Help save the US Olympic Marathon Trials - A call to action

trying to understand wrote:

except CIM isn't a valid course wrote:

It would be better if the USATF recognized world rankings so that athletes wouldn't have to go to Berlin to chase 2:11:30.

Please don't assume my opinion is something it's not.

Again, this is your opinion. Very subjective. You can’t see the light because it’s shining in your eyes.

According to the rumors from USATF Insider it looks like my opinion is winning and yours is losing. Sorry but thanks for playing.

except CIM isn't a valid course wrote:

trying to understand wrote:

Again, this is your opinion. Very subjective. You can’t see the light because it’s shining in your eyes.

According to the rumors from USATF Insider it looks like my opinion is winning and yours is losing. Sorry but thanks for playing.

I personally don’t care what happens. I mean that. It’s all silly and the good marathoners that can run under 2:11:30 will be the ones that make it in the end.

There’s no winning and losing to me. Just the perception of people whining and viewing this without an objective lens. Then spouting their opinions.

If you think your take is winning, by all means I hope it happens. I’m want you to be happy, to feel the pride of being anonymously right. But it means that qualifying for the Olympics is winning, not competing well as a country at the Olympics. We all have our own internal set of standards to live by.

Just getting her is great, but it shouldn’t be the goal of our sports-centric nation.

trying to understand wrote:

except CIM isn't a valid course wrote:

According to the rumors from USATF Insider it looks like my opinion is winning and yours is losing. Sorry but thanks for playing.

I personally don’t care what happens. I mean that. It’s all silly and the good marathoners that can run under 2:11:30 will be the ones that make it in the end.

There’s no winning and losing to me. Just the perception of people whining and viewing this without an objective lens. Then spouting their opinions.

I you don't care, then you don't have an opinion worth posting. Let me people who do care share their opinions and advocate for the sport they want to see. There's no reason for you to be part of the conversation.

USATF Insider wrote:

The qualifying proposal would be anyone that has the standard or is currently in the top 65 of eligible athletes on the IAAF list. That means about 350 once removing all the additional Kenyan, Ethiopian and Japanese beyond their top 3.

This is not public yet because it's not yet approved by all parties.

The report from Letsrun involved one source and was 100% incorrect.

This sounds fair. Looking at the marathon rankings, I don't know how Kenya and Ethiopia will pick their team. Mary Keitany is ranked 18th. Edna Kiplagat 38. There are only 45 qualifiers out of 200 names on the first two pages of the women's rankings if you skip over all but the first 3 Ethiopians and Kenyans.

Good post. There's not that much time left, people don't have that many shots, and there is an element of luck to getting a good weather/fast times day. Kawauchi's 2:15 win at Boston last year is a much superior performance to Fauble or Ward's 2:09s.

There are a lot of morans posting in this thread, and they aren't rojo. The most compelling argument is that it makes more sense to send the top 3 at trials, than to send any combination of finishers lower than 3rd at trials, whether 1st, 5th, 16th, or 2nd, 3rd, 11th, or 4th, 5th, 6th or wherever the people with the sub-2:11:30s end up if they don't end up 1st, 2nd, 3rd. A sub-2:11:30 dude that finishes lower than 3rd shouldn't deserve to go just because prior times if they can't perform in the selection race. Not performing when it counts at trials would be the best argument that time trials in the marathon are not comparable to championship race. Plus there are people debuting in the marathon at Trials. If they get top 3, but not 2:11:30 in the race, haven't they proven their superiority in the marathon over any 2:11:30 person in the race that finished behind them?

The Olympics aren't needed. Kill them, kill the trials. You'll be fine. Go for a run.

This is all being made more complicated than it needs to be.

The IAAF can set the Olympic standards in terms of performance.

A country can choose to hold a marathon trials or not.

That's up to the governing body of athletics in each respective country.

I love the U.S. Marsthon Olympic trials and watch or follow it extensively every 4 years; however, would Kenya, Ethopia, Uganda, etc send 3 athletes to tge Olympics thst couldn't run sub 2:11:30? NO! Just competimg in the trials is a huge honor but I myself dont see why the U.S. would want to send athletes who have no chance at top 10. Medaling is out of the question for almost all of our male marathoners, so hit the tougher standards like SO MANY OTHER COUNTRIES WILL or stay at home.

