Why don't we just turn it into a parade while we're at it.
Why don't we just turn it into a parade while we're at it.
I you are going to change the 1/2 Qs change to 1:05:30 and 1:16 . That keeps keep very close to the current time ratios.
I doubt anyone would like to see something like 1:05:28.44 and 1:15:56.84 set as standards.
USATF 2:18 and 2:43 were longer than the OGs standards of 2:17 and 2:42
should USATF make the new standards 2:20/!:06 and 2:46/1:16:30
Should a woodchuck just chuck it all and buy precut wood?
polevaultpower wrote:
The better question is did our IAAF Council member say anything about this at the Annual Meeting? I'll admit, I was tied up in L&L and missed the standards sub-committee meeting and the first half of Women's Track & Field, but I never heard anyone mention anything about this. This question should not be catching the National Office off guard.
I attended all women's LDR and joint LDR sessions and it was never mentioned, despite a lot of talk about the marathon trials.
Look at the NCAA basketball tournament. It's 68 teams where 60 have no shot at winning. Each school adds more interest, attendance and revenue to the event as a whole among other measures. The unexpected can occur where an unknown can make a dent. Each little benchmark is an accomplishment (ex. Sweet 16, Elite 8, Final 4). While on this subject, look at how many teams the NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA have added since their inceptions. There are several hundreds of athletes that wouldn't be in these leagues without this graduated expansion. Despite watering down the talent, interest has gained in the cities that they have expanded to. The sport of professional running needs EVERY SINGLE BIT OF INTEREST IT CAN GET.
Having roughly 200+ competitors allows the fastest marathoners in the country to measure up against each other. This creates an actual event and celebration of the sport itself. People against raising the standard are seeing this like a Boston marathon situation which it definitely isn't. There is a distinct difference between a 2:40 guy and a 2:18 guy.
From an organizer standpoint, why wouldn't you add a few dozen more athletes? You've already spent time with the logistics of shutting down city streets for several hours.
I think I found the arbitration case.
It was from 2008. It dealt with with a high jumper failed to get the Olympic standard by the date the USATF set. That year, the USATF did not allow people to chase the standard after the Olympic trials. It said you had to get the standard by the last day of the Trials, in this case it was July 6, 2008. A high jumper finished second, but did not have the standard.
The IAAF had a different set of dates to the get the olympic standard. Their final cut-off day was July 23, 2008 to get the standard.
The jumper got the standard after the trials but before the official cut-off set by the IAAF.
he went to arbitration to get on the team. One of his arguments is that the USATF impermissibly set different - more stringent standards than the IAAF. The arbitrator rejected his claim with respect to the date, but added this comment.
In this context, it seems clear that the drafters of Section 220522(a)(14) intended to cover serious aberrations from the international standard and not aberrations that may be immaterial. For example, USATF could not permissibly have set its “A†qualifying standard for the high jump at more than 2.30 meters, as that is a critical eligibility criterion.
This seem to address the question with the OLY trials.
Of course, I might misreading.
The case is here.
Let's Parade wrote:
Why don't we just turn it into a parade while we're at it.
I'll pay a few to run in costume to complete the parade.
Storefront churches and the homeless on the course won't know or care.
"I don't have a problem with letting more people run the marathon trials, but it's a little late to be changing the standard. I know a number of women that would very likely have been able to run the 2:45, but instead chased the 2:43, blew up in the last few milesand came in between 2:45 and 2:47. That's a rough break for them."
I tend to agree with this. In general I prefer lower standards and more runners at the Olympic Trials. But, I don't like the idea of adjusting standards after the fact. There were many runners going for 2:43 this past weekend at CIM who could have hit 2:45 but may have gone for the standard and blew up instead. Is this fair to them?
They've still got Houston
Being close but not close enough myself, I wouldn't want the standards loosened. My goal is to qualify, not to have qualification given to me. Put another way, my goal was to run 2:18; giving me a qualifying spot wouldn't make me feel any better about falling short, especially when 2:18 has been the goal for so long.
You say jump, athletes say "how high?". They don't say, "well, your expectation was too high to begin with, and those other guys only have to jump this high. Oh, thanks for changing your mind"
road rashed wrote:
Yes. Gain some much needed goodwill. And the 2:18 is much tougher than 2:43
Excatly. 2:17 was too much. 2:19 is about right.
2:43 is good, but 2:46 is way too easy. Look at the ratios of qualifiers.
A 2:46 qualifier has 0, ZERO, chance of competing with the finishers at 2:20-2:25. Never in a million years.
