Proposed 2016 US Olympic Marathon Trials Standards Lowered From 2:19 to 2:18 and 2:46 to 2:43

wasatch and beyond wrote:

There are different committees, but the M-LDR encouraged the W-LDR to adopt the Olympic A/B standards. All of this information is available on the USATF website. For example:

http://usatf.org/Events---Calendar/2012/USATF-Annual-Meeting/Document-Library.aspx

So the women should just do whatever the men tell them to? That's quite an enlightened attitude you have.

This is a great discussion. I commend Douglas Burke for the going a step further than I did and getting the comparison numbers of Japanese runners vs American.

This being said, the USATF has made the decision on what the qualifying times are. It can be debated until "the cows come home" if it is fair or whatever. But it appears to be a done deal.

Like a previous poster, I was a late 70's, early 80's runner (who didn't get close to the 2:19:04 qualifying time, but pursued it anyways). Being well before social media was established, I remember runners accepting the qualifying times, training like hell and finding races that would give them the best opportunites to qualify. Remember, in 1980 and 1984 there was only a one year window to qualify (Boston to Boston)and only marathon times were accepted.

Now as runners, coaches and fans, we need to figure the best way to get ALL the best runners to the starting line for an exciting 200 runner plus 2016 trials (like 1984). As stated in a number of posts earlier, the half marathon could probably be the easier route. So what can be done? While I am currently an NAIA coach that does have a national marathon (with a 1/2 marathon standard), I would hope that some NCAA coaches (which I acknowledge does have a much larger pool of faster runners)would allow their athletes to run a half marathon post xc season when athletes are typically at or near peak form and the weather is more condusive to fast times (Remember Luke Puskedra running 1:02 this year at Houston).

As stated earlier, there were a number of races a generation besides Boston, Chicago and New York that runners flocked to in order to run fast (Eugene comes to mind immediately as does the course which would now be illegal across the lake in New Orleans). That being said, there is time to organize a group of marathon and half marathons to cater to up and coming American distance runners to provide opportunities to run fast times.

I firmly believe we have the same talent to have a huge number (much like Douglas Burke's described number of 195 Japanese men who have run sub 1:05 in 2012 for the half).

As Jim Estes said, the bar has been raised, so now I see we have two choices---give up and decide it is too tough or throw caution to the wind and go after the times.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

wasatch and beyond wrote:

There are different committees, but the M-LDR encouraged the W-LDR to adopt the Olympic A/B standards. All of this information is available on the USATF website. For example:

http://usatf.org/Events---Calendar/2012/USATF-Annual-Meeting/Document-Library.aspx

So the women should just do whatever the men tell them to? That's quite an enlightened attitude you have.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Way to read between the lines on that one and come up with something not even in the same ballpark.

The Women's committee adopted the standards the Men's committee recommended. I did not say I agreed with that... I'm just pointing out the facts (or at least what I can gather from reading the minutes of the meetings). Remember, I'm the guy who said I thought the women's HM standard should be 1:16 :-)

Chunky,

Not sure why you're so angry when I'm essentially telling you that you can be (likely) better than even you think you can be. That is showing tremendous faith in you. I was brought up to think that people having faith in you is a good thing.

Regardless, I'll give you another chance. I included my e-mail (click on my name). Send me your logs for the last few years... PRs across distances... and I'll see if I can help.

Can't hurt, right?

sc coach,

I like your attitude! Let's keep at it, and hopefully get a ton of qualifiers at the next trials. 3 years is a long time to improve and hit the standard.

Let's accept the time standards and just aim for them and move on.

I would like to debate something more juicer.... as to where or who will be bidding for the trials?!?! Will Houston, New York, or Boston be up for throwing out a ton of money to the usatf to host both the men and women trials – since it was such a success and the usatf liked the idea of hosting both. Or will two separate venues bid large chucks of money and incentives to host only one set of the trials? I would like to see both the men and women at the same location. That made for a HUGE event, and got a lot of media behind it. I just hope a different location is picked.

