NEW OLYMPIC TRIALS STANDARD STARTING TO KILL USA

prop joe wrote:

How would you create a "development" aspect to the race? Would you add more prize money (which would then go to the five more B and C level Kenayans who would show up), make American-only prize money (a weak and dishonest move), or simply reward mediocrity by giving money to everyone who hits a time rather than actually competing for the win?

Well, I was going to propose all of those things, but since you think they're all weak, dishonest, pointless, (let's see what did I miss...ah!), or rewarding mediocrity, I clearly can't do any of those.

I'm not sure why I'm responding to you, but here goes. You can incentivize American talent and still involve Kenyans, Russians, Ethiopians, etc. in a fair way. One example is, you can buy them out of the race, putting them to work as pacers. I've negotiated with many foreign athletes, and they are interested in cash, not titles or times. Pacing for pay is a win-win. Along that same line, offering pacing for men and women at trials qualifying paces, as well as benchmark paces, like 2:22, 2:25, 2:30, 2:35, 2:40, etc. instead of starting at 3:15 and slower (BQ pace). Recruiting and travel assistance at varying levels, prorating race fees based on time standards, micro-sponsorships that provide multiple pairs of shoes, basic kit, etc. for top 10 or a time standard. A goddamn elite fluids station every 5K for the top 50 entrants. Simple stuff like that. It's not expensive, but it's not cheap. It's a bit of a headache, but it's not a f***ing migraine. I propose to treat the developing end of the field the way marathons have been treating the participatory end for the last 20 years. With some respect.

I hope you don't think that I was implying that Williams or Amherst isn't worth the money ... they most certainly are, along with all of the other NESCAC schools. On the flip side, many have debt that will require a committment to career rather than the possible option of training seriously in order to find out how good you can be.

BUT, a lot of college debt is incurred due to going to an overpriced private school without the outstanding reputation of the above mentioned schools, and that's just plain silly.

SomeCoach wrote:I hope you don't think that I was implying that Williams or Amherst isn't worth the money ... they most certainly are, along with all of the other NESCAC schools. On the flip side, many have debt that will require a committment to career rather than the possible option of training seriously in order to find out how good you can be.

BUT, a lot of college debt is incurred due to going to an overpriced private school without the outstanding reputation of the above mentioned schools, and that's just plain silly.

Yes, I agree with all of this. I think I misread your initial post. Shows where all that education got me. ;)

The aim is supposed to be qualifying for the Olympic Games, not qualifying for the trials!

In 2003 I was working between 60 and 70 hours per week with a 1.5 hour round trip commute. I ran from 95-110 miles per week for about 4 months with this schedule taking on 2 to 3 hard workout sessions per week. All I can say is that when I look back at it now, I don't know how I did it. I slept an average of 4 hours per night during the week and then would make myself stay in bed until noon on Saturdays and Sundays, because I knew I would not be able to make it through the following week without the rest. I usually wouldn't get to eat dinner until 11 to 12:30 pm and always was running in the dark. There was no sun on my morning runs and by the time I left the office and made it home to run again it was dark again. I was a zombie at work, surviving only off of a seemingly endless supply of coffee and oftentimes passing out in a pool of saliva at my desk. All I can say is that if you are motivated, you can will yourself to do things like this. Maybe it's not ideal, but there are still some people out there doing it.

To Common, that all sounds awesome, where is this race?

Unfortunately, right now it's only in my head. The race itself is on track for September or October of 2012, and we're about six weeks into planning, where we've basically established the legal and financial infrastructure and the business plan. I won't say where it is at this point because 1) it may be an issue with attracting and/or maintaining sponsors, and 2) it may not develop anywhere close to what I envision, as I don't have any real pull. I'm basically a consultant, not (yet) a board member, and I'm just one vote.

If it does develop as I would like it to, LetsRun will know about it, because it will be the only race in the United States that treats sub-elites and elites just as well as it treats hobbyjoggers.

recovery wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

Goal: You want to do your best at running.

