Jake Krolick runs 2:19:00.14 at Houston this weekend. USATF grants him entry into the trials. Hours later he’s denied.

tarckstar wrote:

How do we get distance running into the public consciousness? Oh, I know, let's have distance runners never compete, that will do it.

That should be for another thread, but some quick thoughts. I think emphasis on times and flat courses kills general interest. Would people watch the NBA if the only games that were important were all-time high scoring games? Would the Tour de France be interesting if all they had were flat stages set up to have the fastest completion times? Running would be interesting if we took all the best runners and took them to the trails and mountains on courses that don't need to be accurately measured, and reduce the status of road races to something similar to track cycling.

zzzz wrote:

running would be interesting if we took all the best runners and took them to the trails and mountains...

and cross country, meant to add. I know it's a hard sell the way its popularity is now, but there are ways to change that.

The antenna transponder tag is on the bib.

Hardly any big races use chips on shoes anymore.

i understand that this guy wants to go to the trials really badly but wouldn't you want to know that you've earned it rather than got in on a technicality?

Co-Flounder wrote:

The antenna transponder tag is on the bib.

Hardly any big races use chips on shoes anymore.

So is there any rule against holding your bib and sticking out your hand? Probably, but might be a loophole.

If you look at his IG it looks like he feels that way and is already set on 2024 regardless of his entry status in 2020. Good on him. Still pulling for the guy though and USATF to change the decision. 1 tenth is agonizing but again, if it doesn’t meet the standard, then doesn’t deserve to go. And I think he says that in his first post.

240 guys running 2:11-2:19; that is an elite event. Do we need to widdle the field down to make sure the "real elites" don't feel belittled by the competition? Are those 2:12 guys such a bunch of weaklings that they can't handle the pressure of a hungry 2:19 guy challenging "their" spot? The more they stack that race with elite dudes running anything under 2:20, the more likely greatness will emerge rather than just running a dog and pony show for those "true elites" you are so worried about protecting. At that point the differences between a 2:12 guy and someone who just ran 2:19 or 2:18 for the first time are so minimal it is worth watching them all fight it out and not needling the rules to protect "the elite" from competition. The whiners on this thread are the ones complaining we have to follow the rules to a 0.1 s or some sort of tragedy of competition will occur. Nothing bad will happen if another hungry 2:19 guy throws down in the trials.

I served on the WLDR Executive Committee for 13 years. Took a hard stand against petitioning athletes, denying every single instance, usually the only negative vote but was proud of keeping consistent. One second becomes two seconds becomes three and so on. My position was approving misses opens a giant can of worms.. A gal collapsed and crawled across the finish line at CIM 2019, missing the mark by :07. Her appeal was approved, leaving me shaking my head. That's just me. But regarding this fractional miss, are you freaking kidding me?

The "slippery slope from 1s to 3s or even 30s is not really a tragedy; it is not going to results in 5 minutes of added times. That fact that you were on that committee and were so staunch about seconds and crushing the potential added competition goes to show how stupid the committee and USATF has been for so long; nothing would have ever happened except you would have thrown one more or ten more hungry, competitive and potential breakout athletes into the mix, but instead people like yourself chose to be arrogant jerks because you had the power to do so; that about sums up the stupidity of USATF and the people who lead that organization.

Can we just start calling it a touchdown if the ball gets to the 99.99 yard line?

joedirt wrote:

Can we just start calling it a touchdown if the ball gets to the 99.99 yard line?

Imperfect analogy. I initially was going to compare it to counting a shot made after the buzzer but that too is not fair.

Everyone is still running 26.2. I think of it more like an undrafted player making the team. But he’s still a player.

I think a shot made after the buzzer is a good analogy.

I agree.

He should sue the heck out of the USATF for gender discrimination.

Co-Flounder wrote:

The antenna transponder tag is on the bib.

Hardly any big races use chips on shoes anymore.

If his bib crossed after his foot, could easily erase the 0.014. His foot crossed the line first. On video review he gets in, IMO. No technicality. Chip time corrected by video review.

runguru wrote:

I served on the WLDR Executive Committee for 13 years. Took a hard stand against petitioning athletes, denying every single instance, usually the only negative vote but was proud of keeping consistent. One second becomes two seconds becomes three and so on. My position was approving misses opens a giant can of worms.. A gal collapsed and crawled across the finish line at CIM 2019, missing the mark by :07. Her appeal was approved, leaving me shaking my head. That's just me. But regarding this fractional miss, are you freaking kidding me?

I'll agree with you in most instances. Not this one though. 2:19:00.00 to .99 is still 219. The rule is 219, not sub 219. For a time above 2:19:00.99, the qualifying time would have to be 2:19:01. In some cases there could be extenuating circumstances where I think an appeal should be accepted.

Kvothe wrote:

I'll agree with you in most instances. Not this one though. 2:19:00.00 to .99 is still 219. The rule is 219, not sub 219. For a time above 2:19:00.99, the qualifying time would have to be 2:19:01. In some cases there could be extenuating circumstances where I think an appeal should be accepted.

Do you also consider “6 feet tall” to be everything up to 6’11”?

runguru wrote:

I served on the WLDR Executive Committee for 13 years. Took a hard stand against petitioning athletes, denying every single instance, usually the only negative vote but was proud of keeping consistent. One second becomes two seconds becomes three and so on. My position was approving misses opens a giant can of worms.. A gal collapsed and crawled across the finish line at CIM 2019, missing the mark by :07. Her appeal was approved, leaving me shaking my head. That's just me. But regarding this fractional miss, are you freaking kidding me?

That woman had a 2:45:00 chip time (2:44:59.xx unofficially, rounded up to 2:45:00 per official timing conventions), right? If that’s the case, it was in line with USATF’s stated policy of considering chip times in close cases to allow her in, meaning she didn’t miss the mark. Was your vote always a “no” in cases like this because you don’t like that the rule allows for chip time to be considered? Or don’t like how there has come to be universal application of the rule (even, as some have noted earlier in this thread, in the case of someone with a 2:45-high chip time at Boston this year)? Or is there some other reason that I’m missing?

Although I disagree, I ask because I’m truly interested in why this was/is your position. I feel like there must be something that I’m missing?

How incredible is it that the person who denied this man is likely a non athletic obese American who has no idea how unfair it is what they have done .

lmaoosood wrote:

How incredible is it that the person who denied this man is likely a non athletic obese American who has no idea how unfair it is what they have done .

the person who denied him was himself by not running a qualifier

the ATC telling him he got in was cruel but it doesn't change the fact that he wasn't fast enough.