Are we going to start petitioning for tge 5000m, 10000m, walks, high jump next? You put on a U.S uniform in the Olympics you should be good enough to place top 10. We was once the greatest T&F ling distance country ever, then slid to top 3 then top 5, and now with the relaxed expectations we're not even a threat in most men distance running events.

I LOVE THE OLD Marathon Olympic Trials FORMAT but if they can't run sub 2:11:30 then the ones who can deserve the spot in my opinion.

....

After all the standard could be achieved before the tougher Atlanta marathon trials course.

Isn't this just needless panicking until the USATF confirms its selection policy for Tokyo? A hastily prepared statement a couple of months ago does not a policy make.

Of course the USATF is going to respect the World Rankings and take athletes who qualify via that route rather than via the standards. Who on earth really believes they're going to leave 10-20% of their team at home for the Olympics?

I'm upset with a lot of things . I dont' think the point of the Olympic Trials is to "reward" the truly top caliber athletes that will have a shot at placing well at the Olympics. To me, that happens on it's own by top 3 across the post. Why can't a "truly top" caliber athlete simply show up and get top 3 at the Trials? You want to take the 8th placer at the Trials who ran 2:11:15 in Berlin over the 3rd placer who runs 2:11:31 at the Trials? Why?

Plus to me, the Trials are great drama. Part of sport is entertainment. "March Madness" is super popular. Why? Because if you win, you progress. The NCAA doesn't just pick the 4 best teams and put them in the final four, they let them battle it out for the title. Same thing in the NFL. We don't just put the top two teams in the super bowl.

Part of track and field's beauty is its simplicity. The first person across the line is the winner. Now you are going to be explaining to TV viewers that no, the 8th placer in reality is the winner? That's just stupid.

But back to your 13:13 question, the standards are just supposed to be in an insurance poilcy. The IAAF wants people to be eligible for the Olympics based on the rankings. The standards are only there for people who are injured or out on maternity leave. Yet so far USATF has said they are going to ignore the rankings. That's stupidity.

HOW DO YOU MARKET THE SPORT? YOU MARKET IT BY TOP 3 ACROSS THE LINE. IF the US is sending three, no one should care who we send.

You also write, 'why can't they go to Berlin?' Well what if they get hurt? Also why should they be forced to do that? What if they want to run Boston and NY back to back as they are American and want the appearance fees? To compare the marathon to track is stupid. What the hell is Shalane Flanagan supposed to do? She's out with injury. What do you want her to do?

What if you are a 10k guy who was planning on running worlds this year and then moving up to the marathon at the Trials, like Galen Rupp in 2016? You do realize that Rupp won the US trials in only 2:11:13. If the course had been hilly like Atlanta, he wouldn't have broken 2:11:30. He medalled in the Olympics. USATF wouldn't have taken him?

This just isn't well thought out at all.

I

Go, Laura! wrote:

Of course the USATF is going to respect the World Rankings and take athletes who qualify via that route rather than via the standards. Who on earth really believes they're going to leave 10-20% of their team at home for the Olympics?

No. You misunderstood their statement. They'd still take the people with rankings in events where there aren't 3 with the standard. So it's not reducing the overall numbers.

It's just about whether you want to take Steve Holman even though he bombed out in the 1500 final over some guy who actually ran well when it mattered.

I mean it's laughable that people are saying, "Why don't we do this like the track trials?" Well the whole standard thing is stupid to begin with. I get it if you need it to prevent riff-raff countries from sending the son of the Olympic official or something but come on.

For those of you for the standards, here is my question for you.

At the end of the 2007 Super Bowl, after the NY Giants beat the undefeated Patriots, do you think the NFL should have awarded the Super Bowl trophy to the Patriots as they had the better regular season record?

I sure hope not but that's what our sport wants to do. It's so stupid it's laughable.

Yes, I think most agree the Patriots were the better team. If they played 10 times, the Patriots would win at least 6 but on that day they lost.

There is no reason why the top marathoners in the country should go to both the olympic trials and waste a lot of money for appearance fees and compete with the world best. The trials are not more than an obsession for fans.

In fact for 2020 there is also not much reason to go the Olympics at all I would say, given the crazy heat there, but that's a different story.

