Changed Marathon Trials numbers

It gets more interesting with this response from Mr. Latimer. He does respond immediately which is impressive!

Wejo should do an interview with him.

The only comment I have is in on the courses in 1980-1984.

The courses, some of them have been stated to inaccurate. The USATF would have those records of performances on certified courses. He would have the data to support his decision.

From Mr. Latimer:

"It is not about money - it is about true development.

Athletes will rise to the occasion - just as the depth charts show in 1980 - 1984.

NY spent $1.2 million on the Olympic Trials so it is incredibly expensive to put on a trials without much change of getting money back because of USOC branding issues.

So we all like the idea of the OT being on the big stage and want to continue that process.

And it is my committee's goal not just me. Please understand the process - I have an Executive Committee of 20 people plus 4 others, and then there is the general LDR mens reps from every Association. There was zero opposition and unanimous support for this change"

Hope this information helps

Regards

GL

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

This was similiar to the response given to Ruler of the Universe on p.6:

On Dec 1, 2007, at 10:57 PM,

glennlat@aol.com

wrote:

Thanks for the support.

Actually there were zero nay sayers to this voted decision at this Convention.

My Executive Committee is 50 percent athletes so we think we know what we are doing to helping to improve USA Men's distance running. (which has been our primary mission for the last three years)

The feeling is that athletes will rise to the challenge - but it is really important to create more like Ryan Hall. (he is here by the way and in our meetings)

Regards

Glenn Latimer

kanny wrote:

Honestly, look at the field sizes for each of these other Olympic Trials athletics events:

http://www.usatf.org/events/2008/OlympicTrials-TF/entry/qualifyingStandards.asp

Do we really need more than 65-85 people in the marathon race to determine who the 3 representatives are for the US?

We still have US Marathon Championships every (non trials it seems) year for crying out loud... with standards (don't know what they are but it was 2:30 in 2003).

I agree: it's time to RAISE THE BAR.

If you have a dream of becoming an olympian, you better match these standards:

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/standards/xml=beijing_2008/index.html

.

this is probably one of the more insightful posts on this thread. i don't really care either way on this issue but i find it interesting that one event - whose trials already cost an exorbitant amount of money and effort to put on in relation to every other track and field event - is so against these changes. i think it's nice that the marathon trials are seemingly something that just about every runner can/could aspire to. i'm not really seeing, however, how raising the bar a little bit is going to cause a mass exodus from the sport. maybe a few will think the new standard is a bridge too far. if that's the case, i'm questioning why we, as a sport, care. such people obviously don't have the drive/mentality/whatever to make it to the top of the sport - so why do we care whether they run at the trials, a place designed for those at the top of the sport?

I got to about page 4 of this thread and grew tired of reading of reading all the complainers posts. One guy even wrote "this has set my training back big time." I'm not quite sure how his training has altered...was he not training all out before??

As a former OT qualifier in 2000 and 2004, I was disappointed in not making the 2008 standard, but that wasn't USATF's fault, it was mine. My first response to hearing the new standards was "I'm screwed" for sure now, but over the past 24 hours I've decided that I can either buck up or give up. The standard is what it is. Its not gonna dash any dreams or keep the Trent Brineys and Brian Sells out of the trials. Guys like that will find a way to qualify or they'll disappear.

Odds are I won't qualify for 2012, but the new standard is just a new goal. I have to adjust my attitude and outlook. The great ones rise up to new challenges - its that simple.

Its funny how many people bash Latimer and Estes on this board, but its always behind an anonymous name. I'm a classic "B" guy, but they have helped me on numerous occasions in a variety of ways. They are essentially doing full-time jobs on part-time budgets, and as you should know runners are fickle, strange, and some are downright selfish arrogant bastards. Combine working with those types of athletes with a small budget, incompentent association presidents, stressed out race directors, and sponsors who think they should get everything they want and you have a shrinks dream-come-true. I may agree with Wejo that these changes came out of nowhere and some advanced notice may have been nice, but they are the governing body and they are doing what they do - govern. If everything was done via input from all peanut galleries nothing would ever get done - we'd be stuck in even more red tape than we already are.

My advice is to shit or get off the pot.

Now I have to post anonymously on a different thread...

How many times have there been threads here with rants of how Boston sucks because they loosened the qualifying times and it's for joggers now and even sub 3 hours is soft.

That the 3 hour "joggers" cheapen the race for the real runners and aren't part of the real race.

In those same threads people use the loosened standards as one of the downfalls of US running, and post times from 20 years ago when the qualifying times were harder as proof of their theory.

Ah, but tighten the standards for the Olympic trials and exclude a group that has no chance of winning, and suddenly that is elitist and discouraging participation in the sport?

