Glenn Latimer - Qualifying Standards Contradiction?

I haven't read every post on this thread, but my feeling is that regardless of the "standard" there will be those outside of the "standard" that think it should be relaxed further to include them.

Let's face it for those just above the standard it is about the prestige and bragging rights to say that "I ran in the OLYMPIC TRIALS MARATHON".

What if we opened it up to whoever could pay their way to the event like other Marathons?? Let's start our watches to see how fast the 2:25- 2:30 guys argue to set a more rigid standard to keep the integrity of the process.

Actually, the USOC/LDR Committee could probably raise a fortune by charging $1000 for entry to anyone who wants to run. It could be considered a charitable contribution and a write off for the fat cats.

Brilliant if I don't say so myself.

One for malmo and the other semi-sane people on this thread:

What is the difference between this discussion and maturbating??

NOTHING.

They are both based on fantasy rather than reality.

FANTASY

All of this talking about 'what ifs' is about what some people would like to see. If you are capable of running 2:23:00, you argue for a 2:24:00 standard. If you are capable of a 2:29:00, you argue for a 2:30:00 standard, etc. etc. etc.

The REALITY is that the standard is 2:19:00 (or 28:30 track 10,000m/1:05:00 half marathon) and IT AIN'T GOING TO CHANGE BECAUSE OF SOME WHINING.

IT IS THE OLYMPIC TRIALS TO SELECT THE USA OLYMPIC TEAM FOR THE MARATHON, NOT A FEEL-GOOD LET'S ALL RUN TOGETHER. THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT DEVELOPMENT ON THIS THREAD ARE INANE.

the truth is wrote:

One for malmo and the other semi-sane people on this thread:

What is the difference between this discussion and maturbating??

NOTHING.

They are both based on fantasy rather than reality.

FANTASY

All of this talking about 'what ifs' is about what some people would like to see. If you are capable of running 2:23:00, you argue for a 2:24:00 standard. If you are capable of a 2:29:00, you argue for a 2:30:00 standard, etc. etc. etc.

The REALITY is that the standard is 2:19:00 (or 28:30 track 10,000m/1:05:00 half marathon) and IT AIN'T GOING TO CHANGE BECAUSE OF SOME WHINING.

IT IS THE OLYMPIC TRIALS TO SELECT THE USA OLYMPIC TEAM FOR THE MARATHON, NOT A FEEL-GOOD LET'S ALL RUN TOGETHER. THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT DEVELOPMENT ON THIS THREAD ARE INANE.

Precisely. The whining refusal to accept reality is as immature as anything else.

Didn't the new standard come about because some people got together and "whined" about it?

You think that can only work once?

With regards to development - you obviously AGREE that this race is about development or you would be arguing for a higher standard.

Also, you address Malmo, but then you rant about how if you are a 2:23 runner you argue for 2:24, etc.

Is Malmo a 2:20 runner? Is Malmo trying to make the team? Does Malmo have anything personally invested in this?

Or does Malmo just see that a relaxed standard is better for the long term development of the sport?

A bigger OT field does not hurt anyone. It certainly doesn't hurt the pockets of USATF. The B athletes were only "given" a pair of red gloves, a sweatshirt, and a bag in 2007.

Cut out the "freebies" and let people compete.

Condescending much? wrote:

Red Glare wrote:

The whining refusal to accept reality is as immature as anything else.

Not quite. You still take the gold medal in that competition.

Silly boys.

If I were in charge of men's LDR the OTM standard would be 2:20 - for many, many years. And why 2:20? Because I'm 100% sure it'd yield a sizable, competitive field every time. Per development - I'd say aspiring to run sub-2:20 is development enough.

Many would argue, 'no, this number' or, 'no, this number+' but nobody can say for sure what number is 'best'. All can agree 2:20 is a solid benchmark of excellence, attainable and eclipsed by hundreds upon hundreds of runners globally.

Will be interesting to see how the 1/2 marathon & 10 km standards work out in terms of shaking up the race and deciding the top 3.

scotth wrote:

If I were in charge of men's LDR the OTM standard would be....

You sound just like Latimer. THESE THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DECIDED BY THE ATHLETES. The person in charge is not supposed to be making thses decisions. Simply running the meetings and carrying out the orders of their constituents. The entire interview is humorous as it asks Latimer his opinion. Why? His opinion should have nothing to do with the direction of MLDR. These volunteer positions have turned into power trips and the athletes should never have allowed this to happen.

Friend, 2 things: what you quote is hyperbole. I exaggerate to make a point. I know the MLDR head doesn't simply hand down decisions to his constituents. Which brings me to point #2: GLatimer did not come up w/the 2:19 standard. It was the general consensus of those in attendance at the '07 USATF convention.

You say his opinion should have nothing to do w/the direction of MLDR. That's nonsense. His opinion should be considered as valuable as any in the LDR community. You may not like his opinion - but he's in a prime position to share it.

Finally, the decisions in the meetings aren't the sole province of athletes. There are people w/various backgrounds in position to voice opinions and vote in the meetings.

