Will the ATC go bankrupt? How many trials qualifiers are there now? 72 women break 2:45, 37 guys break 2:19 at CIM?

Prize money? wrote:

I think the prize is making the Olympic team

Not if you’re Desiree Linden.

rojo wrote:

I guess my only problem is them paying for all of the B qualifiers. If they only paid for the A qualifiers and then saved all of that money, they'd probably have another $250,000 to splash around for prize money.

They do only pay for "A" Qualifiers

"An athlete is eligible for “automatic qualification” (USATF Rule 8) if that athlete has accomplished the following. Athletes are not eligible to receive funding to the U.S. Olympic Team Trials – Marathon unless athlete has met Olympic Trials “A” Standard:"

this and this wrote:

Like it or not, the 2:45 US OT marathon standard for women is an example of an affirmative action policy being applied to running.

Dude, every guy 2:13-2:19 is a nonfactor to select the team and thus are OT tourists. Every cutting criticism is a double-edged sword.

other ways to do it? wrote:

Yes time standards may go down after this cycle but I wonder if it's worth looking into other sports for qualifying processes?

Like ultras. Maybe only have a certain number of races that are qualifiers per year or 4 year cycle?

Soft OT standards are a clear result of/excuse for USATF otherwise investing so little into LD development.

So what? They are all pointing for the trials and have had many months to improve fitness.

Stats are only meaningful when you can use them to support a coherent argument, and I don't see you countering the facts about CIM's and Boston's respective elevation change.

sbeefyk2 wrote:

I think you’re a good journalist. The ATC going bankrupt hyperbole dragged people to this thread. You know what you are doing. I’d do the exact same thing for the thread title. Some people don’t understand the benefits of hyperbole and sensationalism. You do and that’s a good thing.

That's called "trolling" not journalism.

splitwatcher wrote:

rojo wrote:

I guess my only problem is them paying for all of the B qualifiers. If they only paid for the A qualifiers and then saved all of that money, they'd probably have another $250,000 to splash around for prize money.

They do only pay for "A" Qualifiers

"An athlete is eligible for “automatic qualification” (USATF Rule 8) if that athlete has accomplished the following. Athletes are not eligible to receive funding to the U.S. Olympic Team Trials – Marathon unless athlete has met Olympic Trials “A” Standard:"

ATC is voluntarily paying for everyone.

CIM has rollers in the first half that are not very challenging. Boston has down hills that beat up your quads first and then as you tire you have the uphills on the back half. We shouldn't even be comparing the two courses they are only alike if you look at the numbers and shut off your brain.

Name age. time most recent previous mar time at previous mar

Emma Bates 26 2:28:19 Na NA NA

Stephanie Bruce 34 2:29:21 New York 11/4/18 2:30:59

Samantha Roecker 27 2:30:25 Hartford 10/14/17 2:38:14

Michele Lee 24 2:30:32 Green Bay 5/20/18 2:41:22

Bridget Lyons 30 2:31:00 CIM 12/3/17 2:36:25

Bethany Sachtleban 26 2:31:20 Richmond 11/11/17 2:39:00

Nell Rojas 31. 2:31:23 NA NA NA

Maegan Krifchin 30 2:32:47 Rotterdam 4/8/18 2:42:04

Hilary Dionne 33 2:33:02 Philadelphia 11/19/17 2:43:36

Lauren Masterson 27 2:33:26 CIM 12/3/17 2:37:42

Anna Long 24 2:34:07 NA NA NA

Pasca Myers 32 2:34:21 ? ? ?

Kaitlyn James 27 2:34:41 NA NA NA

Brittney Feivor 24 2:35 LA 3/18/18 2:40:37

Kimi Reed 30 2:35:28 Boston 4/16/18 2:46:47

Bottom 10 CIM 2018 AGE TIME recent previous marathon time at previous marathon

Sarah Mulcahry. 33 2:44:28 Bay of Fundy 6/??/18 2:49:53

Tiffany McBroom 30 2:44:29 NewYork 11/5/17 3:05:31

Lisa Baumert 31 2:44:34 Duluth 6/16/18 2:50:51

Caroline Veltri 28 2:44:35 San Antonio 11/3/17 2:56:06

Aleta Jokisch 28 2:44:40 NA CIM was her first

Melissa Penwell 32 2:44:48 Boston Marathon 4/16/18 2:55:01

Crystal Harriss 40 2:44:49 Dublin OH 2/27/11 3:10:29 2

Sakiko Minagawa 24 2:44:54 NA CIM was her first

Tiffany Costello 22 2:45:00 NA CIM was her first

Haley sutter 29 2:45:00 Duluth 6/16/18 2:53:00

Sorry for the formatting issues, I copied this data from a file I have on last years results. Unfortunitly, I was not able to include other parts of the file (i.e. previous marathon pr, post cim marathon times) due to formatting issues going back and forth. I thought this would be good time to share some data from some of the top finishers and bottom 10 from last years CIM. I'm sure there are a few errors with the file but it is interesting to see the differences in times. There are impressive PRs for both the top finishers and those just getting the OTQ time. See Michelle Lee 2:30:32 at CIM while her previous PR was 2:41:22. After CIM she ran Boston in a time of 2:41:02. Emma Bates and Stephanie bruce are two interesting ones from CIM they both ran great there. A nice debut for Emma and A PR for Stephanie despite doing the NYC marathon just 28 days before. Then they both came back and ran PRs in Chicago. However, unlike CIM they had a pacer (and about 10 to 15 other guys) at Chicago. I was working on the entire field last year but I became to busy with work and couldn't find the time to hunt down the previous results of all the ladies that qualified. I would love to complete a file with several years worth of data and run some sort of regression to help compare CIM to other marathons. However, the data collection would require a few more people.

