USATF just announced the women's 10,000 at the Olympic Trials will be a 2 section final - Good idea or not? I'm VERY much oppose

Fun fact: what you think it feel ultimately doesn't make any difference!

bad news bear wrote:

wejo wrote:

I think either 1 section pulling people when they get lapped is way to go. Or do 2 sections with anyone who wants to run in the fast section given the option and then pulling you when you get lapped.

As you all pointed out 48 people will be running 10ks in the NCAA regionals and it happens every year right?

It is FAR more disrespectful to those athletes to yank them off the track mid-race than it would be to make a slower 10k section. Imagine achieving your life long dream of making it to the trials in the 10k and then being told you can only run 6k of the race and you must appear as a DNF in the results.

It's also disrespectful to the front runners to have to deal with all the lapped runners, and they're the ones competing for an Olympic spot! Imagine finishing down the home straight kicking for an Olympic birth when a lapped runner steps in front of you in lane 2 or 3 right as you were about to swing outside your competitors? In this scenario we are literally looking at 20+ lapped runners likely, they are going to be all over the place if they run this thing in a single heat.

The other option is to run the second half in a super-alley like they do some high school 3200s, nothing says you're not really welcome here like running the entire race in lane 4.

This is exactly why the 10,000 and 5,000 shouldn't be on the track at all, or at least for most of the race. They could run these things as road races and have them finish on the track with 100 entrants each if they want. Or cross country races sound even better. The longest race on the track should be the 3,000 SC.

You could have different fixes to having too many competitors, but the split final is the absolute worst. In a real race, you shouldn't be racing against the clock or Wavelights or whatever, but against actual competitors who are on the track with you. Runners in the same race affect each other physically (drafting, blocking, jostling, etc.) and mentally. You just can't duplicate those effects by taking times from split finals.

Here's a little history:

They had 45 men in the 1956 Olympic trials, which supports Rojo's argument.

With prelims, they had 3 preliminary heats for the men in 10,000 in 1976 and 1984 (no women's event), and 2 heats for men and women in 1988, 1992, and 1996.

http://www.legacy.usatf.org/usatf/files/69/695a8112-b7a0-4b9d-9dbb-8b4bca22677c.pdf

I think the Olympics had heats in the 10,000 until 2000.

They're trying to avoid the rule about having more than 24 runners in the race, and maybe pulling lapped runners can't be done under the rules (not sure). But if you can't do either of those, at least have prelims. Anything but a split final!

David S wrote:

Agree it sucks for anyone in the B heat, especially if the B heat is run first. Assume that's going to be the case?

Maybe they could run the B heat second and let anyone in the B heat switch to the A heat if they want to?

I sincerely think there will be no one in the B heat with a shot, if they do it on times.

best solution:

1 heat

when you fall 300 meters behind (you are forced to drop out)

i select 300 instead of 400 because you don't want those about to get lapped sprinting etc to stay in and distracting the front runners.

this is simple

this is fair

this is the best solution

The split final is best because nobody in the slow heat will hit the Olympic standard. I guarantee it.

I’m super intrigued at what happens from calculating the curve from lane 4 and having half the field run the outside of the track. That would be really confusing and interesting to watch. I’m sure the race commentators would do a great job.

The other point about lapping from everyone. With 25+ in both races and the big qualifying window, there is almost certainly people who will be lapped in both races. I’ve never understood why we let them continue to race in lane 1 (or anywhere near lane 1) because they could have a huge impact in the final lap. How much screaming will happen in let’s run when a training partner cuts off the #3 runner to open the lane for her teammate? It is just asking for controversy to have people on the track plugging up the race when they are clearly eliminated from contention. The Olympic trials aren’t the place to go get a personal best in 35th place while knocking someone off the Olympic team from intentional or unintentional positioning/contact.

El nino jameamin wrote:

It's a 10k.. who cares? It's like having the NIT tournament along with March madness. Complaining that the 40th runner in a 10k doesn't get the chance to run against the top in a championship race is like complaining UC Irvine didn't have a fair shot at winning the NCAA men's basketball title because they weren't allowed to play in March madness despite finishing 2nd in the big west. Who cares?

