Still think the marathon trials standards should be this easy?

lkj wrote:

And what's your point? So are many country's.

The US has a law on the books that say the trials standards cannot be faster than the IAAF ones.

Jamin'sHSClassmate wrote:

After today's race had a bad fall and trampled women in the race, do people still think the entry standards should be this easy? Are women with broken ankles and black eyes "good for the sport?"

Standard needs to be stopped to limit it to 150 to 200 at the most. That is a manageable number, while keeping it as large as practical.

Yet somehow people manage to qualify, even the very best qualifiers, in races that have 25,000 runners. Many of them do not start in the elite corral. Race size is not the reason for all falls. We have all run in and seen races with less than 20 people (track, road, cc) where runners tripped over each other. It has been suggested that the Olympic Trials be run as part of a big marathon by some USATF officials. Would it be less safe than running Boston or Chicago? No.

I've had numerous athletes qualify over the years and I will be first to admit the standard needs to be tightened on the womens side. 2:42 on a legit course with no exemptons or exceptions for anyone or any race would do. In addition, are we the only ones that took the ATC warning that if they are paying your way, you must be ready to "compete" and do so to the best of your ability?? There were a ton of people that took their money and obviously came only to enjoy the experience. Not fair to anyone.

For Atlanta, a meeting with 700 attendees is a blip. I bet that the race hotels turned away conferences that would have brought in at least that many and likely those folks would have dropped a lot more money in the city than runners and their families.

US laws wrote:

lkj wrote:

And what's your point? So are many country's.

The US has a law on the books that say the trials standards cannot be faster than the IAAF ones.

Please cite that statute.

When Lewis Johnson was describing the tables and every runner being able to have his/her personal bottle, I was thinking "What a nightmare"!

I think the women's field was too big. 200 seems like a good number. My guess is that when the standards were chosen there was no clue that as many women would run as fast as they did. Good for them. They met the standard and the rules and got to have a great moment.

That said I would be interested in ATC's take from a financial standpoint as well has probably needing to recruit a lot more volunteers--something ATC usually can do well.

Luv2Run wrote:

US laws wrote:

The US has a law on the books that say the trials standards cannot be faster than the IAAF ones.

Please cite that statute.

36 U.S. Code § 220522(a)

(14) does not have eligibility criteria related to amateur status or to participation in the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games, or the Pan-American Games that are more restrictive than those of the appropriate international sports federation;