1. Take a regular 40 hour a week job.

2. Wake up in the morning before work and run for an hour.

3. Go to work.

4. After work, go for a run - maybe 75 minutes or whatever.

The Africans, even the B and C level Africans in America running mid-level marathons, are sleeping and propping the legs up while you're at work. Running IS their job.

And, Africans almost no one has ever heard of show up at every tiny road race that offers as little as $100 in prize money, another loss of incentive and local thrills that the second/third tier runners had in decades past. Several times over the last ten years I ran a holiday road mile in a town of 15,000 where pros showed up to claim the pittance.

American road racing now provides the prize money for a world wide, e-connected, running community.

There are many, many more forks in the pie.

The starving running artist will have a hard time adding up the $200 purses to feed his running habit.

It's like trying to find just the right car on Craigslist in a major metropolitan area. Your taste may appeal to only a fraction of one percent of the population but someone from half way across the world might buy that car the same day it goes on the market and it's gone before you can get there, even though you live 3 miles from the seller.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

The aim is supposed to be qualifying for the Olympic Games, not qualifying for the trials!

Doesn't help when a majority of our best post-collegiates decide the sport isn't worth pursuing cause they have no shot of winning and little to no reward on race day. Our talent pool has dwindled, and nuckleheads like Surprise! aren't helping the cause by suggesting they work full-time. This idea that we need Africans in our races to better ourselves is a bunch of bull. There should be more American-only prize money races so Americans can see Americans winning, and thus giving a reason for American post-collegiates to continue with the sport.

Here's part of the problem...you do all that stuff in 2010, you show up at a race, you run 2:31 for a marathon, get fifth place, and you're a nobody. Race directors wouldn't dream of comping your fees or offer any other support, nobody cares to know your story, including LetsRun where they make fun of stupid asses like you for trying so hard, your employer doesn't appreciate your lack of productivity, your family and friends don't appreciate all the time you're spending running, etc. No respect from anyone, except maybe a likeminded commenter on a blog or a facebook page.

Back in 1971, you would have been an honest to god contender for an Olympic spot just like that Daws fellow! You'd drive halfway across the country and sleep in your car because the race director comped your entry and gave you a few bucks for meals. Your local paper would be writing about you, your family, friends and employer would be encouraging you because it meant something to them to be associated with you.

Jesus, this is depressing. Even so, there will still be people out there doing it. Like me.

common,

I read your plans for your marathon, and while they sound nice, you lack a little perspective. Runners clocking 2:30 marathons back in the 70s weren't treated as heroes. They were treated pretty much the same as they as today. Maybe worse in some cases. The running boom hadn't really hit yet, and even when it did, the focus was mostly on jogging and fitness. Read some of John L. Parker's old magazine columns, especially his column about Jim Fixx. His complaints about elites being ignored would seem familiar to those who read the Letsrun boards.

Why does a 2:31 guy deserve perks and accolades? Like you said, he didn't win. but he ran 2:31. That in and of itself is an accomplishment. The runners back in the 80s (referencing the long 1983 NYC marathon thread) didn't have these perks, and they ran fine. Why are they needed now?

How are you going to convince the board of the marathon to waste precious resources on guys who, by your admission, won't win? Your proposals seem to be all cost with no benefit. Great, you're helping "the sport" but your race will be out of business after the first year.

I would also love to be in the meeting where you propose "buying out" Africans so they don't corrupt your whites-only race.

The reason that (sucessful) races cater to "back of the packers" is that they don't ask for sh*t and fill the race coffers. Your guys will drain the race coffers and not even be competitive. Sounds like a winning plan!

Here's the difference.

In 1983, you had a shot. There was a chance. The gap between world class and 2:19, while big, wasn't ginormous. If you were a 2:19 guy, you could see that 2:12-2:14 or so that was within reach if you could just keep going. And if you pulled off that 2:13-14, on a good day that might be able to put you on an olympic team or at least be within a few minutes of the winner. You also saw your most talented rivals, the Rodgers and Salazar's being the best in the world. And you thought, hey I might not be as talented as them, but I can get close, and if they are winning that puts me in contention.

