) because it allows for larger numbers and supplies a seemingly endless array of human interest stories and potential for a runaway dark horse. Boston most certainly had an Oprah-esque feel good quality to it. So as far as raising public interest the standard was about right.It is easy to see why this causes angst amongst others. They clearly do not want the Olympic Trials to be about inclusiveness, human interest stories or Oprah. It should be hard to get into and even harder to make the team. While this mindset may satisfy the purest amongst us it would certainly come at a cost, namely, a collective ho-hum from the general populace.For me the standard needs to meet the following test; does the current standard rise to USA Olympic Standards as compared to other sports? I’m guessing that when compared to USA women’s swimming the women’s marathon standard is a cakewalk, compared to fencing they must seem pretty tough.Which leads me to the following conclusion …leave it as is; supporters - don’t try to justify it as tough, detractors - just recognize that it is serving its purpose in growing the sport and aim your angst towards the men’s curling standards.

airbear wrote:

I guess this makes you haters mad, for some reason. Why? Obviously the men's and women's committees have different objectives for their races. And why not? Men have been running competitive marathons since the beginning of the modern Olympic Games; women have been running competitive marathons in the Olympics since 1984. It makes sense for the women's race to be more inclusive until such a time that we have more runners who are capable of running within x minutes of the winner, or the American record, or the world record, or whatever standard you are using for comparison.

The Truth BLASTER wrote:

Remember Brian Sell qualified with a 2:20. If he didn't make the trails in 04 would he have even continued running?

Why would you presume that Sell wouldn't have been at the trials in '04? That seems pretty stupid to me.

Jefe in the CO wrote:

I'm not sure the argument comes down to haters and non-haters.

Just because someone questions the worthiness of the Women's Olympic Trials qualifying standard it doesn't automatically make them a charter member of the He Man's Women Haters Club. The same could be said for supporters of the current standard which, I presume, would qualify them as women libbers.

Those on either side who say "it's too soft!" or "it's not too soft!" and little else set themselves up for that. Give a RATIONAL BASIS IN FACT for your claim or you and your opinion will rightfully be disrespected and dismissed. Why, exactly, is the standard too soft and why should it be tightened? Why, exactly, is the standard appropriate? All this hot air on this thread and so frikking little substance.

The Truth BLASTER wrote:

Avocados Number, you ran in the OT marathon? What year? What is your marathon PR?

I mentioned it only because a number of posters were suggesting that men who "complain" about the soft standard for the women's Olympic marathon trials are just angry about having to meet a tougher standard to get into the trials. My PR was fast enough to qualify me for any of the Olympic trials, including 2012, and was not fast enough to get me on the Olympic team. Those who choose to speculate about the "motives" of other posters can use that information however they choose, although I would prefer that we confine our discussion to the merits of the issue at hand.

I will, however, acknowledge that my own history might leave me biased in favor of a standard, for both men and women, that doesn't debase the "brand" of the Olympic trials. I've tried to be sensitive about that bias as I've thought about appropriate Olympic trials standards for both the men's and the women's marathon. I recognize that any standard is likely to have a somewhat arbitrary quality, especially since the marathon trials lack some of the physical constraints that warrant relatively small fields in the Olympic trials for the various track events. But I also think that one can arrive at a standard that takes into account some of the reasons that I and others have mentioned for a relatively accommodating standard for the marathon trials, while also not allowing that standard to debase the "brand" of the Olympic trials, which is generally understood to be for the selection of the Olympic team, not to get together a bunch of pretty good athletes for a race or a parade. I think that the current men's standard is about right (although I would toughen the half-marathon alternative standard and would limit the qualifying courses to those that the IAAF considers either record-quality or worthy of producing Olympic qualifying times), but I believe that the women's standard is overinclusive.

When I used the term "exceptionally soft" in describing the women's marathon trials standard, I meant exceptionally soft when compared with the trials standards of other athletics events (except, perhaps, the walking events, about which I know little). Obviously, 2:46 would be an exceptionally stringent standard for other purposes, such as qualifying for the Boston marathon.

Avocados Number wrote:

I recognize that any standard is likely to have a somewhat arbitrary quality, especially since the marathon trials lack some of the physical constraints that warrant relatively small fields in the Olympic trials for the various track events.

When I used the term "exceptionally soft" in describing the women's marathon trials standard, I meant exceptionally soft when compared with the trials standards of other athletics events (except, perhaps, the walking events, about which I know little).

If we look at the usatf declarations from last year and the times listed for "B" qualification.

Mens:

So by races from last year, we'd see 45ish qualify (not looking at 10k qualifiers) on the men's side. We'll estimate that some of those 2:19-2:21 (~40) guys drop down with extra incentive, and we get an even 60 for the race (rate of 37.5%).