This. It is what it is. USATF absolutely should care more about medal contenders than the 20+ ranked seeds. Potential, shmotential, they've all had an extra year to get fit and run a faster mark and if they could've then they would've. These ladies far down the descending order list should be happy USATF is throwing them a bone to include them rather than just have a straight cut-off for a limited, single-heat final. I see no sensible reason to get up-in-arms and whiny for their "plight."

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Still ample time for the B heat athletes who feel they belong in the A heat to run a faster mark, no? Yes this might mean a change in their plans, but if they're serious about making an Olympic team doesn't feel like an unreasonable ask to me.

I'll be a little kinder than Rojo (not hard to do) but USATF should have made this call a while ago if this was going to be their decision. It would given more athletes the chance to change positions.

I don't think it's a huge deal tho. What is the max that would go into the 1st heat? My guess is that this giant list whittles down a little on its own. Injuries. People choosing other events. What do you do if it ends up being 32 in heat 1 & 6 in heat 2?

Make the women's 10,000 3 rounds with the first being 6 quarterfinals of 24 then.

wejo wrote:

I think I got lapped at the 2000 Olympic Trials in the 10k.

Starting with that I think they should run 50. Once you get lapped you're out of the race. Then i see no problems with all 50 in one heat.

Just think of the tactics. Other runner in your group goes out to try to lap as many as possible and shrink the field, catch the folks the coach wants eliminated. What if the winner laps the field, too? Send folks to lane three when they are soon to be lapped might be better. No matter, I lean to two heats, but if there are scratches enough near the end, merge the heats.

What about having the women's 10k finals on 6/26 be a two-heat semifinal which would advance 12 from each heat to the 10k finals race which would be held, say, a week later, on July 4th?

May sound absurd, but USATF was about to do something like that at the 2016 Oly Trials when Allison Felix and Jenenah Tarmoh tied in the 100m final and were to have a runoff the next day (after the Trials ended). Tarmoh bailed so it never happened.

Obvious logistical challenges with this option -- having to either stay in Eugene for another week or return a week later -- but a single 10k Oly Trials race on the 4th of July could be quite compelling tv viewing and allow NBC to promote another race in its lead-up to Tokyo.

I think this thread shows that an avid group of (mostly) knowledgeable running fans cannot come up with a solid single answer. So why not let the USATF decide and yes, lots of us will disagree. It’s not so simple. Clearly have a tougher standard and then add the next fastest runners to fill the field is a better way to start. But here we are.

That said, my favorite two ideas now are all the Olympic Qualified in the 2nd heat. And the clockwise and counterclockwise silly vote for chaos. Which is not much different than having 50+ in one heat if you ask me (you did not).

I assume there will be scratches so 50 or less final will be good to me. I feel that’s fair for all.

wejo wrote:

I think I got lapped at the 2000 Olympic Trials in the 10k.

Starting with that I think they should run 50. Once you get lapped you're out of the race. Then i see no problems with all 50 in one heat.

Or if they don't do that, they could have two randomly drawn heats, the two winners plus the next fastest runner qualify.

In 2003 I had to petition myself into the Trials as they changed the qualifying window midway through the Trials. I had one of the slower qualifying times. I finished 4th.

I really think it should be 1 race. Happens at NCAA regionals. No problems.

And did they let people qualify with supershoes? How were they so far off on setting the standard?

Answer is to lower the standard

bo bo bo wrote:

The split final is best because nobody in the slow heat will hit the Olympic standard. I guarantee it.

I mean, on a straight split you would expect Fraser, D'Amato and Jorgensen all in the second heat. They would be able to take a good shot at the standard.

If I was Sara Hall - I would volunteer to be in the B-heat and try and time trial a sub 31 without worrying about having the kickers sitting on me.

The split section final is a bad idea full-stop.

Fraser is not a factor and is not capable of breaking 32 minutes in her current form.

Jorgenson has run a respectable 5k but has been horrible in the 10k.

D’Amato nearly hit the qualifier and hasn’t raced in 2 months.

None of these women belong in the fast heat.