If Kenya and Ethiopia can pick teams, why should the US won't. Is there any reason that Galen Rupp will compete wih Jim Walsmley except for the curiosity of the fans and leave quite a bit of money on the table? Marathoners don't have too many options to make money every year and that a few Americans want to watch the trials on TV is ridiculous.

I won't be surprised if top marathoners stop appearing at all in these kind of events.

Going to a world ranking is a better idea.

Go, Laura! wrote:

Isn't this just needless panicking until the USATF confirms its selection policy for Tokyo? A hastily prepared statement a couple of months ago does not a policy make.

If so they should announce their selection policy ASAP so athletes and coaches can plan for it

I’ve been told the game plan. They are waiting on approval

kipkeino1 wrote:

There is no reason why the top marathoners in the country should go to both the olympic trials and waste a lot of money for appearance fees and compete with the world best. The trials are not more than an obsession for fans.

Oh yeah God forbid they do an event that appeals to fans.

Rojo.

I'm still reading a lot of, "that's stupidity", or "no one should care about who we send" or "this just isn't well thought out at all." and "plus, to me, the trials are a great drama."

These are all subjective sentences. All opinions. You aren't being reasonable based on rules in place. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they don't exist.

To be clear, this is what I'm saying:

*You have to get the 2:11:30 standard

**You have to be top 3 at the trials to go to Olympics assuming you have the standard.

Your example about Berlin is so subjective too. If the 8th placer ran 2:11:15 in berlin and the 3rd placer at the trials ran 2:11:31, that sucks but that's how the rules work. 8th place person goes. If I get a speeding ticket for going 50 in a 40 zone, but disagree with the speed limit it doesn't matter because the limit was posted. Rules and laws are arbitrary but they establish a fairness that applies to all people.

Hell, that's how organized society literally works - A collective group agrees that certain things should be followed (no murder, building codes, age restrictions for youth sports teams etc)

Language is another example - We all understand that a certain word means the same thing. If everyone disagreed then no one could communicate with each other.

Getting injured is a part of the sport. If you're hurt and you have the standard, but can't run the trials, that really sucks but maybe next time. If you don't have the standard but are healthy to run the trials you'd better be prepared to run under the qualifying time to make it to the olympics. The Olympics!

Remember when Jordan McNamara (and others?!) needed the standard at the 2016 1500m trials and talked about going after the time with a group. That was super exciting! It hyped the race and made the stakes very high for other runners, knowing they might have to work harder than normal to make it - not just a kickers race. Centrowitz ran 3:34.09, a US championships record. It was exciting. Then he won gold.

Ryan Hall and Abdi got to the Olympics then got hurt but ran anyway despite knowing they couldn't finish. That's lousy if you ask me but not against the rules in place. Just my opinion, but within the framework. There is no perfect system to fix all potential issues.

If you were the starting quarterback all year but got injured in training a week before the superbowl and cannot play, the game doesn't get postponed until you're healthy. Shalane is effed and that's how it goes and her Olympics career is likely over. Happens. All. The. Time. Rupp took a risk and ran his first marathon at the 2016 trials because he based his decision on the rules that were in place - Rules that applied to EVERY runner trying to get to the olympics that year. It was brave and it was bold and it was entertaining and it really worked out for the United States.

You're basically advocating for the Kenyan/Ethiopian system which you have often stated how much you deplore because it takes away objectivity and allows people to pick who they want to go. People make bad decisions. Why not eliminate that potential and use the time standard + the trials performance?

Thanks for your efforts and energy to make running better.

trying to understand wrote:

Your example about Berlin is so subjective too. If the 8th placer ran 2:11:15 in berlin and the 3rd placer at the trials ran 2:11:31, that sucks but that's how the rules work. 8th place person goes. If I get a speeding ticket for going 50 in a 40 zone, but disagree with the speed limit it doesn't matter because the limit was posted. Rules and laws are arbitrary but they establish a fairness that applies to all people.

Hell, that's how organized society literally works - A collective group agrees that certain things should be followed (no murder, building codes, age restrictions for youth sports teams etc)

Rules can be changed. You shouldn't accept the rules the way they are if there's a mechanism and enough will to change them.