Men's Marathon Trials to Be Held on Sunday on Traditional NYC Course

Hmm....if the NYRRC were to start the race at 0730, the 40,000 ING marathon runners at the Fort Wadsworth could watch the race on the monitors,as NBC local and NBC national will have all of their stuff ready to go, everything else would be in place, including it's also an IAAF certified course for the 2008 Olympic Games

since the USA Men would finish 2.5 hours prior to the finish of the woman's race(provide the woman start at 0935), it will be a major story, as the Press/Media/TV will have something to write/talk/photo prior to anyone else winning the race

let's face it, the olympic games is not about a 2.13-2.22 marathoner, it's about the cream of the crop, and the NYRRC will get 3 great personalities to promote for the 2008 Olympic Games

qualify or don't complain about minor details, it always amazes me that the USA Men who run between 2.14 and 2.22 complain about everything and think they are elite(elite are those who compete on an INTERNATIONAL LEVEL. Shut up, train like a bastard, and let your shoes do the talking on race day

MillroseDave wrote:

it's also an IAAF certified course for the 2008 Olympic Games

Hmm, maybe not, I can't recall offhand if it meets the IAAF criteria for separation. I know in terms of USATF rules there has to be documentation of the wind speed and direction for any records set in NY to be accepted.

From a course measurement and design standpoint, I would be much happier w/ a criterium course. I think the layout they had in Helsinki last year was about as close to ideal as you could get - big credit to Hugh Jones for helping w/ the layout of that one.

Some of the ones complaining probably are the 2:20'ish runners. However, it seems to me that the ones defending NY have no interest in it at all other than to tell people to shut up and quit bitching. In other words, they're not even 2:30 runners nor do they have any reasons why NY is such a great choice. Maybe they're the ones who should STFU!

What would be good for ALL of the athletes involved:

1. A trials about 6 months prior to the games: A lot can happen in a year, you can get hurt, you can drop 10 minutes in your time (Trent Briney, Bill Rodgers as examples). This is why the trials has ALWAYS been set within 6 months or so of the games. As a show of form to select the TOP THREE RUNNERS. If you run like crap or you get hurt 6 months prior to the games it's a fair assumption you might run like crap at the games. If some one comes out of nowhere to run a 2:15 or so at Chicago or NYC in 2007 but was unable to qualify for these trials I will feel sorry for them. Even more so if they then run better than our selected three in a spring 2008 marathon. Is it probable? No, but it is possible (Bill Rodgers 2:19-2:09 in one year).

2. A criterium course: THE ABSOLUTE BEST OPTION for fan participation. Running it through the five boroughs 2 hours before the big race will get you ZERO attention, except from the crack heads and super fans.

3. Race in a big city. NYC is a big city. So that is a good thing, but being the same damn morning and the same damn course as NYC shows that the USATF has no pull and is basically being run by the NYRRC. It's the same morning and same course to appease the city. Have on a crit course in the park and you've got crowd and street control problems. Have it on Saturday or Friday and you have to spend the money for crowd and street control for back to back days.

For those saying "This should be about the guys trying to win and not the 2:22 scrubs". If it was truly about these guys then why would it matter where it was held? Have it in Eugene or Sac Town where the running fan base is located. For those saying "The 2:22 guys should quit whining"...hell kids, I'm not even a 2:22 guy. I'm simply a 2:33 guy who cares about this sport and doesn't want to see it fall into the hands of the corporate monsters who have ruined every other sport. Success breeds support. You think fans care about golf because of it's high production values or to see Phil Mickelson choke? No. They care because of Tiger. All we are doing is putting a pretty expensive lamp shade on a broken bulb.

