Typical USATF wrote:
One of the main reasons that we went to BIG CITIES (NY and Boston) was their ability to handle larger fields.
It was? I'd never seen that mentioned until your post. Anyway, just because they needed to handle larger fields this time doesn't mean the same criteria will be in play for 2012, and incidentally those bids haven't been awarded yet.
This system seems to have worked well these past couple trials. Why change them now? If something is not broken, why fix it?
Subject: Re: New OT Standard (Good Decision for US Long Distance)
Date: December 1, 2007 11:21:02 PM EST
To:
Glenn,
I agree. You raise the standards and people will (as human nature has proved for centuries) rise to meet the challenge of exceeding the new standard. I am also glad you implemented this "new standard" 5 years before the next OT. It will give everyone plenty of time (and no excuses) to prepare for the 2012 OT.
Good luck and Best wishes!
On Dec 1, 2007, at 10:57 PM,
wrote:
Thanks for the support
Actually there were zero nay sayers to this voted decision at this Convention
My Executive Committee is 50 percent athletes so we think we know what we are doing to helping to improve USA Men's distance running (which has been our primary mission for the last three years)
The feeling is that arhletes will rise to the challenge - but it is really important to create more like Ryan Hall (he is here by the way and in our meetings)
Regards
Glenn Latimer
------Original Message------
To: Glenn Latimer
Sent: Dec 1, 2007 9:23 PM
Subject: New OT Standard (Good Decision for US Long Distance)
I think the decision made by your committee to move the mens OT
qualifying standard to 2:19 was a good one! The new standard will
help push US runners to step it up and improve even more over the
next several years. Ignore the nay sayers!
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
AKMarmoset wrote:
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.
I agree with keeping the Olympic Trials Marathon qualifying standard exactly as it is. Keeping our successful US distance runners in the sport of long distance running can only be positive, even if it means continuing to allow 2:22 marathoners the opportunity to pay their way to the trials.
I guess I have to start with the disclaimer that I am not a 2:22 guy so I can be allowed to express an opinion. This decision does not personally affect me.
It may seem nonsensical that a qualifying time for a race that is held once every 4 years could be of such importance to the running community. But it is a big rock in the ocean between being a mediocre runner and being a serious runner.
It is apparent in this recent resurgence of distance running in the US that one of the primary engines behind our improvement has been dogged perseverance and hard work. Talent at the marathon distance isn't something that appears out of nowhere. Brian Sell is the prime example that most of the 2:10-2:12 guys lurking out there need years of polishing to reach their potential.
A former teammate of mine dedicated himself to the marathon at an early age and it took him 4 or 5 years to reach the B standard (which was set on a course that would under the new rules be considered aided). After some more years of hacking away at it he eventually ended up with a 2:14 PR, qualified for the trials 3 times, made a WC team, and was an outside favorite for one of the trials. This person probably wouldn't have stuck it out that long had the trials been an unattainable goal early on.
Maybe now that we have really fast guys like Hall the 2:14 marathoner is no longer important to USATF. That's pretty sad. Maybe next the PGA will cut everyone who can't win a major. Maybe NASCAR will cut their field size in half so there is less traffic on the course.
This decision by USATF may seem like a small issue but what it's really going to do is force all the guys who don't have the awesome talent of Hall to double their workload. This isn't just going to shrink the number of participants at the next marathon trials. This is going to blow about half of the top 300 marathoners completely out of the sport. If you think I am kidding go ask the guys who would rank 150-300 at the marathon in the US what their goal is. Then ask yourself what will motivate those guys every morning now that they don't have a realistic goal to shoot for.
Maybe the top guys will actually get slightly better results because of the raised standard. But I believe the end result will be a negative for US marathoning. How unfortunate now that US distance running is turning the corner...
I don't doubt that he has others that believe like he does. The question was WHERE WAS THE HARM? Why did we need a change?
asdjaskld wrote:
Maybe the top guys will actually get slightly better results because of the raised standard....
That is the only goal of Glenn Latimer. If that is different from yours then you had better vote him out of his position.
Where was the harm? wrote:
However, WHY was there a change? Things went well in New York.
I wouldn't know, I wasn't directly involved in NYC and I'm not directly involved with USATF nor am I in Hawaii. We could assume one (or more) of these: it was completely arbitrary (not out of the question with this crew's track record), it was financially-based (somehow), it was based on things that happened in NYC that none of us know about. Whatever the case may be, none of us griping here (or writing all the e-mails to Latimer that you desire) will affect what has happened. We may as well make the best of it, then, and view it as a challenge rather than as a problem.
AKMarmoset wrote:
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.
I know you're speaking from emotion here, but replace "genetically" with "mentally" and you'd have it right. Anyway, what makes you think that USATF gives a crap about the "amateur careers" of distance runners? You people need to stop begging for scraps from USATF and be a LOT more self-determined. The sooner you all wake up to that fact, the better off you will be.
AKMarmoset wrote:
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.