To all the 2:25-2:30 guys complaining that you could have hit 2:22 or 2:24 but not 2:19

you guys realize this is to qualify for a race that happens in the middle of January, right? ie, unless you can afford a 3mo vacation to move to warm weather to train, you are not going to be able to perform reasonably at the trials even if you do qualify. So why bother to go??? The ideal of the guy who keeps his full-time job, has a wife and kids, and still bangs out 100+ mpw to run a 2:15-2:20 marathon still exists, but the trials ain't for that guy anyway b/c of the time of year during which they fall.

I am one of these guys aspiring to 2:15, btw. In sum, I don't care what the qualifying standard for the trials is; I am not interested in marathons that happen in January.

Scott,

You are wrong on a couple of levels. The 2:19 standard was 100% the idea of Glenn Latimer. He brought it up for discussion in Hawaii in 2007. Some of us at the meeting suggessted that we take it back to the athletes to see what they thought. Glenn realized that although there was a small turn out, he had the votes and then and only then did he decide to bring it to a vote. Jim Estes was embarrassed that it was pushed through without most of the MLDR community being aware that it was even going to be discussed.

I was there and I voted for the 2:19 change because I think it was the right thing to do. However, it was 100% the idea of Glenn.

the dude with the funny hat wrote:

you guys realize this is to qualify for a race that happens in the middle of January, right? ie, unless you can afford a 3mo vacation to move to warm weather to train, you are not going to be able to perform reasonably at the trials even if you do qualify.

Oh, the poor dear. If you need to go on a 3 month vacation to train you most definitely NOT belong at the Olympic Trials.

You realize this race is to qualify for the Olympic team, right? Anyone with a realistic shot to do that, thankfully, doesn't have a full-time job outside of running.

sorta kinda wrote:

Scott,

You are wrong on a couple of levels. The 2:19 standard was 100% the idea of Glenn Latimer. He brought it up for discussion in Hawaii in 2007. Some of us at the meeting suggessted that we take it back to the athletes to see what they thought. Glenn realized that although there was a small turn out, he had the votes and then and only then did he decide to bring it to a vote. Jim Estes was embarrassed that it was pushed through without most of the MLDR community being aware that it was even going to be discussed.

I was there and I voted for the 2:19 change because I think it was the right thing to do. However, it was 100% the idea of Glenn.

I stand corrected. I was made to understand it was brought up by others at the meeting. Yours is the first blow-by-blow description of what took place at the meeting I've seen.

I sent Glenn a note shortly after the convention asking a variety of questions regarding the change to 2:19. I don't recall the general drift but I wasn't left upset w/the change. I told him I felt 2:20 was what the standard should be & why. Be interesting to see how the 3 standards play out - 2:19, 1:05 & 28:30. However it works, I think it should revert to 2:20 - and left there.

sorta kinda wrote:

The 2:19 standard was 100% the idea of Glenn Latimer. He brought it up for discussion in Hawaii in 2007. Some of us at the meeting suggessted that we take it back to the athletes to see what they thought. Glenn realized that although there was a small turn out, he had the votes and then and only then did he decide to bring it to a vote. Jim Estes was embarrassed that it was pushed through without most of the MLDR community being aware that it was even going to be discussed.

In other words, Glenn took advantage of the fact that despite minimal feedback from the athletes, he had a quorum in place so he pushed through his own personal agenda? Imagine THAT!

In all seriousness, arguing for 2:19 vs. 2:20 vs. 2:22 is one thing and there will be lots of good opinions.

Pushing through an agenda at a lightly attended meeting without benefit of a heads up and to the dismay of USATF rep. Estes only proves that Latimer's a smoother politician than his detractors. Saying it was the athletes that forced his hand all the better.

I'll write it again -

The cut-off should be the American Female Marathon record plus 1 second.

Do we really want anyone in the field whose pr is slower than a USA woman?

Extend the time to qualify to anytime between Olympics.

Most of the NCAA-1 X/C National qualifiers should have a shot at that.

No one said that Mr. Latimer is not smooth. Whether he is right or wrong with his 2:19 standard is irrelevant. How it was handled is shady as hell.

Yeah, and the sport is in ruins now as a direct result. The Nike/Eugene/USATF/Olympic Trials/Outdoor Nationals deal was shady as hell. The mechanism behind having to run 2:19 to get into the men's OT marathon doesn't even register on the Richter scale by comparison. Of course I do agree that holding the annual meeting in HI was ridiculous on a number of levels and set the stage for situations such as this. Nothing to be done about it now and what does anyone really expect out of the hallowed halls of USATF? What's going on with coaching education is just evidence that business continues as usual under Logan as it did under Masback and Cassell. Don't get pissed off at me or other posters here, you should be pissed off at the national office and looking to hold personnel there accountable. Venting your anger at me is just lazy and stupid.

sorta kinda wrote:

Scott,

You are wrong on a couple of levels. The 2:19 standard was 100% the idea of Glenn Latimer. He brought it up for discussion in Hawaii in 2007. Some of us at the meeting suggessted that we take it back to the athletes to see what they thought. Glenn realized that although there was a small turn out, he had the votes and then and only then did he decide to bring it to a vote. Jim Estes was embarrassed that it was pushed through without most of the MLDR community being aware that it was even going to be discussed.

I was there and I voted for the 2:19 change because I think it was the right thing to do. However, it was 100% the idea of Glenn.

As The Dude would say - 'New shit has come to light'. However, tonite I'm too tired to get into it. Tomorrow.