Changed Marathon Trials numbers

The minimum (Olympic) standard to even compete is 2:15 and you want runners in the trials that can't even break 2:19? Give me a break!

Either get out there, work harder and make it... Or go home crybaby!

confused. wrote:

Why is 2:22 better for development than 2:23 or 2:24 or 2:35?

I don't disagree with your point here. Any number would be arbitrary.

Again I think the real problem is that USATF doesn't do a good enough job promoting other goals as worthwhile. Someone mentioned that the US marathon championships has a qualifying standard. I didn't even know that. Perhaps if more people knew about it and USATF hyped it up better you would have more people shooting for those qualifying standards instead of whining about the B standard.

I'm surprised that I haven't seen anyone try to blame USATF for encouraging 2:19+ marathoners to use PEDs.

Want in the OT but can't run a fast enough marathon? There's always racewalking.

"Don't pretend that a 2:19 trials standard is going to undermine the future of American distance running."

It does greatly affect the future of American distance running. There would have been many runners that would have stopped training if not for the initial experience to run in the Trials. That is motivating to be a part of the event. It is an incentive to get faster and better as seen with the Hanson's once again. That is why we have a club system is to improve athletes and give them proper training. I wonder how this will affect the club system.

It does make a difference in the progress and improvement of athletes.

wrong! wrote:

There would have been many runners that would have stopped training if not for the initial experience to run in the Trials.

I'm not aware of any, and I rather doubt you are, either. On the other hand, I'm aware of many who stopped training shortly after running in the Olympic trials.

Runners have five years to meet the new 2:19+ standard. That seems reasonable what with the young Turks coming up and dominating.

The intent of the Trials is to select our very best three-man team and somewhere, somehow there has to be a cut-off. Mission was accomplished this year. The USATF and NYCRR club did their job. What more do we want?

Maybe a has-been, wanna-be marathon should be set up for those aspiring to run the Trials time but have not met the 2:19+. Perhaps the horses for the 2012 Trials will come from this group. But don't dilute the actual Trials race.

Sorry, but if you are a 2:22 marathoner you have some work to do. The fact that you, with your current times, are not invited to the big show doesn't mean we are disrespecting you; we have a job to do and it is selecting the fastest three.

Let's not go back to the 90's - instead use l984 as your mentor. You can do it. Good luck.

There might be a better way to do this.

I do agree with the posters who are in favor of the raised standard from the perspective that we should not set the bar too low. So why even have a time standard, why not use good old fashioned racing to sort it out?

Instead of having a time standard, why not use the USATF marathon championships as the qualifier, with the top 50 finishers in each of the 3 non-olympic years qualifying for the trials?

This would condense all of the trials hopefuls into one race each year, which I think would be a better competitive situation for everyone.

You could exempt the very top guys like Hall by having a "free pass" time standard of something like 2:15 which would allow them to concentrate on major marathons.

There would still be the positive benefits of bringing most of the elite and sub-elite runners together in the same venue which can be a great learning experience for the sub-elite (see the earlier post by dtmack).

This way, instead of everyone time-trialing their way into the trials, we develop a more competitive environment. USATF would have better control over whatever size of field they think they should have at the trials (it doesn't have to be top 50 but whatever it is it should be stable over a long period of time).

You wouldn't have to worry about aided courses, which evens up the playing field.

The USATF marathon championships would become a higher profile event, as it should be.

If the marathon championships has a qualifying standard (which I think it should), this is where you could go a little bit softer to bring in the grassroots. I don't think it has to be weak but somewhere in the 2:30 - 2:40 range might be reasonable. This would be an attainable goal for all the newbies, for many post-college runners making the transition, and masters who are on their way out. I think this would be a better bone to throw to the people on the verge than giving an easy pass to the trials. You end up with a field size of, say 300, and the top 50 (or whatever) make the trials.

Somehow I just think if we get back to the idea of racing being about men trying to defeat other men instead of the clock we will have better results.

There were zero naysayers? How does something like this get pushed through so quickly? Is there a stated agenda distributed to all beforehand? Someone wrote that Clint Verran knew nothing about this motion. He's on the Committee. Are Minutes published from this meeting?

I personally disagree with this decision but can respect other people's opinions. It doesn't make sense to me that this wasn't even debated in Committee.