A 2:17 or 2:19 qualifier, however, could conceivably compete with the leaders with finishers at 2:08-2:12 (has happened recently). The odds aren't 0 like for the 2:45/2:46 finishers.
This is for the Olympics, not qualifying for Boston. The runners should be able to contend.
polevaultpower wrote:
I think it is older than that. They tend to copy and paste language from year to year. Bill Roe told me years ago (definitely before 2012) that USATF could not have an A standard tougher than the IAAF A standard because of the Amateur Sports Act. It's not just Olympic Trials, it applies to the World Championships too.
So yes, I'm confident that they will HAVE to accept any marathoner that hit the new IAAF standard, but I do not think they have any obligation to adjust the 1/2 marathon standard.
The better question is did our IAAF Council member say anything about this at the Annual Meeting? I'll admit, I was tied up in L&L and missed the standards sub-committee meeting and the first half of Women's Track & Field, but I never heard anyone mention anything about this. This question should not be catching the National Office off guard.
Weldon or Rojo, you should email Duffy and ask him. They've had a lot of turnover in staff, but I'm sure he knows all of the details about the history of this issue/the Amateur Sports Act.
To back up what Becca said, this is from the Ted Steven's Amateur Act:
36 U.S. Code § 220522 - Eligibility requirements
(14) does not have eligibility criteria related to amateur status or to participation in the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games, or the Pan-American Games that are more restrictive than those of the appropriate international sports federation; and
That is the Nieto case. I honestly think there is a different decision as well, but not sure. My fuzzy memory is that it involved a 100m runner.
andicamp wrote:
I don't have a problem with letting more people run the marathon trials, but it's a little late to be changing the standard. I know a number of women that would very likely have been able to run the 2:45, but instead chased the 2:43, blew up in the last few miles and came in between 2:45 and 2:47. That's a rough break for them.
This is also true for the men. Sage Canaday just ran a 2:19 at CIM after trying to hold sub 2:18 pace until very late in the race.
rojo wrote:
Be Faster wrote:What's the point of letting them in?
You could use that argument with the Olympics, but it's a stupid one. It's like saying we should cancel school for everyone but the potential valedictorian. Or cancel the NFL season for the Browns. Or cancel the Olympic marathon.
The Olympic marathon is special. So are the Trials. I'm shocked from a PR standpoing they wouldn't want more people. All of the participants have a story to tell to the local paper.
Oh come on, why did you have to bring the Browns into it?? Go Browns!!!
massagonist wrote:
Yes for the men. No for the women. Women's standard is too easy.
Too easy. Because with easy standards people who are "not that fast" can qualify, right? But didn't we just start a year-long thread about running times that are "way too fast", and how it is affecting not only groups of people without access to elite training (and according to some others, extra "aid"), but also the reputation of our sport?
I would like to invite you to elaborate on that "easy" statement, especially in times when the word "fast" has become tainted.
wineturtle wrote:
My position:
Adjust the standard for the Trials marathon to reflect the OG standard and leave the existing standard as is for entry via a 1/2 marathon time.
a tangent thought:
That 57% of the field will be testing themselves to find out if they can actually run a competitive marathon seems a bit high for a race that primarily is designed to select our OG Marathon Team.
done
BELIEVEland wrote:
Or cancel the NFL season for the Browns.Oh come on, why did you have to bring the Browns into it?? Go Browns!!!
If they killed the Browns season it would be classified as euthanasia
No, they don't. At this point, Houston is not accommodating anyone that did not enter awhile ago, even though the qualifying window was established specifically to include their race in the window.
road rashed wrote:
They've still got Houston
the nay sayer wrote:
No, they don't. At this point, Houston is not accommodating anyone that did not enter awhile ago, even though the qualifying window was established specifically to include their race in the window.
road rashed wrote:They've still got Houston
Not true. I coach a young lady in Dallas shut it down early at CIM. She was ready to call it a season and go into rest mode. We got the news about the change in standards while I was at a race this weekend where a member of the Houston staff was helping. He took her name and gave it to the Elite Coordinator and we were told to expect a call this week, getting her into the race.
GaryB wrote:
the nay sayer wrote:No, they don't. At this point, Houston is not accommodating anyone that did not enter awhile ago, even though the qualifying window was established specifically to include their race in the window.
Not true. I coach a young lady in Dallas shut it down early at CIM. She was ready to call it a season and go into rest mode. We got the news about the change in standards while I was at a race this weekend where a member of the Houston staff was helping. He took her name and gave it to the Elite Coordinator and we were told to expect a call this week, getting her into the race.
Just to follow up my runner just got the call from the Houston folks and she's in.