The problem with our sport isn't so much the television coverage or the lack of sponsorship, etc. It is the bitter and self-loathing element WITHIN the sport. People come to this web page and they are bombarded with negativity, criticisms, and accusations. And you are "confused" (short of unfounded drug accusations) why the Kenyans run so well? The environment there is incredibly positive and supportive. That is why the training groups here (in the USA) are working so well. They keep out the negative and self-destructive elements, and build on a foundation of positive energy and optimism. The relevance to the Trials comes from a 2:45 marathon runner talking about excluding a group that has "no chance of winning" and others saying that a 2:22 guy is not elite. Do you really think a basketball player is not elite if they are not in the top 130 in the country? And, what is a "chance of winning" anyway? In this particular trials no one with a PR slower than 2:14 realistically had a chance. Running is about building and developing, and a chance of winning in the future is built on a chance to participate (against the BEST) now. If you are running 2:45 then maybe you should be trying to learn from the guys faster than you instead of dismissing their accomplishments. The irony is that the TOP (and yes I am in a position to speak about that) guys do NOT dismiss the "sub-elites" (as you call them) in the same way that you do. The true elites understand that it is the 2:22 guy pushing the 2:20 guys pushing the 2:18 guys.... etc... AND, of course, 2:22 is an arbitrary number. Frankly, I don't care if the time is 2:22 or 2:19. Either can work. The sad thing is the pathetic justifications given by USATF and a lot of the posters on this message board. Our sport is a sport for dedicated and passionate participants. If we spend so much time knocking the accomplishments of one another (from the 6 hour marathon jogger to the 2:22 "qualifier" to the Olympic Champion) then how do we expect anyone else to give our sport the attention and respect that in our heart of hearts we know it deserves?

Just like government... All the people on the committee knew about the conference (the place where these kinds of decisions are made)... If they can't bother to take the time to show up and be where they need to be, when they need to be there, "boo hoo for them"...

Also... As far as "many runners that would have stopped training"... Let them quit! If they are going to "give up" over 3 minutes, then we don't need them in this sport!

Sounds O.K. to me wrote:

IMHO - the primary responsiblity of the USATF is to put on the best possible marathon trials for those who actually have a chance to win the race.

If the standards were the same in 2004, when some have said Sell wouldn't have qualifed with his 2:19:58.... well, something tells me he would have found a marathon somewhere and ran 2:19:00 to make sure he qualified. Hell, he probably would have run that particular marathon faster.

USA Track & Field's Mission Statement:

The mission of USATF is to provide vision and leadership to the sport of Athletics in the United States, and to promote the pursuit of excellence from youth to masters, from grass roots to the Olympic Games.

I don't see anywhere in here that says the primary mission of USATF is to put on the best possible race for those that have a chance to win...

Perfect timing for a post like yours. Have you ever been in a position to even THINK about giving up? I mean, have you ever truly devoted yourself to being the best runner you can possibly be? It is not easy. It is a commitment and a lifestyle. Even Sell had mentioned that he may retire if he didn't make the team this year? Would that make him a quitter? Other people are in the same position. There life as a medical student, law student, etc... is on hold because they are giving everything they have to a relatively unrewarding pursuit. If you have never really TRIED then you are not in a position to judge other people for "giving up." People need SOME support, SOME of the time. Not financial. Just some support from the people who are meant to be promoting the same sport as them.

Exactly.

To whoever it was who criticized my earlier post for needing "external" motivation, this poster has it nailed. I and a lot of others have tons of internal motivation. It's not like changing the standard will make me quit pursuing my best performances. But it's nice to have a little external motivation and support sometimes.

kieser wrote:

over the past 24 hours I've decided that I can either buck up or give up. The standard is what it is. Its not gonna dash any dreams or keep the Trent Brineys and Brian Sells out of the trials. Guys like that will find a way to qualify or they'll disappear.

This kind of argument is making more and more sense, which I must admit in spite of myself.

did the womens standard change also............2:47 is much easier than 2:22

A few items:

1. First as an attorney in Indiana, I think there are some legal issues with how this decision was made. USATF has to operate in the "sunshine" having made this decision in Hawaii in a non public forum presents some issues.

2. As a "b" qualifer to this year's trials, I clearly have a vested interest in the 222 standard. However the change in standards does not surprise me. At the Trials this year Glen said to us, 10 of you have a real chance of making the team and 15 of you have an outside chance. So Glen should the other 110 of us just go home? There were three groups at the trials this year- B guys, A guys and a group of about 20 guys that were highly favored by USATF (some were B 10k guys).

