And how many members of the site selection committee and those few (3) that actually made the decision, were given free trips to New York and/or comp entries to races and contracts to run major events? Good business.....bad politics
And how many members of the site selection committee and those few (3) that actually made the decision, were given free trips to New York and/or comp entries to races and contracts to run major events? Good business.....bad politics
Bored room wrote:
You are either pulling our leg to get a rabid response or you are one true blue NY asshole.
THANK YOU
Is Culpepper running th '07 WC's?
Culpepper definitely won't be running the marathon at the '07 WC's. None of our top guys will. You might see someone do the 10k, but I'm not sure they'll even do that. I'm sure somebody will say that our top guys never run the WC's, and that may be somewhat true (although countless top guys have in the past), but thanks to the choice of NY for the Trials, nobody will even have the chance to consider running the WC Marathon. One job of USATF should be to allow our best to compete in international events, and do their best to put together top notch international teams. Choosing NY in Nov for the Trials certainly doesn't do that.
not now wrote:
One job of USATF should be to allow our best to compete in international events, and do their best to put together top notch international teams. Choosing NY in Nov for the Trials certainly doesn't do that.
Oh, it's horrible! In ten years we'll all look back on this choice of NY for the Trials and clearly see how it was the beginning of the end... nipping the promise of a rejuvenated USA distance running scene right in the bud.
Selecting the wrong Olympians, denying a few who hope to whittle their 2:38's down to 2:22's by next fall, and preventing our best from competing at the WC's, is bad enough. But exposing our top runners to the sophistication and culture of the Western World's capital is going WAY too far. Some of them will probably quit running altogether, given their first glimpse of the other exciting possibilities available in this oasis of civilization.
So please: more wailing and gnashing of teeth!
NY sub sandwich wrote:
But exposing our top runners to the sophistication and culture of the Western World's capital is going WAY too far. Some of them will probably quit running altogether, given their first glimpse of the other exciting possibilities available in this oasis of civilization.
Ha! I'm guessing all the runners will want to do is get out of that sh*thole of a city as quickly as possible.
I hate NY wrote:
NY sub sandwich wrote:But exposing our top runners to the sophistication and culture of the Western World's capital is going WAY too far. Some of them will probably quit running altogether, given their first glimpse of the other exciting possibilities available in this oasis of civilization.
Ha! I'm guessing all the runners will want to do is get out of that sh*thole of a city as quickly as possible.
I agree. Just wait and see how many of the oly trials marathoners are still in town on Monday. I will bet you that the answer is Zero unless their sponsor is paying for it.
--- but they would linger for days after the event in Akron!!!!
ohio wrote:
--- but they would linger for days after the event in Akron!!!!
New York claims that their big advantage over the other cities is their "cosmopolitan city life". They claim that it is the greatest city in the world. You and I both agree, they will spend no more time in New York than they would in Akron. So thank you for agreeing that the New York as a city doesn't add anything more than Akron.
Your point is not even logical - just like the rest of this juvenile whining thread.
As previously referenced in depth on this site by Wejo, Alan Culpepper was part of the group which selected NY as the site for the Men's OT. 85% to 90% fully in favor of the decision for NY in the fall of 2007. So all the comments about the athletes not supporting it are wrong because the top athletes and coaches were asked for their opinion and feedback.
The whiners on this thread are the 2:38 guys dreaming of that big breakthrough - right!
There is a difference between whining and pointing out that something is stupid and a poor decision. It always cracks me up that the best response the New York supporters can come up with is "stop whining." I also say that stuff about all the athlete feedback is a load of crap. My bet is a very few people really had any input and influence on this decision, and those parties exchanged lots of money and favors in the process.
ohio wrote:
Alan Culpepper was part of the group which selected NY as the site for the Men's OT. 85% to 90% fully in favor of the decision for NY in the fall of 2007. So all the comments about the athletes not supporting it are wrong because the top athletes and coaches were asked for their opinion and feedback.
I don't know anything about the process but I hope that you are not telling me that people that have a financial interest in one of the cities bidding still voted.
A few people that should be excluded from having any input on the selection of a site.
1. Anyone working for or receiving payment from any of the bidding cities involved.
2. Anyone from USATF that was trying to negotiate monies from races for their "development fund".
`
it is the "new york city marathon "
not the new york marathon
read Culpepper's interview on RRW a week or two ago. He had a lot of good things to say about the trials being in NY. I'd take his word over the anti-NY whiners.
The people who are pissed are not the top 10.
Its the 2:21:59 hopefuls. The qualifying window - 1/'06 to 30 days before the trials - has been cut by 25%.
This does not make a wit of difference to Culp Meb et al
The location is immaterial - who is really going to watch 80 guys run around Central Park or wherever, except for a knowledgable fan?
Its the timing which telegraphs a clear message: "1) The WCs do not matter and 2) If you cannot run 2:19 comfortably to get a qualifier, we are not interested in allocating any resources towards you"
#2 is amazing, considering that in the past 20 years the number of US runners under 2:20 has declined dramatically.
This doesn't SEEM like a strategy to foster lots of national level talent, in the hopes that a world class talent will bubble to the surface...
People need to stop with this fictious list of hordes of 2:21:59 marathoners that are locked out of this race. If your chances are so razor thin you need an additional marathon then that's your problem. I'd rather have a good race, that helps out a large majority of the field, and is spectator friendly and raises the publicity for the sport than catering solely to a handful of guys who even if they had that extra marathon may not have gotten it anyway and then even if they did would be too fried to put in a good performance at the trials.
Your mass number of sub-2:20 marathoners are busy running 113:20-14:20 5Ks and sub-30:00 10Ks, not shooting their wad and latching onto a Oly Trials marathon in which no one gives a shit about them. If all of American's top 3K-10K runners of today chose to concentrate on marathons, at least 150 would break 2:22 easily.
wellbutrin wrote:
People need to stop with this fictious list of hordes of 2:21:59 marathoners that are locked out of this race. If your chances are so razor thin you need an additional marathon then that's your problem. I'd rather have a good race, that helps out a large majority of the field, and is spectator friendly and raises the publicity for the sport than catering solely to a handful of guys who even if they had that extra marathon may not have gotten it anyway and then even if they did would be too fried to put in a good performance at the trials.
That is COMPLETE nonsense
http://www.usatf.org/events/2004/OlympicTrials-Marathon-Men/entry/status.asp49 of the 96 '04 qualifiers were >2:20. Many Hansons guys got their qualifer at Chicago '03 (including Trent Briney 2:21:10)
it's not nonsense. the only reason the hansons ran at chicago is because back then they normally did not do a fall marathon and they have some sweet deals set up with the race director.
my point still stands, why is it necessary to cater to a few guys who may or may not run 2:21:59 in a fall '07 marathon? If they are so weak that they are going to quit after this race then who needs them? If they are man enough then they'll sack up and try to make it the next Olympics. Use it as further motivation. If we go with your method, why not just let anyone who MIGHT run 2:22 in? We wouldn;t want to hurt anyone;s feelings right?