This thread is getting pretty long and it's the weekend when (maybe) there's less discussion board traffic. Obviously, it's worth discussing.

Something stinks.

I talked with 5 different committe members that had no idea that this vote was taking place and were not in attendance.

I think the standards should be

A: 2:10:00

B: 2:12:00

Interview from October---

On some of the darkhorses:

Glenn: I’ve been going to Olympic Trials races since 1984, and this is the one that’s got the real buzz about it. Everybody’s intrigued as to what will happen. Will it be the experienced or the new guys? There’s always somebody that we’ve never thought of. We’ve had Trent Briney, who did really well last time. We’ve had the Kyle Heffners in the past. There are usually a couple of the favorites who make the field, and one other. There will be 120 or so toeing the line on November 3, and we’ll see if history repeats itself, who that unexpected one is.

Tighten the standards? Raising the bar? No problem.

Was it discussed and voted on in an open forum? Were all 57 association delegates, and the other 60 voting members of MLDR, given the opportunity to weigh in and participate in the vote? If so then I don't have a problem with it. If it was just another bak room decision made that is then forced down the members throats then it is totally unacceptable.

More disconcerting is the power wielded by this group to decide what they think are acceptable courses. You don't think aided courses should be allowed? Fair enough, then apply the rule and stick to it. Boston and New York are out. That's the rule. The perception on this board and by many within the federation was that there were many "irregularities" in the selection process for the 2008 trials. I'm not saying that is the case, but this suggested process only continues to fuel that fire.

Avocados Number wrote:

I really don't care whether the trials standard is 2:18, 2:19, or 2:20. I might have chosen 2:20, just to avoid some of the criticism and hate mail. But the truth is that, no matter what the standard is, there are going to be a number of guys who would like it to be a couple of minutes slower so that they can get in, ideally without sacrificing more than they already have in pursuing that dream. That's completely understandable, but just be honest about it. Don't pretend that a 2:19 trials standard is going to undermine the future of American distance running.

Maybe you're right, A#. After sleeping on it, I really have no good reason to be outraged about this decision on my own behalf. If I made it to the trials, I know I would not be a factor in the race, so it's not my place to insist that I belong. But I do think this decision could cut out some potential players.

I opened myself to ridicule as well, with my comment about genetic inability. I didn't base that on pure emotion, but I also don't know for sure. So I guess I'll just keep progressing, doing whatever I can, and maybe I'll get a little closer to 2:20 than I otherwise would, or maybe I won't. C'est la vie.

As for Latimer, we replied courteously to my email and noted that he will ignore anyone who lacks the backbone to sign their name to their invective. So if you disagree with his decision, as I still do (I think), consider your argument carefully and be willing to stand by it.

asdjaskld wrote:

If the marathon championships has a qualifying standard (which I think it should), this is where you could go a little bit softer to bring in the grassroots. I don't think it has to be weak but somewhere in the 2:30 - 2:40 range might be reasonable. This would be an attainable goal for all the newbies, for many post-college runners making the transition, and masters who are on their way out. I think this would be a better bone to throw to the people on the verge than giving an easy pass to the trials. You end up with a field size of, say 300, and the top 50 (or whatever) make the trials.

Not a bad suggestion. The problem is that if you have qualifying standards, you're not getting money from the masses to support the race. Perhaps, if the race took place in conjunction with a major race, the championship qualifiers could have a 5 minute head start, to separate them and add to the feeling of competitive racing between dedicated athletes.

The real point is that there is a huge gap between qualifying for the OT and being a local road stud. Post collegiate runners need more things for which to train.

Another option, if you want to make the OT more competitive without being foolishly elitist: make the A and B standards analagous to the track standards. When you hit the A, you're in; when you hit the B, you get on a performance list and you have to be high enough up to get in. Cap the field at a specific number and drop the B standard considerably. If the B standard were 2:30, that would be an incentive for a whole different group of runners who could hit that standard, even if they know that they'd certainly be too low on the performance list to get in. Of course, you still have to take out the aided courses.

Remember, you also need to hit a time standard to go to the Olympics.

