2024 OTQ standard

anonymous lion wrote:

Slightly off topic but are there any rules for transgender people running at the trials? I remember watching the trials this year and the announcers were praising some transgender woman (Man->Woman) who was running.

Personally I think it is absurd that someone who was born a man is able to compete with women. Those gender hormones definitely hinder performance but I don't know if it is enough and I don't think they should be allowed to compete until the science is settled.

I’m not sure if there is a rule or not and do not remember the transgender athlete competing, but I certainly believe you. This is a tough topic for me. IF this continues to be a “problem” in professional sport, I think the answer is probably to divide the races by testosterone level. Above a certain threshold = open race, below the threshold = low T race or whatever you want to call it. I don’t claim to have the answers though. At face value, this “solution” seems to make sense in my mind. I am sure it is somehow hateful in the eyes of some though.

Bear wrote:

I don’t know what the resultant times would be but I think it should be as difficult as making the track trials. Make the standard the same PCT off the WR as the 10k qual time is.

Resultant times would be 2:10 and 2:28:30. This is silly because it assumes that we are as competitive in the marathon as we are in the 10,000m (we are not) and also would lead to field sizes similar to the track field sizes which makes very little sense for a road event.

Ray wrote:

I heard no discussion at the annual meeting on standards.

I stated in other threads that I thought the women should go to 2:42 and 1:13 with submissions from record eligible, certified courses and no exceptions. Zero appeals. Zero aided courses. Plan your attempts carefully and get it done

Requiring "record eligibility" would essentially leave out every non-loop course. Even requiring World Athletics qualifying eligibility for the course would knock out Boston and CIM.

Presently World Athletics does not require a record eligible course for qualifying for the Olympic Games.

Course Requirements for the Olympic Standard:

- World Athletics Certified

- Drop (difference in elevation from start to finish) can not exceed 1 m/km

- Separation (straight line distance from start to finish). Any separation is acceptable.

The only difference is that the separation for a record eligible course can not exceed 50%

D.Katz wrote:

Presently World Athletics does not require a record eligible course for qualifying for the Olympic Games.

Course Requirements for the Olympic Standard:

- World Athletics Certified

- Drop (difference in elevation from start to finish) can not exceed 1 m/km

- Separation (straight line distance from start to finish). Any separation is acceptable.

The only difference is that the separation for a record eligible course can not exceed 50%

My understanding that Grandma's squeaks under the IAAF elevation drop standard -- a drop of somewhere under 40 meters over 42.2k but most other notable point-to-point courses in the US have too much drop.

I would support a faster, broader field, than a slower, broader field.

What do I mean by this? Instead of say a 2:45:00 B standard, I would keep a very strict A level for the Women, say 2:35:00. Then, the B Standard would be 10,000m and Half Marathon times. I want more Molly Seidel and young types in the Trials as opposed to Influencer Mom types.

Women's Marathon Standard A, 2:34:59

Women's Marathon Standard B, 1:11:59

Women's Marathon Standard B, 32:59

Men's Marathon Standard A, 2:13:59

Men's Marathon Standard B, 1:02:59

Men's Marathon Standard B, 28:59

These standards raise the playing field and preserve and prioritize youth and speed.

The problem with the above standards is that people will chase a 10k or HM time instead of the actual marathon. The times are arguably on the same level and they’d be able to take many more attempts.

I prefer a marathon only time. But if you want to add a HM, it needs to be a much tougher time than marathon time. And if you did. 10k, it should be much, much faster.

If more people will try to qualify through a “loophole” event, then the loophole needs to be removed or greatly strengthened.

Standard Setter wrote:

I would support a faster, broader field, than a slower, broader field.

What do I mean by this? Instead of say a 2:45:00 B standard, I would keep a very strict A level for the Women, say 2:35:00. Then, the B Standard would be 10,000m and Half Marathon times. I want more Molly Seidel and young types in the Trials as opposed to Influencer Mom types.

Women's Marathon Standard A, 2:34:59

Women's Marathon Standard B, 1:11:59

Women's Marathon Standard B, 32:59

Men's Marathon Standard A, 2:13:59

Men's Marathon Standard B, 1:02:59

Men's Marathon Standard B, 28:59

These standards raise the playing field and preserve and prioritize youth and speed.

I agree that cutting the slower marathon times and allowing faster times in shorter events makes more sense for keeping the field relevant.

However I think 2:18 for the men and 2:40 for women should be the marathon standards, and don't see any reason for the half marathon standards to change. Only a dozen women qualified under the half standard of 1:13 who did not already run the marathon standard.

streak wrote:

I agree that cutting the slower marathon times and allowing faster times in shorter events makes more sense for keeping the field relevant.

However I think 2:18 for the men and 2:40 for women should be the marathon standards, and don't see any reason for the half marathon standards to change. Only a dozen women qualified under the half standard of 1:13 who did not already run the marathon standard.

I always envisioned the shorter distance time standards as being a way to the marathon trials for our top elites, those who clearly could run the marathon standard or well under, but just might not do so due to bad weather on race day or other bad luck or lack of opportunity. Athletes like Rupp and Seidel.

For that reason, the half and 10K standards need to be much tougher than the full standard. They should be a back door for the top tier elites, not a realistic alternative for the "happy to be there" types.