Now, you have no chance. The gap between world class and 2:19 is enormous. You're 2:19 guy is 4 minutes or so behind Paula Radcliffe in her prime. They are 15minutes or 3 miles behind the winners of the race! You see that 2:14 in reach and what does that get you? Well now your better than Paula but your still 2 miles behind the race winners. You have little shot at making an olympic team. Even more so you have absolutely zero shot at medalling. The best runners you grew up racing, those guys you couldn't believe were so talented, are getting their doors blown off by the Africans. The only people who are in contention for world class are the super talented. The gap is too far, it's not attainable. Why try?

youwanttoknow wrote:

Why try?

Because my performance is not limited or enhanced by what others do. I'm trying to run as fast as I can before my body starts to fall apart. Sometimes my best will win a race, sometimes it will lose a race.

What Paula or Geb does is irrelevant to my running. After work today I'm going to step out my front door and go for a run in order to be a little better than I was last week.

As long as there is someone in front of me, I want to beat them. Why this attitude isn't seen more on this site I don't know.

Agreed. That's the attitude I take too.

But you have to realize that a lot of people are motivated by different intrinsic and extrinsic things.

We lose a whole lot of people from college to post college. A lot of good runners hang it up and get fat.

After college you can tell the ones who were motivated for their love of running versus those who were motivated solely for the competitive aspects.

Regardless. The point was back in the 80's, guys had a glimmer of hope of reaching their dreams. Now, those same type runners mostly see it as hopeless. The ones who are satisfied by improving upon their own running stick around, those who aren't motivated like that give up.

lucious leftfoot wrote:

How are you going to convince the board of the marathon to waste precious resources on guys who, by your admission, won't win? Your proposals seem to be all cost with no benefit. Great, you're helping "the sport" but your race will be out of business after the first year.

I would also love to be in the meeting where you propose "buying out" Africans so they don't corrupt your whites-only race.

The reason that (sucessful) races cater to "back of the packers" is that they don't ask for sh*t and fill the race coffers. Your guys will drain the race coffers and not even be competitive. Sounds like a winning plan!

1) The race will succeed on its merits, catering to ALL runners. Development is one small aspect, less than five percent of revenue, and less than ten percent of total sponsorships.

2) Your words, definitely not mine. There are a number of different strategies to prevent road whores of any color from swooping in and devouring the cash purse. American only prize money would be a particularly negative way of approaching it. My idea about paying foreign runners as pacers is win-win. They get cash without taking notoriety away from Americans, typically and especially local Americans. Nothing turns off a race director, the local population, and the local media like a group of foreign athletes who show up, collect their checks, and literally walk away. My proposal has them getting what they want (cash), providing a valuable service to the race, and improving the race for the local market by providing local winners who spend time interacting with the community, the media, and often spending the winnings in the community. I could go another way of achieving a road whore free race by having all of the prizes be low cash, high trade value, such as $250 and a certificate for ten pair of shoes from a local store. There are ways to structure the prizes that achieve a fair outcome, let's just leave it at that.

3) If you think back of the packers aren't demanding all the shit that has driven prices into the $100+ range, you're delusional. If hobbyjoggers weren't so f***ing demanding, prices could be about 50% of what they are now. They pay a lot because they expect a lot.

Surprise,

140 miles per week on a 40 hour work week is not as simple as it sounds. In fact, most of the training will be pretty substandard on the stress the job would create. You'll be half the runner you could be on a part-time or full-time running schedule.

You have to take into account the energy cost. It's crushing not to get the naps. The schedule is so tight that if you make a single error out of your circadian rythym, it throws everything off and you'll end up in a downward spiral you can't get out of until the weekend.

I know as I've had all three situations and can compare and contrast the body's responses.

I never knew a full-timer who's ass I couldn't kick at my chosen distance (marathon)while I was living in a training camp and not working.

I have a few comments to elaborate on my own opinions on this.

