Why did the USATF hold the 1996 Olympics Trials Marathon in another city and not Atlanta

Totally agree.

Well you got sonething here, I agree. Now all we need is a time machine.

You don't know how this kinda thing works

makes no sense wrote:

Not only was the race held in a separate city, but in completely different conditions in terms of weather. The goal is the pick the best runners and to prepare them at the same time. Why didn't they hold the marathon right down the road on the actual course and in weather conditions similar to what they were going to face? Why didn't they take advantage of the race being in the United States and allow the runners to get a chance to run on the actual course.?

Another failed move by the USATF.

Fock it, why not hold the 2020 OT on the same course as the Tokyo Olympic marathon??!

Drunk Letsrun wrote:

Fock it, why not hold the 2020 OT on the same course as the Tokyo Olympic marathon??!

The 96 marathon was in the USA the 2020 Olympic Marathon isn't.

Where was it held?

The men's trials were in Charlotte in February of that year. Women's was in Columbia, SC also in Feb.

As best I recall, these were bid out so cities had to put up a package for the trials. I cannot recall if Atlanta bid for the marathons or if the decision was to spread them around to showcase the sport. If Atlanta did bid, it might not have been a good enough one.

The US had bounced around the dates. Yes, it seems logical to have the Trials on a course similar to the race course and also under similar weather conditions. The first works up until the Games organizer decides to move the race course to another location and completely different profile.

Weather is trickier. The Games are going to be during the Summer and hot (unless held in Australia where the temperatures would be moderate). A problem there is that you do not want to hold the Trials too close to the marathon or too far out.

makes no sense wrote:

Not only was the race held in a separate city, but in completely different conditions in terms of weather. The goal is the pick the best runners and to prepare them at the same time. Why didn't they hold the marathon right down the road on the actual course and in weather conditions similar to what they were going to face? Why didn't they take advantage of the race being in the United States and allow the runners to get a chance to run on the actual course.?

I don't think it is necessarily great sportsmanship or honorable to use the OC course for the OTs. Not only is it not quite fair, it kind of dishonors the Olympic Games a little I think. It does make sense, however, to hold the OTs somewhere at least somewhat similar to where the OC will be held. Especially since the OT Marathon is held in the colder months, it doesn't make a lot of sense to hold it somewhere that will indeed be cold that time of year if the OCs are going to be somewhere warm (pretty much always the case given it's summertime).

All that being said, weather and conditions are largely unpredictable, so being prepared to run your best and compete regardless of conditions or circumstances is something worth selecting for also.

some guy. wrote:

makes no sense wrote:

Not only was the race held in a separate city, but in completely different conditions in terms of weather. The goal is the pick the best runners and to prepare them at the same time. Why didn't they hold the marathon right down the road on the actual course and in weather conditions similar to what they were going to face? Why didn't they take advantage of the race being in the United States and allow the runners to get a chance to run on the actual course.?

I don't think it is necessarily great sportsmanship or honorable to use the OC

Orange County?

Anyway, it's not like the '84 OT marathons were held in LA, either. There wasn't precedent and USATF always bids out these events, they don't dictate location, per se.

some guy. wrote:

I don't think it is necessarily great sportsmanship or honorable to use the OC course for the OTs. Not only is it not quite fair, it kind of dishonors the Olympic Games a little I think.

I don't understand this part of this post at all. Can you explain what you mean here? I truly fail to see any connection to running the Trials on the course (which, to me, seems like both a good test event for the organizer and a really good way to select a good team) and honor or sportsmanship.

I just, while typing the above, realized what I think you mean. Is it about unfair advantage (since home country athletes will have experience on the course that no other country's athletes will have had)? If so, I disagree that it's dishonorable or unfair--I have no problem with home field advantage--but can see where you're coming from.

Drunk Letsrun wrote:

Fock it, why not hold the 2020 OT on the same course as the Tokyo Olympic marathon??!

I mean, if we want our best guys running why not hold a trial on the actual course? South Carolina to Atlanta isn't very far. Just seems smart. They held the track trial on the same track as the 1996 Olympics.

some guy. wrote:

I don't think it is necessarily great sportsmanship or honorable to use the OC course for the OTs. Not only is it not quite fair, it kind of dishonors the Olympic Games a little I think.

It does make sense, however, to hold the OTs somewhere at least somewhat similar to where the OC will be held. Especially since the OT Marathon is held in the colder months, it doesn't make a lot of sense to hold it somewhere that will indeed be cold that time of year if the OCs are going to be somewhere warm (pretty much always the case given it's summertime).

All that being said, weather and conditions are largely unpredictable, so being prepared to run your best and compete regardless of conditions or circumstances is something worth selecting for also.

^^^Nice.

As a part of that decision making process, I can tell you that there is a lot more involved than just seeing if we can replicate the course. For one thing, if USATF had a few million they didn't know what to do with, they could probably do an ok job at picking a site for the trials.There are not a ton of venues chomping at the bit to invest millions into the restrictive process for very little return.

Ray wrote:

As a part of that decision making process, I can tell you that there is a lot more involved than just seeing if we can replicate the course. For one thing, if USATF had a few million they didn't know what to do with, they could probably do an ok job at picking a site for the trials.There are not a ton of venues chomping at the bit to invest millions into the restrictive process for very little return.

So it's about the money?

makes no sense wrote:

Drunk Letsrun wrote:

Fock it, why not hold the 2020 OT on the same course as the Tokyo Olympic marathon??!

I mean, if we want our best guys running why not hold a trial on the actual course? South Carolina to Atlanta isn't very far. Just seems smart. They held the track trial on the same track as the 1996 Olympics.

Experience on a marathon course doesn't make any difference. It wouldn't make any difference even for a XC course. If every single runner in the race, besides Lopes, had run the course before, he still would have won the 1984 Oympic marathon.

Knowledge of the course could make a difference. I have seen this many times at world class competitions ( Olympic Games, WXC, WC) where some of the eventual medalists were out there days prior to the race studying the course.

makes no sense wrote:

Ray wrote:

As a part of that decision making process, I can tell you that there is a lot more involved than just seeing if we can replicate the course. For one thing, if USATF had a few million they didn't know what to do with, they could probably do an ok job at picking a site for the trials.There are not a ton of venues chomping at the bit to invest millions into the restrictive process for very little return.

So it's about the money?

Mostly, yes. Look at final numbers for the cost of Atlanta in 2020. Anybody else coming up with that kind of cash and putting up with the USOC sponsorship rules??

D.Katz wrote:

Knowledge of the course could make a difference. I have seen this many times at world class competitions ( Olympic Games, WXC, WC) where some of the eventual medalists were out there days prior to the race studying the course.

It would be odd not to at least run part of a course and if not, at least drive the course.. Who would show up at a starting line with no knowledge besides just the distance? World XC is almost always multiple laps and almist every single participant would jog the loop before the race.

Whether a course is hilly or not, doesn't change the strategy that much. The flat sections will still be run at about the same pace.