Could we make an argument that since the 2008 women’s trials were 4 months before the OG that 2 women were injured and couldn’t compete, mean that having a trials race so close to the Olympic Games a bad thing? And, that having the Trials race in 2007-New York for the men gave them nearly a year to recover a good thing? It’s hard to say, since both teams were selected on the same day and 3 runners were DNF’s (half the Olympic Marathon Team – 2 men and 1 women). I really don’t know if the usatf really puts thought into WHEN the trials should be, as suppose to how much money a host city or event will put out.

An interesting thing the usatf could do, is attempt to host a marathon trials all on their own. No piggy-backing on a well established marathon. Just pick a city, put their own money up for the prizes, accommodations, entries (B standard people), road closures, and all the other logistics that I don’t know about for putting on a marathon and see the usatf freak out in their own game! If that actually happened, then they would want as many entries as possible! Or the entry would just be $1000 for B standard runners. It’s a compete mess! But, how great would that actually be to have a race that doesn’t coincide with anything else. 1968 all over again.

Conto wrote:

Chunky,

Not sure why you're so angry when I'm essentially telling you that you can be (likely) better than even you think you can be. That is showing tremendous faith in you. I was brought up to think that people having faith in you is a good thing.

Regardless, I'll give you another chance. I included my e-mail (click on my name). Send me your logs for the last few years... PRs across distances... and I'll see if I can help.

Can't hurt, right?

my hidden point was more that most of the people right around the standard aren't the ones anywhere near training camps. theyre sea level, big city type people with jobs and maybe families. developing these guys is tough in america. there is not the same running organization and culture as there is in japan or kenya. i agree there is a problem but the possibility of fixing it on a national scale seems remote

and props to you. i might send you an email when i get a chance

Im in the 2:26 range and this thing keeps getting farther and farther away. Ill keep my day job thanks.

Oh yeah I was top 25 at Boston didn't get paid Jack Sht. Just a medal like everyone else. and a pat on the back from the lady handing out the medals. She has more respect for me then USATF

In fact I couldn't get an elite entry to NY.

Do I give flying f- what USATF does? NO

I'm not a member either. They are a bunch of idiots.

But by all means raise the bar.

For what reason again??? Oh yeah so we can send guys to the Olympics and drop out..

Laughable.... The bar is raised!

Suck it.. I run for myself and own gratification.

Damn, ^I like this guy^. Well, stated. Well, stated. I literally could not agree more!

14:00/29:00 equates to 2:16-2:17

That's it... Dream is over. I'm now a hockey fan.

Oh wait, they suck too.

RioRunner wrote:

Could we make an argument that since the 2008 women’s trials were 4 months before the OG that 2 women were injured and couldn’t compete, mean that having a trials race so close to the Olympic Games a bad thing? And, that having the Trials race in 2007-New York for the men gave them nearly a year to recover a good thing?

Absolutely not, no, the case cannot be made. Just look historically how close the marathon trials to the games back in the day of Shorter. Pushing the date back as far as New York the year before the games just gives a longer period of time for an elite to get injured, and jump into another race for a pay-day so that they aren't recovered.

Conto wrote:

I've coached an Olympic Trials qualifier. He was talented and worked hard, but was a 14:00/29:00 guy. There are many others who are more talented and who train a lot more then he did (he was running about 100-110 mpw and was a few years out of college) that should be able to run 2:18. In fact, I think he is more than talented enough to run 2:16'ish if he could stay healthy and motivated.

Just because people aren't training right.......we should try and educate coaches and athletes so they know how to train to maximize their marathon potential. For a large population of the 2:19-2:25 guys, this will equate to 2:12-2:18 marathons.

Fix the problem.

Your athlete had a VDOT greater than 75, and evidently didn't run up to his potential in the marathon. Do you think possibly the coaching had something to do with that (e.g., maybe he was running a lot of miles too fast, etc.)?