SouthernFriedRealist wrote:

The problem with the above standards is that people will chase a 10k or HM time instead of the actual marathon. The times are arguably on the same level and they’d be able to take many more attempts.

I prefer a marathon only time. But if you want to add a HM, it needs to be a much tougher time than marathon time. And if you did. 10k, it should be much, much faster.

If more people will try to qualify through a “loophole” event, then the loophole needs to be removed or greatly strengthened.

Having a half marathon standard is essential for talented marathons newbies.

Rupp qualified with a half marathon time then won the trials and picked up an Olympic bronze medal.

Molly Seidel got in with a half marathon time and got 2nd at the trials. She's a good championship racer and could medal if the race tactics play to her strengths.

Here is where the announcers talk about her.

I don't know if I would want sports separated by levels of testosterone... I think sex assigned at birth would be better but I'm sure there would be problems with this as well.

I think if these men that transition to women ever want to be compete as a female we have to figure out specifically what makes men better and precisely how much better.

For example I believe that on average men have a higher VO2Max than women, will the hormones that are given affect VO2Max. If men have better running economy than women then transgender people will also need to find a way to decrease their running economy, right? What about lactate threshold? Do these hormones affect any of this?

Bromka already wrote about this topic way better than this collection of LRBF nutbars.

Exactly my point. No way CIM should be in there. They were there only because they were the national championship. Boston? Maybe there can be some discussion about grandfathering them in. It has been done in the past. My opinion....I wouldn't count Boston. You want to run the trials? Do it on a record eligible course in the 3 years you have. Not that difficult, if you are an elite or even semi elite athlete. If you're not an elite or semi elite athlete you probably should not be in the Olympic Trials.

Han Solo wrote:

GBohannon wrote:

Men - 2:17:00

Women - 2:38:30

These won’t happen, but I would like to see something like this for the ‘B’ standards. Had these been the standards last cycle, that would’ve given us 100 men and 100 women (not counting qualifiers who got in with the the HM time).

I originally though 2:18:00 and 2:37:00 because these times are 5% slower than the Olympic standards of 2:11:30 and 2:29:30, but that would give you almost twice as many men as women.

Then it would seem like our women need to step it up a bit.

Men have more depth at every level, apparently because more men give a very large amount of effort to be the best. Look at the spread times for what it takes to qualify for NCAA championships, state track meets, and now what we see from the olympic standards. Fewer women are near the top, because fewer women try to be their best. Imagine if only half the guys tried to compete, the 100th guy would be today's 200th guy, making a larger spread from the top guy to the 'new 100th' person.

The Ghost of Brian Sell wrote:

Bromka already wrote about this topic way better than this collection of LRBF nutbars.

Agree & think his top-1000 plan is a great way to build & put eyes on the sport. Have an elite standard where you get your expenses paid. Have a 10k/half qualifier to let in people who want to debut. Make the rest pay their way but expand the fields. It's a road race. We have an opportunity to get our stories out once every 4 years. Often times the stories that resonate the most with the general public are the ones about people who squeaked in. Idk top-500ish might be 2:25 & 2:50. It's not going to bother the people running up front. Charge folks after 2:15 & 2:35.

I'm not buying any argument that says cutting down the field size will help the top-end of the sport. We already have a track trials. Roads aren't limited in the same way. Also more people relate to road running since most stop running track races in their early 20s. You know what helps the sport? Lining up 50 men & 50 women on a fast/flat course on a good weather day like the marathon project did. Well line up 500 men & 500 women and let everyone push each other to good times. There will still be plenty of competition up front.

NERunner53 wrote:

The Ghost of Brian Sell wrote:

Bromka already wrote about this topic way better than this collection of LRBF nutbars.

Agree & think his top-1000 plan is a great way to build & put eyes on the sport. Have an elite standard where you get your expenses paid. Have a 10k/half qualifier to let in people who want to debut. Make the rest pay their way but expand the fields. It's a road race. We have an opportunity to get our stories out once every 4 years. Often times the stories that resonate the most with the general public are the ones about people who squeaked in. Idk top-500ish might be 2:25 & 2:50. It's not going to bother the people running up front. Charge folks after 2:15 & 2:35.

Yup - Top 1000 as of 4 months before, plus anyone who can run 2:15/2:35 within those last 4 months, or hit the half/10K standards.

You get fluids and expenses paid if you run 2:15/2:35 at any time to qualify. Otherwise, you carry gels and use a water table, and pay an entry fee of $100 or so.

Makes it much more viable to host the trials, and also develops the sport.

You could have a men's A standard of 2:15, keep 2:19 for getting in +/- free entry, but then you could add a third tier say of 2:19-2:22. I haven't done the research to see what number of entrants that gets you to. The A standards get free entry, bottles, etc. The 2:15:x-2:19 maybe get free entry, but then the 2:19-2:22 have to pay to get in and are stuck with generic bottles/gels. Could help cover the expenses of the race by adding more sub elite glory seekers (I mean that in a nice way as 2:22 is way more attainable for me than 2:19 or faster). Can also cap the field as mentioned above for those above 2:19. Do a similar breakdown for the women, although clearly their standard doesn't need to be slowed much to do that depending on how you would cap it.

2:20 for men, 2:42 for women. Hard stop.

If you want to read more than you've ever thought you would on this topic and still see no clear vision, try this:

https://kevinbeck.substack.com/p/cases-for-large-us-olympic-marathon