Changed Marathon Trials numbers

This is ridiculously STUPID.

Our sport is one of INCLUSION, not a elite "Country Club"!!!!!

Their excuse is that they need to make the race small and more manageable. So then how the hell does Mary Wittenberg manage almost 40,000 finishers in NYC and Mark Milde manage about the same number in Berlin????

If you really want to make the sport exciting and increase the popularity of the sport, get rid of the qualifying standard completely. Just make the only qualifying standards:

(1) American Citizenship.

(2) Male Gender.

Same thing for the women's trials marathon.

MAYEROFF wrote:

If you really want to make the sport exciting and increase the popularity of the sport, get rid of the qualifying standard completely. Just make the only qualifying standards:

(1) American Citizenship.

(2) Male Gender.

Same thing for the women's trials marathon.

I kinda like this idea! Talk about exciting and really interesting!

This is typical USATF acting as if they are involved in anything positive.

NYRR were responsible for the Men's Trials--USATF did nothing but get in the way. Anytime there is a problem USATF (Estes and Latimer) would duck the problem and pass it off on NYRR. EX. The water bottle situation. USATF said that was up to NYRR. Even though USATF accepted their bid and then made no demands. Now here in Hawaii Latimer is bragging about what a great job HE did with the trials. HE DID NOTHING.

Latimer said "those B qualifiers will not be a problem in 2012" with a smirk on his face.

He was right. He is laughing at all of us.

Also. One of the main reasons that we went to BIG CITIES (NY and Boston) was their ability to handle larger fields. Now we are going to cut back on the size of the fields to help them?

I think they're just trying to keep Tom McGlynn out of his 10th consecutive Olympic Trials. But what they don't realize is that you can't stop Tom. If you make the standard 2:15 then he will run 2:14.58. Sorry you can't stop Tom.

You are correct that Tom made the biggest stink about the water bottles. Glenn was pissed and even commented that I HOPE HIS SPECIAL FLUIDS HELPED HIM RUN 2:40. However, it was the right move to provide everyone with fluids.

Why was this decided NOW? We are 5 years away from the 2012 trials? Is next year an election year for Latimer? It sounds like something he tried to pass through before he gets ousted.

Instead of complaining about the change, email the man behind this awful decision. Hopefully elite coaches and athletes will let him know their opinion. His email from the USATF website:

glennlat@aol.com

. He should be greeted in Indy by a committee to reverse this tragic result.

Let us be honest 2:19 does not help runners move from college to the elite ranks or 10,000 to the marathon. There have been many runners that have improved and were motivated after achieving a 2:21-2:22. You can see several runners this year who are now at or under

2:18-2:19. The dream began with first achieving that mark and then working hard to improve that time. This site about letting people achieve a dream! It will be pathetic to see less 100 people line up for the Olympic Trials. It must be nice to take that money from long distance to have a conference in Hawaii.

This is directly from the linked article written by David Monti. Coincidentally, an employee of ING New York City Marathon.

------------------------------------------------------------

However, some marathon courses which do not meet the strict terms for records, like Boston or New York City, are likely to be included because they generally do not produce excessively fast times.

"I think it's pretty close now," Latimer said of the state of completion of the list.

------------------------------------------------------------

Is this the same committe that decided on a FALL TRIALS?

Is this the same committe that decide to cancel the World Road Championships team?

Is this the same committe that has changed the Trials standards?

Is this being led by the same coward that NEVER brought up this idea at the trials, when all involved were in attendance at New York? He instead waited until only he and his invited guests were several thousand miles away.

I say we vote him out in Reno and take back what belongs to us.

iliveinMass wrote:

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

Word. They were mine too, man. Avacado's number, get off your high horse. For Brian Sell maybe this would have meant training harder and longer for a while, but there are a lot of us who simply have to accept that our life goal is now, in a word, unattainable.

Latimer, representing the sport, is shooting it in the foot, cutting its own throat. Shit. Sure I'll still train as hard as I can (as a post-collegiate), but how many like me won't even try now after they graduate?

...which isn't going to make them better husbands or fathers either. I can't believe some of the soapboxing on this board..

email Latimer!

Hey, I'm not a super-star writer or anything, but here's a copy of the email I wrote to Mr. Latimer - if anyone wants to use it for their own you can tweak it or copy it and send it along. He'll probably notice volume of emails more than he will individual content.