I used this, but altered it, tweaked it a little bit, albeit most stayed the same. My response from Glen:
This email is the exact same wording to one I received 15 minutes ago from someone else
I am confused by how you could create the same wording?
GL
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
There is plenty of talk on this board that a marathoner needs time to develop, keep the 2:22 "B" standard to keep the dream alive, etc., etc.. I think the top 2 finishers this year proved that ain't necessarily so, folks. Not many years (in age) or marathons between Hall and Ritz. That argument is probably going to fall on deaf ears.
And is the talent deeper this year? The reigning Olympic silver medalist finished out of the top three, Abdi DNF, and the alternate is KK. Enough said.
exactly wrote:
AKMarmoset wrote: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.
I used this, but altered it, tweaked it a little bit, albeit most stayed the same. My response from Glen:
This email is the exact same wording to one I received 15 minutes ago from someone else
I am confused by how you could create the same wording?
GL
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Why is Glenn able to post his emails of support but unable to post these?
So he NEVER gave you a response? What a touch of class.
I really don't see why 3 minutes is such a big deal. Especially since 2:19:04 was the standard back in what, '84? Can we not meet a 20+ year old standard? If not, then we suck. Plain and simple. If we can't get runners to meet a 20 year old standard then we don't deserve a trials with hundreds of people. In fact I think we should have a set trials standard of the #100 time on the previous year's list. Set the standard a year in advance so you have a year to make the standard.
Alan
The Hansons are not in support and are not in attendance in Hawaai. I emailed Kevin to ask. He has some strong anti MLDR opinions and said that he would be the last one asked about his opinion.
You get it wrote:
asdjaskld wrote:Maybe the top guys will actually get slightly better results because of the raised standard....
That is the only goal of Glenn Latimer. If that is different from yours then you had better vote him out of his position.
Look, I don't see this as something that is purely negative. Raising standards is often a good thing.
But I think the USATF fails to understand the law of unintended consequences. A well-managed organization would be able to handle more than one goal. Besides just turning out medalists, USATF needs to develop the grassroots.
We will have much greater success in the marathon if we can vastly increase the pool of people who will put in 120 mile weeks once college is over. Since hardly any of us get paid to do it, USATF needs to use whatever incentives it has to get people out there. If you look at any of the past threads relating to the marathon trials standard you will see that the trials B standard was a great incentive. Look how many people posting on letsrun are slogging away for free for something the USATF only has to provide every 4 years.
I think the USATF should have 2 goals for marathon development. 1) Bring home medals. 2) Keep everyone training.
It is a sure thing that if you succeed at #2 you will have better success at #1.
My opinion is they should have made the A standard 2:17:30 and left the B standard in place at 2:22:00. I'm ok with getting rid of the really aided courses (St G, etc) although I think they should maybe have a conversion for slightly aided courses like CIM.
Why is 2:22 better for development than 2:23 or 2:24 or 2:35?
brian sell's running times article from a few months back talked about his series of make-it-or-break-it races...it seems like many people are saying here that Sell might have quit if he didn't make the 04 trials. it would be interesting if Sell himself spoke out about the new standard. would he have quit if he didn't make it in 04?
Honestly, look at the field sizes for each of these other Olympic Trials athletics events:
http://www.usatf.org/events/2008/OlympicTrials-TF/entry/qualifyingStandards.asp
Do we really need more than 65-85 people in the marathon race to determine who the 3 representatives are for the US?
We still have US Marathon Championships every (non trials it seems) year for crying out loud... with standards (don't know what they are but it was 2:30 in 2003).
I agree: it's time to RAISE THE BAR.
If you have a dream of becoming an olympian, you better match these standards:
http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/standards/xml=beijing_2008/index.html
.
Sounds O.K. to me wrote:
There is plenty of talk on this board that a marathoner needs time to develop, keep the 2:22 "B" standard to keep the dream alive, etc., etc.. I think the top 2 finishers this year proved that ain't necessarily so, folks. Not many years (in age) or marathons between Hall and Ritz. That argument is probably going to fall on deaf ears.
And is the talent deeper this year? The reigning Olympic silver medalist finished out of the top three, Abdi DNF, and the alternate is KK. Enough said.
I think that in addition to having supremely talented guys like Hall, Ritz, Webb, Rupp, etc we also need to have a mass of very hard working semi-talented guys to keep Hall, etc breaking their asses. Would these guys with natural talent be laying down the 150 mile weeks if there wasn't a Sell breathing down their necks?
Maybe my perspective is different because I came up in the late 80s when nobody trained past 70mpw and our talented guys got their ass handed to them as soon as they stepped off US soil.
The more we train hard the better we will be. If having a B standard gets some people out there working for it, then a B standard is a good thing. It costs USATF nothing to have a B standard.
The biggest problem for post-collegiate runners is the lack of a strongly defined challenge. So many fixate on the marathon trials because it is a real target. USATF should be developing targets so that competitive runners have something to aim at. If they did a better job of this then people wouldn't be so upset about the B standard going away because they would already have another goal in mind anyway.