Tell ya what...go run a 2.19 yourself and tell us how "Aweful" that fast of a time is hero. Only on LR can you find people dissing a 2.19 marathon

As has been previously stated, I prefer a race with more than a dozen runners. We should have enough OTQ runners to populate every college and high school running program. I'm glad to have run for a coach who was a former OTQ marathoner. It's not Hall of Fame exclusive. That's reserved for the next cut. Olympic Qualifier.

Relax folks. There is plenty of room without prostituting the sport. It'll all come out in the wash.

1. It's spelled "awful," Einstein.

2. We're talking in context of the Olympic team, so try to keep.

Outside of your idiocy, I'm not making this personal at all so you're out of line to drum up as hominem attacks. To wit, we aren't relying on the athletic ability that posts on this site to improve our nation's development in the sport. Comprende?

TimetoChangeStandards wrote:

The olympic marathon standards are far too easy. (Especially for women) Women are not 1 minute per mile slower than men.

2:16.00 and 2:34:00 seems reasonable. It still puts plenty of runners in the field. Any runner slower than this has no mathematic shot.

No, but there's much less depth in the women's event. The organizers want roughly the same size fields in the men's and women's races, not 300 guys and 100 women.

Kkkjjjhhh wrote:

If as someone says the Olympic qualifier marathon should have 50 men and 50 women... why not get rid of a time qualifier and simply take the top 50 male times and top 50 women’s times? Seems simple enough.

I wish they could but it doesn't work because marathons can't be run as often as other races. If you took top 50 then you have to define a time period. If it's a short time period and/or too close to the trials, someone who needs to be in the trials could have a bad race and not have time to do another and have another full build-up. If it's too long (long like it is now) then you've got guys running great times a year or more before the trials and not always be deserving of their spot when the trials finally happen. This happens a lot now but it doesn't matter because they aren't taking someone else's spot.

Maybe a sweet spot could be found. Some people would sometimes get screwed though and atm no one is getting screwed. What's the downside to the way it is now? People pay their own way or someone else volunteers to sponsor them. No one's money is being "wasted" but their own. The term "OTQ" has really been watered down but I don't think people cared much about that anyway.

As a long time member of the ATC and a former board member, I can tell you they won’t have to have hold a benefit for the ATC. All their local Grand Prix races used to be free and they would draw 200 people. Now they charge ridiculously high prices for most of their races and they get 5000 people. Who knew? They’re marketing wizards. Keep those qualifiers coming.

Boston drops 459 start to finish and is a point to point. Runners must get more than a minute advantage there.

https://www.johnhancock.com/citizenship/boston-marathon/boston-marathon-course.html

Classic Brojos with this click bait nonsense -- stuff like this is not good for the sport in the way you think it is. Did you reach out to ATC at all and ask them what it means if more & more runners qualify & get to enter the race? Races accommodate more runners than will line up all the time. The roads get closed whether 100 people or 500 people run.

The reality is that a guy needs to be sub-2:13 & a woman sub-2:30 to have a real chance at the top-3. So what's the argument here? Put them all on a track and make it an exclusive event? I don't think anybody entering the Trials with those kinds of times are concerned if the field is 100, 300, or 500. They've all run in major marathons.

I thought the point of this website was to help cover/grow this sport? You could have written heartwarming stories, like other outlets have, on the 2:18 & 2:44 type qualifiers. Stuff like that is what motivates a lot of the amateur runners on here. Those pieces are more moving than the fluff quotes we get from the top-end of the sport. You have it backwards. More people would get into and follow the sport if the men's standard went back to 2:22. More stories would get written locally. More eyes would be on the Trials and, therefore, on the elite side of the sport.

NERunner053 wrote:

More people would get into and follow the sport if the men's standard went back to 2:22. More stories would get written locally. More eyes would be on the Trials and, therefore, on the elite side of the sport.

Right, dozens more because there's no diminishing returns here!

MatthewXCountry wrote:

In 2016 Katja Goldring qualified for the OT with a 2:40 from the CIM course. She went on to finish 9th at the trials!

Granted the trials were In the sweltering heat in Los Angeles and her 9th place finished was achieved with a rather slow 2:35. Has there ever been an athlete who barely qualified for the OT from the women's side who performed any better?

Lets say this athlete at 2:40.33 is the limit of what we want to allow in at the trials. Then we subtract 2 min for these new shoes. I think a 2:39 B standard is reasonable.

1. Jenny Spangler won the 1996 Trials with a 2:41? seed

2. Tera Moody took 5th in the 2008 trials with a 2:39 seed (152nd)

There must be others too lazy to Google it for you.