3. Most importantly this limits the long term development of our sport. As a 1420 guy in college what options do you have? Maybe bust your ass and run 1355- which gets your nowhere. Get on the roads and make some money? Or try to make the team in the marathon. Maybe you will be the next Bill Rodgers, Dick Beardsley, Bob Hodge, Randy Thomas etc. All of those guys did not break 30 in college, and now would not have made the trials in the marathon until their late 20's. Good thing for America USATF did not put Bill Rodgers out to pasture, it took him 3 marathons to break 220, it took Dick 6.

Wejo, does it make sense to combine the Trials with one of the of 3 major marathons? (Boston, Chicago, or NY) The runners start before the main race and you get coverage on both marathons. We should be able to sell that to a network. It would help promote the sport. Latimer even stated, "NY spent $1.2 million on the Olympic Trials so it is incredibly expensive to put on a trials without much change of getting money back because of USOC branding issues." Even with the reduction in the size of the field as Latimer mentioned in the article,... "with the new scheme the number would likely be between 65 and 85." We can take that money spent on a separate trials and reduction in field size to help develop more runners through the club system and better prepare our team for the Olympics. Hopefully we make this positive!

He and Sandra Farmer Patrick need to be voted out in Reno. Along with Teddy Mitchell. To be eligible to vote you have had to represent the US internationally in the last 8 years. However, Sandra has not done that and she is the elite ACC chair. It is going to take a lot of legal, political and publicity moves to remove clowns like her.

World Class or National Class period. Forget this semi-elite, sub-elite or semi-sub elite crappola.

Fact:Running the Olympic A standard at the Games would not get you a sniff at a medal.

To get 3 runners to go they all have to get an A standard at some point. Is it so out of line to think the trials should be limited to those who have shown they can get at least a Olympic B standard?

The other guys need a bone to be dangled to keep them on the road? The USAT&F Marathon Championships would be the race the B plus a itty-bitty bit guy could win if the really big guns were in the Trials race that pre-Olympic fall.

I'm persuaded by folks on both sides of the argument, including Avocado's Number, who disagrees with you, but I think you're making sense.

To those who argue that 2:19 will just up the ante and make runners train harder: yes, but. The real problem, as we all know, is that elite-level distance running just hasn't been terribly hip, compared with football, basketball, and baseball. It hasn't attracted mass interest, hasn't convinced the talented kids with other sporting options out there in the hinterlands to make it a #1 priority.

That's all been changing, and this year's OT in NYC really seems to have confirmed the beginnings--the POTENTIAL beginnings--of a seismic shift.

The way you consolidate that shift, as the poster correctly argues, is to keep things open enough (i.e., 200+ qualifiers) that you let a current of interest in elite marathoning (as opposed to general-interest big-city mass marathoning) cycle through American culture, percolate, and haul those potential self-selectors on board. In other words, you give the AVERAGE kid a bit more of a chance to identify with "an Olympic Trials qualifier" by making it just a little more likely that that kid, or somebody he knows, actually knows such a qualifier.

This is the route to long term growth. You expand the pool of talent, you increase the buzz, rather than closing down the intake valves and choking off what has only really just begun.

In other words, the idea that tightening the qualifying standard will benefit elite running is based on a false dichotomy between the interests of the elites and the interests of the mass. Sustained real growth in the visibility of American elite marathoning will only be HELPED, within reason, by maintining the present standard and allowing even more young men (and women) to pursue their dreams, talk about their dreams. Mass interest in elite marathoning will translate into significant increases in endorsement monies, TV coverage of the process, etc.

Obviously the point in both cases is to produce another Frank Shorter, somebody who wins the gold and precipitates what those of us who were around saw in the late 70s and early 80s--a remarkable depth in elite and near-elite level marathon performances in the US. But I see no reason to think that tightening the standard will have much effect on the times of the sub-2:15 guys. It will simply choke down the current rebirth of mass interest in the whole thing before it's really had time to consolidate.

Bad idea.

As a side note, it's interesting that in the IAAF standards page for the 07 and 09 Marathon World Championships that:

"In addition, the first 20 (men & women) of the Berlin, Boston, Chicago, London and New York City Marathons, will be considered as having achieved the [World Champs] "A" standard."

even though Boston isn't on the official list of marathons to get a 'standard' in for the World Championships.

Also note that that top 20 in Osaka ('07) in the marathon world champs automatically get the *Olympic* 'A' standard regardless of time.

Jonathan Little wrote:

A few items:

1. First as an attorney in Indiana, I think there are some legal issues with how this decision was made. USATF has to operate in the "sunshine" having made this decision in Hawaii in a non public forum presents some issues.

um, what?