Glenn Latimer - Qualifying Standards Contradiction?

Eric B. wrote:

Thanks, Avocado. You have inspired me to push the limit of my ability. I like your story.

Thanks, Eric. I've appreciated your posts and your attitude. Best of luck.

dukerdog wrote:

If you want to play the I've-been-there-so-I-know-better-than-you game, keep in mind that your experience represents one data point and Kevin's represents dozens.

Which still represents self-interest, when it comes down to it.

dukerdog wrote:

If you want to play the I've-been-there-so-I-know-better-than-you game, keep in mind that your experience represents one data point and Kevin's represents dozens.

Conflict of Interest wrote:

Which still represents self-interest, when it comes down to it.

But no more (and probably quite a bit less) than Eric B. has exhibited. Once again, it should either be set to the Olympic "A" standard, or be more liberal, not less!

You are a failure at logic and reasoning. Being for a high standard (2:19) yet not as high as the Olympic standard (2:14) has nothing to do with hypocrisy.

Nope, Eric B. doesn't make more money based on how many runners (namely ones in his program) get into the OT. Eric B. actually makes it harder for himself in supporting a 2:19 standard vs. being able to get in with 2:20 or 2:22 or 2:25. And, last I checked, 2:19 is still "more liberal" than the Olympic A standard. You must like being wrong.

Red Glare wrote:

Almost only counts in horseshoes and grenades.

Sure it does. I set an American record at the 1977 AAU Nationals even though I was 0.5s short of the qualifying mark.

malmo wrote:

You are a failure at logic and reasoning.

Malmo, I have the utmost respect for your accomplishments and will always give your opinions a great deal of consideration, but I think that I will manage to avoid losing any sleep over your narrow-minded barbs.

malmo wrote:

Being for a high standard (2:19) yet not as high as the Olympic standard (2:14) has nothing to do with hypocrisy.

If you condense the entire argument down to that one abbreviated sentence, it becomes true. However, it rather conveniently excludes many of the other factors.

Several people within this thread (including you) have stressed that the OT marathon exists to select the team for London, not development. If that is truly the case, we should set the bar at the Olympic "A" standard! For those of you in the studio audience who are obviously having some difficulty grasping the concept, if the sole purpose of the race is to select the Olympic team, based upon the adamant opinions I have seen there shouldn't be a 5-minute cushion based upon the weak philosophy of something as subjective as the "capriciousness" of the marathon. They have had a full three years to achieve the qualification time, so if they still haven't reached that standard by Jan 2012, they should have fun watching it on TV like the rest of us! On the other hand, if you still believe that there should be a time cushion involved, but at the same time you think that another extra five minutes (to 2:24) would desecrate the Olympic Trials marathon, you are hypocritical.

You still fail at logic and reasoning. You are also talking in circles.

Statement A is the trials are to select the Olympic team.

Statement B is the trials standard should be the Olympic A standard.

You claim that IF the statement A is true, THEN the statement B must also be true. I fail to see where the logic is here? The statement B is merely your opinion, nothing more.

Logically speaking "IF A, THEN B" is FALSE.

The purpose of the Olympic Trials is to select a team.

The purpose the the Olympic Trials standards is to limit the fields to a manageable number.

The purpose of the Olympic Trials standards IS NOT to limit the fields to very small numbers.

That fact that there is a three year window for getting a marathon time is irrelevant.

Condescending much? wrote:

Malmo, I have the utmost respect for your accomplishments and will always give your opinions a great deal of consideration, but I think that I will manage to avoid losing any sleep over your narrow-minded barbs.

.

“huge egos” “Fan-boy” “clearly motivated by self-interest” “elitism” “selfish” “hypocritical” “narrow-minded barbs”

I see. There's a pattern here. You're projecting.

You have the OPINION that the trials standard should be 2:25 or 2:30.

You have the OPINION that if you can't get your way then the standard should be reduced to the Olympic Standard of 2:14 so that those who are satisfied with 2:19 won't get their way.

You have the OPINION that anyone who rejects your logical fallacy is "elite", "selfish", hypocritical", "narrow-minded", and has a "huge ego".

That will still happen with a 2:24 standard in place.

And yet, the number of people competing with a 2:14 qualification standard would be emminently manageable, would it not? On the other hand, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Houston Marathon staff wouldn't exactly be overwhelmed with the size of the field if the standard was changed to 2:24.

Far from it. You are the person who told us that those extra five minutes attached to the 2:19 qualification standard are there due to the ethereal concept of "the capriciousness of the marathon." With a 3-year qualification window, that factor should be almost completely negated. If they can't pull it off within a 3-year time frame, I sincerely doubt that one more race with a 5-minute grace period is going to be the ultimate catalyst for their success!

I never said anything about 2:30, and already pointed that out previously, but please don't let that stop your patriarchal rant!

Not at all. That seems more like paranoia on your part. I merely pointed out a logical thought process: if people like you think it is so horrendous to add five more minutes to the qualification standard because the race is specifically designed to select the Olympic team, it would make much more sense to ensure that every person who toes the line is already eligible for the Olympics. There's nothing vindictive about that thought process!