45 + estimate of drop down (15)= 60 for the race

http://www.usatf.org/events/2008/OlympicTrials-Marathon-Men/entry/status.asp

Womens:

~ 116 under or at 2:46

How many in the range of 2:46-2:47 ~ 30

estimate for 2 min range of 2:46-2:48 ~ 60

drop down rate of 37.5%= 22

116 + estimate of drop down (22)= 138 for the race

http://www.usatf.org/events/2008/OlympicTrials-Marathon-Women/entry/status.asp

Is the state of US women's and men's marathoning really represented by this? There were already less men than women in the races. I agree that it's highly unlikely that someone out of the B can be a serious contender...and I think of the trials as the greatest "t-shirt race" of all for a sub-elite runner. However, it shows here that the USATF values the experience for the sub-elite female much more than the sub-elite male.

I would like to remind you that Magdalena Lewy Boulet made it to the trials off the "B" standard...yeah...those B standard runners are in no contention for the win. Oh wait...

dunno wrote:

However, it shows here that the USATF values the experience for the sub-elite female much more than the sub-elite male.

Foolish conclusion, given that USATF MLDR and WLDR have made it pretty clear that the standards have to do with desired field sizes for each race and little else. Nobody's really concerned with anyone's "experience," the sub-elites are just being tossed a bone for how they help to fulfill the goal field size.

It has nothing to do with field size. I have sat through both mens and womens LDR meetings and can tell you it is a difference in philosophy.

I happen to agree with the women. There have been zero 2:47 marathoners that got in the way of the eventual Olympians but several 2:47 marathoners that added to the event. I will be willing to bet that Joannie signed more autographs than anyone else in the field. i also believe that the 2:47 types bring more people into the city and spend more money than the Olympians.

The event is supposed to pick our Olympians but also can accomplish so much more. It can serve as a celebration of our sport.

Men were outraged last year when MLDR made the decision to drop the B Standard. "It is bad for development blah blah blah"

The women agree with you and made the decision to keep the B standard but make it a minute tougher.

That is exactly what most MEN thought would be a good idea.

60 year old in February wrote:

That is exactly what most MEN thought would be a good idea.

Well, most men whose PRs were in the 2:19 to 2:29 range. They were hardly a disinterested group and, from what I could discern, were also the most vocal participants in the debate. As I recall, faster runners -- although much less vocal -- tended to have a different opinion. Of course, the MLDR did, too.

I don't think that I'm being insensitive to the points that others have made in favor of a more inclusive standard. Over the years, some have even suggested that the trials have no time standard at all, precisely because they thought it would be a wonderful "celebration of our sport." I do agree with those who say that, if we're going to have any standards for the trials -- whether those standards are 2:46, 2:40, 2:22, 2:19, or four hours -- we should be able to articulate the reasons for having those standards. I've suggested, without a great deal of elaboration, some of my own reasons for setting the standards approximately where they are on the men's side and significantly tougher than they are on the women's side, and I haven't heard anything that's caused me to change my mind.

As for the anecdote about Joanie at the 2008 trials, I don't think that the best way to bring in great runners of the past is to relax the standard. In 1992, the men's trials gave former Olympic marathoners automatic spots in the trials, and also paid for those who wanted to attend but didn't want to run the race. Although I can't say that I approved of the idea -- in fact, I always believed that it was motivated primarily by the desire to get Al Salazar into the race without a qualifier -- it did bring in guys like Al, Tony Sandoval, Benji Durden, and Kyle Heffner (who all ran the race), along with old-timers like Buddy Edelen and Ron Daws. (Shorter was there, too, but I think that he required more than a free ticket and hotel room to make the trip.) My point is simply that great runners of the past can be brought in, either as observers or participants, without relaxing the standards for everyone else.

One other thing: I haven't talked about "A" and "B" standards (which, I believe, were introduced into the mix in 1996), because I don't think that there should be different standards based on one's financial contribution to the cost of the trials. Pay for everyone or no one, or just let all of the runners bear more of the cost than the fully-subsidized (or "A") qualifiers have in the past. (I suppose you could have need-based exceptions, although I doubt they'd really be necessary.) Automatic and provisional standards, as in the track and field events, are a different matter, and could be used if the field of automatic qualifiers doesn't reach a fairly low minimum number.

My point of view is this: The point of the trials is to pick our team. If someone can't make the A or B standards for the games, then they can't go regardless of their performance at the trials. Therefore, the A and B standards for the trials ought to be the A and B standards for the games.

In response to the argument that we need lots of qualifiers to help sell the sport I say this:

1. The articles and resulting fame achieved by the local champion who makes the trials are short and small respectively. Also, I think what people remember is "that that guy down the street got spanked when he went to the trials, I guess he wasn't that good after all"

2. I think that there's a lot of negative publicity that comes from runners finishing in the top three at the trials but not in possession of the Olympic standard. When this happens, the average Joe watching on TV just thinks 'what the hell was the trials for anyway'? Back in the day we could set qualifying standards for the trials based on field size and little else (in the marathon it used to be that the standard was based on the 100th fastest time over some period ) because the problem of getting into the games based on time didn't exist.

3. I agree that setting tougher standards does improve performance. So let's set really tough standards.

And, FYI: I make this argument as a former 2:19-2:29 guy myself.

60 year old in February wrote:

It has nothing to do with field size. I have sat through both mens and womens LDR meetings and can tell you it is a difference in philosophy.

Do go on.