PeteBnotme wrote:
thoroughrice wrote:
You can't OTQ at downhill revel races...
*besides CIM
CIM isn't a revel race...
By the hair of his chinny chin chin wrote:
thoroughrice wrote:
Prove it
Well I was in the Trials and I am one of them. There was someone slower than me that also got in.
Can you post the evidence then? I don't see anyone in 2016 with a slower than 2:19 qualifying time.
not my real name wrote:
forgive me if my memory is faulty but was it Ed Torres who got in with a B standard that was a few seconds slow one year? I would have thought he would have just snagged a 10K or 1/2 standard but for some reason I thought he scored an appeal for a slow time. If my memory is correct (don't have tiem to look up results right now), then that would be one of the more effed up things in usatf history to have him be the one to write the letter to jacob, telling him "sorry bubb, no dice."
Also, I saw it posted that some usatf jock-sniffer guy was posting about jacob starting 5min late, so as to chase down people and thus have an advantage. I looked at results but wouldn't show on my browser (at least on mobile). Anyone able to confirm/rebut this? Doesn't make much sense to me that he would do that, so I'm thinking the guy posting it is full of crapola.
His start time of day was 5 seconds back from the race winner. Indicative of the fact he just was not in the front row of the start corral. He DID NOT start 5 minutes back!
Here are a couple of Trials that I found quickly.
http://oldserver.usatf.org/events/2004/OlympicTrials-Marathon-Men/entry/status.asp
So 3 in 2004 got in and 2 got in for the 2008 Olympic Marathon Trials that didn't meet the listed standard.
calc wrote:
Quick calculation of the respective standards for M/W shows that is order to be equivalent the women's needs to come down to ~2:36:30 or the men's up to ~2:26:30. The calculation is based on establishing a standard for each gender that is the same percentage of the 100th best performance in world history. Obviously selecting a different baseline can change the times a bit but there is a reasonable starting point that does remove possible outliers like a WR or AR. Not sure why the women's time is comparatively slower but if the goal is escalating US talent then it would be best to tighten the standard. If the reason was giving them time to "catch up" due to historically limited opportunities etc., things being equal now that ship has probably sailed.
It's slower because there's much less depth in women's events. In other words, if the women's standard was proportionately the same as the men's, the men's race might have 300 runners while women's race might have 100. Race organizers usually determine what FIELD SIZE is desirable first, and then determine standards to fill the field. If the organizers want roughly the same size fields for men/women, they have to relax the women' standard. Same thing happens in track in meets with rounds.
By the hair of his chinny chin chin wrote:
So 3 in 2004 got in and 2 got in for the 2008 Olympic Marathon Trials that didn't meet the listed standard.
Rojo, do you have a rebuttal for this new evidence?
YawnZZZ wrote:
Give me a break - how is this the top post right now? The guy ran over 2:19:00(.00) on a fast Houston race while wearing the CheaterFlys. He couldn't run under the qualifying time and is now whining to get in? This is the problem with our sport. He has absolutely no chance of making the team nor will he make the next Olympics trials once the time is adjusted at least 4-5% for the CheaterFly (or they're banned). Let's focus on the other hundreds of athletes that actually ran under the team - even if it was on downhill CIM courses, wearing CheaterFlys, or hitting the weak Qualifying standard.
Share you times, twinky
Men's Rights wrote:
By the hair of his chinny chin chin wrote:
So 3 in 2004 got in and 2 got in for the 2008 Olympic Marathon Trials that didn't meet the listed standard.
Rojo, do you have a rebuttal for this new evidence?
Rebuttal? Just because they violated the rules in 2004 and 2008 doesn't mean they have to do it in 2020 (although it's clear they are violating the rules already - by allowing chip times to begin with).
But it seems odd to me that there are 4 women with chip times of exactly 2:45:00. The odds of that seem fishy. Did a bunch of women run 2:45:02 or 03? If they didn't round up for any of those times, then they shouldn't do it here. I just want everyone treated the same.
rojo wrote:
Men's Rights wrote:
Rojo, do you have a rebuttal for this new evidence?
Rebuttal? Just because they violated the rules in 2004 and 2008 doesn't mean they have to do it in 2020 (although it's clear they are violating the rules already - by allowing chip times to begin with).
I feel like this is the reason they invented the word precedent
didn't run a qualifier, doesn't deserve to go.
he does however deserve a bunch of flowers and box of chocolates from Meaghan Leon at ATC cause she royally f**ked him by sending that congratulatory email.
It sounds like everything checks out. While it is cruel and unusual punishment to tell him he made it only to say you did not make it, the USATF is just following their rules. If they allow him in now, they open the door for people one full second slow. Then two seconds, then 3 seconds, and so on.
Is it possible to bandit the Olympic Marathon Trials? He could print up a fake bib and go run the race anyways. Worst case they pull him off the course. But that's unlikely.
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
This guy should get in because they screwed up and told him he was in. Not for any other reason. He had come to terms with not getting in and had some gallows humor about it. Good on him, but then they put him through the grinder and he should be allowed in.
This! He doesn't "deserve" it from the time, he clearly ran over. But they told him he was in and they should keep their word.
If he bought nonrefundable plane tickets/accommodation he should sue for those expenses to be reimbursed. He shouldn't have to pay for USATF's mistake. It'd be cheaper and better for everyone if they just let him in.
That "idiot" ran a 2:19 marathon. How about you try doing that?
This whole thing is completely moronic and just shows how stupid the leadership at USATF is. An arrogant and stupid PILE of trash runs that organization and has run that organization for decades. It is so dumb it is unbelievable; 0.1 s is extremely close and the fact that they had one hand say yes and then the other come and so defiantly say no is beyond incompetent. It is just a race and if they made an exception for that 0.1 s then what happens? Are there hundreds of dudes right at that line, no....there is one; a hard working dude that would likely peak at the trials and maybe run even better. Anyone that says this is anything but stupid has mental problems and needs to get out in public more. USATF should own up to this as they are really just proving themselves to be a bunch of idiots with no common sense or decency. Crap like this makes me never want to do another stupid USATF event ever.
God, the tragedy of 3 seconds would definitely ruin the sport forever. Moron. Some people are a little too anal retentive on this site. What is the point?
dunes runner is part of the problem.
The “they” that told him he was in was ATC, not USATF.
There wouldn’t be this hubbub if ATC didn’t jump the gun and tell him he was in and forcing USATF to step in and correct the error.
Krolick is currently listed at the moment. Does this mean that he is in?
https://www.usatf.org/events/2020/2020-u-s-olympic-team-trials-marathon/status-of-entries
jewbacca wrote:
Cuckoldistan wrote:
No it isn't, A 2:19:00 includes the full second of any 2:19:00.xx by definition. If they didn't want to include 2:19:00.xx then the wording would have to be SUB 2:19:00
I'd argue that rounding rules apply. But yes, if the standard is set in whole seconds, rounding to whole seconds is appropriate.
Ok, so the current rule says anything .xx gets rounded up. That should change. Anyone knowing basic rounding rules knows you round up by 5, or in this case .50, so you should round down anything below like his supposed exact time. Seems like the rounding rules need to change.
How about more elementary rounding? wrote:
jewbacca wrote:
I'd argue that rounding rules apply. But yes, if the standard is set in whole seconds, rounding to whole seconds is appropriate.
Ok, so the current rule says anything .xx gets rounded up. That should change. Anyone knowing basic rounding rules knows you round up by 5, or in this case .50, so you should round down anything below like his supposed exact time. Seems like the rounding rules need to change.
P.S. ... In short, they should round to the nearest second for the purposes of qualifying.