I think the main point is we will see the Olympic Trials race be held in conjunction with one of three major marathons. With fewer people, these runners will probably start a half hour before the actual race. The logistics and creating a separate race for 125-150 became too expensive. You will see the race take place just before the actual marathon. This has to be the deal made between NYC, Chicago, and Boston. Do not expect another completely separate race for the Men's and Women's Olympic Trials. There has to be a television deal in the making that will cover both races at the same time. It would be more appealing package to a network. This will save the USATF a tremendous amount of money along with reduction in all paid expense entries with the tougher standards. I guarantee this was the last of these separate races!

My belief is USATF should discuss the decision beforehand with people who the decision affects, this includes marathon trials qualifiers and potential marathon trials qualifiers. LetsRun.com is a perfect avenue for this.

As someone pointed out the Olympic Trials which just concluded would have been a perfect place to say, "We're thinking of changing the standards and would like some input."

Did they do this? From everything I can read no.

As I said, I can see reasons for moving the standards. My problem is changing them without soliciting a lot of outside input. The elite running community is not a big one but when many people involved (apparently many committee members) do not know that the process is even taking place, I have a problem with it and think a better process could be put in place. I understand MLDR is not a democracy but taking input is never a bad thing.

Personally, I was thinking recently that the standards were soft. But then others have pointed out the trickle down effects of the slower standards and how people like myself, Brian Sell, and Trent Briney may have never made out first Trials. So opening things up to input gives everyone more information to make a more informed decision.

The same thing happened with the move of the Trials marathon date to the fall and the selection of NYC. The entire process could have been more open. That is my main point.

Couple general thoughts (sorry so long a post but this is something I care and think a lot about):

- Overall, I was surprised but on balance I'm not against the change. Full disclosures: (1) My sub-2:25 days are behind me for good. (2) If these marks were in effect the whole time it would have excluded me from my only 2 USOTMs. (3) My affiliation with USATF and MLDR is limited to my membership, which I renew annually.

- Polling runners would yield essentially zero incremental information. Very predictable results -- the vast majority of the upper half of the field (28:30, 2:17 type guys) would say "fine", and the vast majority of others would say "that proposal sucks".

- If anyone thinks 2:19 is beyond them but 2:22 isn't, they need to re-think. Capping your hypothetical top end is a sure way to erode what you actually can do. No coincidence that a movie about a VERY successful runner was named "Without Limits."

- Similarly, cross-check a few guys on the the "Statman Carothers" PR lists over several distances...30:00 10k guys will be pleasantly surprised at what people like you you have actually done. For a simpler reality check, Google up Dickie Beardsley's, Jerry Lawson's, and David Morris's 10k and marathon PRs.

- As Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind" -- and the level of performance has been raised quite a bit, and not just by guys named Hall and Abdirahman. For instance, if I had ever beaten Nate Jenkins at any distance at any time and saw what he did last month, I'd be goaling up on 2:13 right now.

- A lot of guys engineer their qualifying races to run an evenly split 2:21:00. It isn't that much different to go out in 1:09:00. I've tried running both ways, and it's a lot more thrilling to put it out on the edge -- daring yourself to keep up. And if you're not in it for a thrill, why are you in it at all? But don't believe me, Google up Billy Mills and the Tokyo Olympic 10k final, where he nearly PRd for 5k en route.

- "Field management" includes a lot more than water bottles. Hotel space, airport pickups, etc. etc. enjoy benefits of scale to a point, then that relationship goes negative. Anyone who tried to get NYC hotel space Nov 1-4 knows that. And if these ancillary things are dropped or curtailed in the interest of field size (e.g., a 2:25 standard), there would be a powerful issue of "lousy treatment" and in turn potentiually unfair competition.

- I disagree with the "celebration of running" argument put forth by Jason Mayeroff -- the race is a selection mechanism -- the name itself "Olympic Team Trials Marathon" says it all -- it's not the "Pre-Olympic Invitational Gala." Don't make it what it isn't just because you read something else into it -- no one can tell you what to think but donlpt impose your thoughts on others.

- None of you has addressed the fact that there's now a halfmarathon mark -- This is a massive opportunity opening up. Conceivably instead of 2 or 3 shots a year at the marathon mark, you could reasonably get 8 shots at the half mark...Refer back to Weldon's comment about his 2:19:50 at LaSalle Bank Chicago, and think about the other side of the coin -- one day of bad weather or food poisoning doesn't take you out of the running.

- There will be no stopping Tom McGlynn. Ever. Any roadblock is just a speedbump.