Mr. Latimer,

I heard less than an hour ago that a committee under your leadership has decided to lower the OT qualifying standard for the marathon to 2:19, for the expressed purpose of crafting a more manageable Olympic Trials race. You will inevitably achieve this goal. However, in doing so you will also curtail the amateur careers of hundreds of runners across the United States, who have made it their life goal to run 2:22 and know that they are genetically unable to ever attain a time faster than 2:20. In past years, such a tightening of the standards would have precluded the participation of several notable "second-tier" athletes who have since made names for themselves as America's top distance runners. Brian Sell is the perfect example - though he is now qualified to represent the U.S.A. in the 2008 Olympics, he would not have even qualified for the last Olympic Trials with a standard of 2:19, and possibly may never have continued his running career from there. Many others like him may never reach his level, but could compete in the trials, influencing everyone around them in the pursuit of their dream. Not to be too dramatic, but you are dashing many of those dreams.

This decision is not beneficial to the sports of track and field and road racing in the United States. I sincerely hope you will reconsider.

and what is Mr. Latimer trying to correct? Do you think that changing the time to 2:19 will cause any of the Olympians to train harder? HELL NO. Which 2:21 guy interfered with the selection of this years Olympians? NONE. If the 2:19-2:22 guys cost the race organizer to much $$, then there are lots of ways to remedy that problem. This type of decision can only be negative. There is no upside.

Oh, come on, Jason. There are already more participants in U.S. marathons than ever before. Making the Olympic trials into another parade of joggers and walkers isn't going to make the sport any more exciting, and isn't going to increase the popularity of the sport in any appreciable measure. It's simply going to remove an incentive for some pretty fast, or potentially fast, marathon runners.

I really think it was a bad idea to create a "B" qualifying standard back in 1996. Suddenly, there were all these guys training to break 2:22 instead of 2:20, which had been the single qualifying time standard for 1988 and 1992. It was almost as if people suddenly started training to break 4:02 instead of four minutes in the mile.

Anyway, most of the people who are complaining about this don't seem to be complaining about the "elitism" of requiring a certain level of accomplishment to get into the trials. They simply want a standard of elitism that doesn't exclude them.

Jay-T wrote:

I think they're just trying to keep Tom McGlynn out of his 10th consecutive Olympic Trials.

No! I think it has much more to do with trying to keep guys out of the trials who have NO CHANCE IN HELL of making the US Olympic Team from blasting out to a 1+ minute lead for the first few miles and then die, just so he can be on TV for a few seconds...

Anybody have a list of e-mails we can write to from USATF? Also would letsrun and maybe flotrack and any other track and field media be able to publish something? I know txRnnrGrl hassome connections, and think maybe attacking from a couple fronts would be our best bet. If anyone shares enough interest how about we form a commitee and do something about it instead of just complain on letsrun. And if we fail, o well, at least we tried. I hope that was coherent. I'm pretty out of it. Just had surgery and am on some drugs.

"Anyway, most of the people who are complaining about this don't seem to be complaining about the "elitism" of requiring a certain level of accomplishment to get into the trials. They simply want a standard of elitism that doesn't exclude them."

That is an incorrect statement. The discussion is on the development and progression of athletes. Look at the results to see the previous standard allowed careers to continue to pursue a dream. Many of the Hanson's were between 2:20-2:21 before progressing at or under 2:18-2:19.

This about keep the Olympic flame alive and not extinguishing a dream. Sorry, you cannot understand the importance of the matter.

rankler wrote:

a certifiable accomplishment in the way "Olympic Trials Qualifier" is.

And I'm constantly amazed at the pedestrian mindset that needs USATF to set its goals for and motivate it with a charity "accomplishment". You represent nothing more than the same stripe of whiner that wants to BAA to raise, lower, or maintain their entry standards because that's what keeps them going in the marathon. You know what? I think the sport could do without people who aren't in it because they truly love it and want nothing more than to see just how good they can be. What the hell is a "certifiable accomplishment" supposed to be, anyway? Resume padding? Would it be more or less of a "certifiable accomplishment" if you opened it up to 2:24 or 2:28 or 2:36 marathoners? Who made you the arbiter of what is and what is not a "certifiable accomplishment"? Just man up, run your best, and let the chips (and times) fall where they may. At the end of the day you shouldn't need some arbitrary USATF limit to tell you how good you were.

dukerdog wrote:

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

So then you're a liar.

junk in the trunk wrote:

Who made you the arbiter of what is and what is not a "certifiable accomplishment"? Just man up, run your best, and let the chips (and times) fall where they may. At the end of the day you shouldn't need some arbitrary USATF limit to tell you how good you were.

I agree with you. However, WHY was there a change? Things went well in New York.