May it goes without saying, but this is first and foremost. A race with 20 participants doesn't succeed, and it doesn't matter if those 20 are fast or slow. The fact that a race has 40,000 people isn't the problem. The fact that a race has 40,000 people and doesn't accommodate those that feel it's a race is. That doesn't mean making sure the 12 invited running are in the front. That means some reasonable seeding so those that feel it's important have an opportunity to be seeded and those that don't or aren't ambitious enough to read a brochure or web page end up in the back.

I agree to a point, but I look at it somewhat differently. Sure, there are parts of the country (like mine) where a Kenyan B or C team will show up because there's money. The local sub-elite could compete for the most part, but if you're the only money race that month you'll get all of the foreign road whores. Like it or not, the local Chevy dealer and the Chamber of Commerce want to see someone with local ties on the podium. Nothing wrong with road whoring in my book, but we need to get more opportunities for some whoring by folks that have some regional ties.

and if an old gimp like me wants to pay $100 to run a marathon then why not? If it's worth it to me then fine. Supply and demand and all that. If someone can run the top 1% of times then they should get in anywhere regardless. Not comped, but guaranteed entry. If you're a 2:40 guy well that's fan-f**kin-tastic but the fact is you're not a factor in a major marathon, nobody is going to come to the expo because you're there, and if you're coming in from out of town no local's give a s**t anyway. If you're the home town hero, any race director worth their salt gets you in.

So the brass tacks is I don't believe the trails qualifier time is killing USA (or helping it), same way I look as Boston qualifying times. I'd recommend lowering the Boston times because the vast majority of the people that filled next year's race QUALIFIED. Even if the top end projections of 30% charity runner are true the fact is 70% made the standard. Do I think that will make marathoners over the nations faster? Not a bit. I'm just saying what I would do to manage demand.

I deal with red herrings every day. With 1000 some odd developers worldwide every time there's a performance problem I hear "engage the network team to look at the firewall/gateway/load balancer". It doesn't matter than there isn't one of them in the equation, and that the physical difference between what they are talking to and from is measured in inches. The person raising the issue didn't do their homework and wants to close out the call by passing the issue on to someone else.

The key is knowing context. If a developer in Wuhan is testing from their laptop and going through 14 firewalls and god knows how many switches and failing performance tests, then we ask why the tests failed. If the conditions for the test turn out to be unrealistic we work to make it possible for them to run those tests locally to achieve equivalent results. Do we say they're a wuss because the laws pf physics conspired against them? No we look at the core reason, and work up a way to correct it.

I look at US distance running the same way. I see people saying the problem is Runner's World, long race cutoff times, Boston qual time, trials qual times, charities, etc. All whipping boys, but frankly all red herrings. Let's face it. There may have been a s**tload of sub 2:20's in 1983 at NYC but there still wasn't an American on the podium at the Olympics in 1984, no American broke 2:13.

I've run two 2:22 marathons, both times while trying to run sub 2:19. Yeah, I probably could have run 2:21 or maybe even 2:20 if I was just trying to run my best, but why, what's the point of that? For that matter, what's the point of any of it when I know there is no chance I'll be an Olympian. The point is that I love running, I'm a very competitive person and I like sharing a top level goal with many other runners. In high school it was making States and Footlocker. In college it was Nationals. Now it's the Olympic Trials. Even joggers like common goals, think Boston.

Another smaller reason is respect. Too the average person, and he even some joggers, 2:18 doesn't mean anything, the Olympic Trials does. I remember talking to Brian Sell once and he told me that even some of his own family members had no idea what 2:10 meant and thought he was wasting his time until he made the Team.

As far as money goes, yeah, that's a factor for sure. It's too bad there isn't more and I think you would see faster times if more guys could make enough to work part time. Even if I could pick up $20K a year racing, I could focus a lot more on running. The problem is that nobody cares about running. I was talking about this with a friend who's a nationally ranked golfer. He asks me amount running sometimes, but doesn't really know what the times mean. Then one time he asked me where I would rank nationally. I told him that the last three years my marathon times were among the top 100 in the country. His response was, "Imagine if you were one of the top 100 baseball or football players in the country." Enough said about $$.