Alan

My appeal to the Times was simply by way of example--but I would not discount as quickly as you the significance of several stories in the Times, for what matters is not only the size of the readership but who those readers are. Moreover, the issue in this context is not an absolute one, but a relative one: What city will most likely attract greater publicity for what we'd all like to see as a major sporting event, a city like Akron or New York? I don't think that network TV is "all" that matters (would an article and great photograph in Sports Illustrated not matter?), but it surely does matter. But a city like NY (or Chicago or Boston) has a greater liklihood of getting some network exposure than does (sorry to beat a dead horse)Akron. Finally, I couldn't agree with you more about the time. Since Mary Wittenberg must have some large measure of control over when these races start, and since you do have some nationaly recognition and perhaps even know her, may I suggest you write to her about the importance of a later start time for the Trials--say, 8:00 A.M. or so? Oh, P.S.: A sprint race is not a New York City event, whereas a marathon is.

wejo wrote:

JimG wrote:

[quote]Montesquieu wrote:

Do you really believe that an Olympic Trials race held in NYC will not receive greater attention from the national media--for example, the NY Times, which is now essentially a national newspaper--than if the race were held in Akron?[quote]

Yes, but only slightly.

Very few people read the NY times. In terms of eyeball's all that really matters is network TV.

They just had Justin Gatlin at Randall's island in NY. Very few people on the street knew about it. I think the trials will be different but the key is how much national media exposure it gets. Locally hopefully the race will be at a time so people come out on the street and yell. Maybe they should move the women back to the normal men's start and start the US race 30 minutes beforehand.

trials hopeful wrote:

Some of the ones complaining probably are the 2:20'ish runners. However, it seems to me that the ones defending NY have no interest in it at all other than to tell people to shut up and quit bitching. In other words, they're not even 2:30 runners nor do they have any reasons why NY is such a great choice. Maybe they're the ones who should STFU!

First of all, maybe not the most polite or politically correct way to put it, but that was pretty funny.

I'll throw out another reason why waiting until now to announce NY in 2007 isn't great for all the athletes involved, from the 2:10 guy to the 2:22 wannabe. The US Championship cannot be held on the course this year, therefore there is no chance for a preview. As long as I can remember (and that goes back to '95), the Trials location has also hosted the US Championship the year before. This gives the host city a chance at a run through and gives any athletes who want a chance to race on the course. Now, granted, you can drive the course or go train on parts of it (although this might not be so easy in NYC), but there's nothing like actually racing on a course to really get a good feel for it.

I fail to see what the big deal is. There is going to be a race and the top three are Olympians. Note to all of you "purists" out there: Money talks and it has for millennia. Your little utopian fantasy where runners are kings, make wads o' cash, and get all the good looking women will remain just that. Start getting used to it.

I am sorry that it is not perfect for some of you. If you truly think that a few hours of TV coverage, a pancake flat climate controlled course, and throngs of screaming fans are going to validate your life or make the mararthon bigger than football, then you are seriously deluded. My advice is too either adapt to reality and pursue this sport for its internal rewards or just give up before it makes you bitter and pursue something more productive.

Get a qualifier by summer 2007 and then go for it in The Big Apple. Anything else is just a bunch of empty excuses and whining. I doubt Meb is stomping around Mammoth right now bitching about this "travesty". He's preparing while the rest of you also-rans are crying like babies.

Shameless Marketeer wrote:

Get a qualifier by summer 2007 and then go for it in The Big Apple.

I plan on doing just that but doesn't mean I have to be happy about it and doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't express my viewpoint that this whole thing is poor on the part of USATF. The whole "quit yer whinin'" response gets old from people who don't even plan on thinking about taking a shot at running 2:22 or better. And I'm thinking that stuff we heard a while back about USATF asking athletes opinions on this and everybody being in favor of it was BS!

what really sucks is that Chicago gave money to those that qualified at Chicago, now they won't be able to do that. Dang! That was a nice perk.

Wicked Wicked Pisser wrote:

9 months prior. No more like a year. It sucks for men who are just trying to make it to the trials. It is good for the guys who are trying to make the top three. The barely 2:22 guys lose another chance just to get in. Like chicago in the fall of 07. Now really how many chances do you get?

wow.... wrote:

what really sucks is that Chicago gave money to those that qualified at Chicago, now they won't be able to do that. Dang! That was a nice perk.