Condescending much? wrote:

Not at all. That seems more like paranoia on your part. I merely pointed out a logical thought process: if people like you think it is so horrendous to add five more minutes to the qualification standard because the race is specifically designed to select the Olympic team, it would make much more sense to ensure that every person who toes the line is already eligible for the Olympics. There's nothing vindictive about that thought process!

Nothing about your thought process is logical at all.

You have an opinion that the standard should be higher. Others have the opinion that it should not be higher. Me personally, I don't really care if it's 2:19 or 2:22 or 2:25. but 2:19 makes the most sense since it will result in a field size similar to the historical field size.

Your idea to make the qualifying standard the Olympic standard DOES NOT make more sense. The three athletes who we send will have the Olympic Standard. Period. If one of them gets it at the OT, it is no less an Olympic standard than if he gets it three years before.

It sounds like we need to "agree to disagree." An objective third-party mediator would probably tell us that we have both made good points, but it it obvious the neither one of us is going to convince the other that their perspective is more logical.

Thanks for your input, though. I appreciate you insight on this subject!

I have no dog in this fight, but have read the entire thread.

Simple answer:

USA Men's Olympic Trials "A" standard 2:14 (the Olympic "A" standard) - all expenses paid.

USA Men's Olympic Trials "B" standard 2:24 or 2:25 and they pay their own way.

The guys that fall into the 2:14:01-2:24:59 category cover "Olympic hopefuls", young guys developing and basically anyone who has to have the ability to train and race at a pretty high level for the event. You will have a decent-sized field, but still pretty small for a marathon, maybe 200 tops.

So the USATF/USOC isn't paying a dime for the 2:14:01-2:24:59 guys except bib numbers and Gatorade, yet is getting free media exposure around the country where these people live, and is providing motivation for a younger generation (22-25 year old guys) for development and in the process creating a very good national championship race.

Our sport will continue to spin in circles with the same old mentality running the show. Gosh forbid we create a "win-win" situation to help our sport.

Fire away...

Condescending much? wrote:

And yet, the number of people competing with a 2:14 qualification standard would be emminently manageable,

A false dilemma with hyperbole. You're spinning your wheels.

malmo wrote:

You have the OPINION that anyone who rejects your logical fallacy is "elite", "selfish", hypocritical", "narrow-minded", and has a "huge ego".

Now add "paranoia", "patriarchal rant" and "horrendous" to your list of invectives and exaggerations. We get it already. Give it a rest!

All of the rational minds here are disagreeing with your opinion, but not nearly as much as they are rejecting your unfounded presumption that you have offered a logical case for it. Shouldn't that be a clue?

You can continue to parse every phrase made with an exaggerated commentary of yours hoping that somehow everyone will finally see the error of their ways. If you couldn't do it a dozen posts, I cannot imagine you'd be able to articulate your case in a dozen more?

For the record, I'd be fine with a 2:25 standard. I'm also fine with a 2:19, which I feel is much more logical and in the spirit of the goals of the trials than a 2:25.

And I would like to add that I coached a male Olympic Trials qualifier in two distance events so I have complete respect for that accomplishment.

Put it rest wrote:[/b

Our sport will continue to spin in circles with the same old mentality running the show. Gosh forbid we create a "win-win" situation to help our sport.

Here we go again... If we adopt your proposal the sport will be making progress. If we don't, the sport "will continue to spin in circles with the same old mentality..."? The wild presumption here is that the sport is spinning in circles.

Whuchutalkinboutwillis?

I'm not sure I understand why you think 2:19 will result in a field that is similar to historical field sizes. Wouldn't you expect that 2:22 would do that?

Even if the sport were "spin[ning] in circles with the same old mentality" (medals in 2004 sort of, well, completely kills that idea) this would not be the way beyond it. Again, multiple yearly incentives (self-created or system-created) are the answer.

Oh and guess what? Yeah, a single standard of 2:19 is what we have and that isn't going to change no matter how much you wring your hands and gnash your teeth on this board, clowns.

Put it rest wrote:

I have no dog in this fight, but have read the entire thread.

Simple answer:

USA Men's Olympic Trials "A" standard 2:14 (the Olympic "A" standard) - all expenses paid.

USA Men's Olympic Trials "B" standard 2:24 or 2:25 and they pay their own way.

. . .

Fire away...

I don't think that there's any need to "fire away" at your proposal, which is a variation on what has been proposed already.

I've never liked the idea of a "B" standard, which (as I recall) was first put into place in 1996, and which is quite different from the "provisional" standard used to "fill up" the fields in all of the other athletics events. To me, having a "B" standard for people who are willing to pay their own way (or, hypothetically, people who are willing to contribute money to subsidize the event for faster runners) is like adding the "charity runner" category to Boston qualifying standards. I don't care whether USATF pays anyone's expenses to the trials or not, but I don't think that admission to the Olympic trials should be based on one's willingness to pay money or otherwise promise not to be a financial burden to USATF or anyone else.

Reasonable minds may disagree.