Wicked Wicked Pisser wrote:

9 months prior. No more like a year. It sucks for men who are just trying to make it to the trials. It is good for the guys who are trying to make the top three. The barely 2:22 guys lose another chance just to get in. Like chicago in the fall of 07. Now really how many chances do you get?

Smart money is on the USATF bending over backwards and letting Chicago be the last qualifying race...a "special circumstance" so to speak. They already let NYRRC grip it and rip it might as well let Chicago take it's turn from behind.

Alan

wow.... wrote:

what really sucks is that Chicago gave money to those that qualified at Chicago, now they won't be able to do that. Dang! That was a nice perk.

Wicked Wicked Pisser wrote:

9 months prior. No more like a year. It sucks for men who are just trying to make it to the trials. It is good for the guys who are trying to make the top three. The barely 2:22 guys lose another chance just to get in. Like chicago in the fall of 07. Now really how many chances do you get?

Smart money is on the USATF bending over backwards and letting Chicago be the last qualifying race...a "special circumstance" so to speak. They already let NYRRC grip it and rip it might as well let Chicago take it's turn from behind.

Alan

Shameless Marketeer wrote:

Get a qualifier by summer 2007 and then go for it in The Big Apple. Anything else is just a bunch of empty excuses and whining. I doubt Meb is stomping around Mammoth right now bitching about this "travesty". He's preparing while the rest of you also-rans are crying like babies.

My goal is simply to run as fast as I possibly can. If that happens to land me in the Trials, so be it. I'll take that as a really nice bonus. Honestly, while I probably will never run either, I'd rather run 2:19 in a year that wasn't Trials eligible than 2:21:59 in a year that was. The faster PR would be better than just saying I was in the Trials. Also, I know on the grand scale of things I'm not even on the scale, so I'm not whining or making excuses. However, I am on the side of those who feel this was not the best decision for the athletes. It is possible to diagree with something without being whiny or a crybaby. As for Meb, I'm sure he's not bitching. In fact, he's probably getting a massage or laid up resting for his second run of the day. Must be nice.

To let'srun.com-posterperson(wejo?)

There was another post(that I can no longer find) that said the above was almost correct-the time was wrong-or something to that effect.

Has your source-commented on that point-and have you any more news or amplifications.

I can see a traffic control issue unfolding if core NYC streets close predawn to accomidate this possible time change.The city still has to be supplied.....way back when we only had part of First Ave closed, NYRRC had long talks about the impact to the cities ability to move goods in and out-Sunday is a day of trade in this 24/7/365 city.

Plus adding another 2 1/2-3 hours to the time major roadways are closed adds to the very very hard job of planning and implimention of rerouting emergency vehicles and MTA bus routes. The race does not go off in a vacuum.

Thank's

wineturtle wrote:I can see a traffic control issue unfolding if core NYC streets close predawn to accomidate this possible time change.The city still has to be supplied.....way back when we only had part of First Ave closed, NYRRC had long talks about the impact to the cities ability to move goods in and out-Sunday is a day of trade in this 24/7/365 city.

Plus adding another 2 1/2-3 hours to the time major roadways are closed adds to the very very hard job of planning and implimention of rerouting emergency vehicles and MTA bus routes. The race does not go off in a vacuum.

Thank's

Not only that. How the hell are they going to bus the NYC Marathon participants out to the start, if the roads are already closed for the Olympic Trials Marathon?

Hey, Hey, Hey. Quit worrying about logistics. It's all about "the sheer majesty of the course".

And quit whining!

You're forgetting something very important...this is a USOC event and USOC sponsors are different than NYC Marathon sponsors. Meaning your scenario of same-day races won't happen, can't happen.

I like how 2:22 guys are called wannabes.

What do they want to be, other than qualifiers for the OT Marathon?