You can't force people to withdraw from a race if they haven't broken any rules. It hasn't happened before in Olympic trials and it won't happen this time.
You can't force people to withdraw from a race if they haven't broken any rules. It hasn't happened before in Olympic trials and it won't happen this time.
Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:
SOLUTION:
I say if they're going to split it into two heats, put the 14 athletes with the Olympic standard in the A heat and the other 36 without it in the B heat. Run the B heat first and force them to chase the standard, and their success or failure will determine whether the A heaters will need to run fast OR allow them to run a tactical race, all without extra bodies that could get in the way. This is an easy, transparent, and non-controversial method and also rewards the athletes who came into the trials having already achieved the Oly Standard. If you're going to have two heats, this is the best way to do it.
Email USATf with that idea and make them give you compensation. That is smart
wejo wrote:
In 2003 I had to petition myself into the Trials as they changed the qualifying window midway through the Trials. I had one of the slower qualifying times. I finished 4th.
I really think it should be 1 race. Happens at NCAA regionals. No problems.
And did they let people qualify with supershoes? How were they so far off on setting the standard?
With or without the Olympic standard? It's a new era, things have changed. Anyone thinking that any of the runners without the Olympic standard have a real shot at both hitting the Olympic standard and finishing top 3 in Eugene is woefully naïve.
Having a fast heat and a slow heat ruins the point of having a trials in the first place. 48 women ran in both the West and east NCAA regionals last night. They’ll be fine in one heat.
codaayyee wrote:
Answer is to lower the standard
Wholeheartedly agree, for the future. Too late for this time around. Why the OTQ is > OQ never made sense to me.
Hejendo76 wrote:
Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:
SOLUTION:
I say if they're going to split it into two heats, put the 14 athletes with the Olympic standard in the A heat and the other 36 without it in the B heat. Run the B heat first and force them to chase the standard, and their success or failure will determine whether the A heaters will need to run fast OR allow them to run a tactical race, all without extra bodies that could get in the way. This is an easy, transparent, and non-controversial method and also rewards the athletes who came into the trials having already achieved the Oly Standard. If you're going to have two heats, this is the best way to do it.
Email USATf with that idea and make them give you compensation. That is smart
Agreed. Best idea I've heard.
And if they did do this, then it would align with keeping the 10K trials standard the same for the next Olympic cycle.
Would you allow a runner with the Olympic Standard to drop down to the first heat, though? As noted above, I can see a Sara Hall type much preferring running with those who are chasing the standard rather than those who are sitting/kicking.
345235234 wrote:
pavement88 wrote:
Do they have to be A and B heats based on times? Can't they have two heats of randomly assigned runners?
The fairest way to do it would be to run the races simultaneously on two separate tracks.
Just run the A heat clockwise and the B heat anti-clockwise.
Install a rail on the line between lanes 4 and 5. Run the A heat on the inside 4 lanes and the B heat on the outside 4 lanes. Stagger the starting lines such that the finish line is in the right place and start the races simultaneously. Watch the
This is the kind of innovation and creativity that interests people, but track and field is sorely missing.
rojo wrote:
I don't like this at all. Yes I know 50 people had qualified.
1) I've never personally seen the problem with putting 50 in a single 10k. It spreads out pretty quickly. Even if it doesn't spread out, have you ever watched a major marathon? People can run in a damn pack at a modest pace for a long damn time. If a DL can regularly run 15-18 people in a 1500 where people separated by at most 10 seconds, then USATF can run 50 people in a race where 2-3 minutes will separate first from last.
2) One of the cooler stories of the 10,000 was how Keira D'Amato and Gwen Jorgensen would be going for the Olympics. Now they are going to be in the B heat with the 41st and 45th fastest times?
Are you kidding me? Hell Vanessa Fraser (14:48 pb, 33rd) might also be in the B heat.
3) The only positive is it will result in less lappage and b better for TV at the finish .
https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a36547326/us-olympic-trials-track-and-field-womens-10000-meters-two-section-final/
Soution:
Run the heats at the same time, and randomly draw the entrants to each heat. No favoritism. Just need two ovals.
kiowavt wrote:
wejo wrote:
I think I got lapped at the 2000 Olympic Trials in the 10k.
Starting with that I think they should run 50. Once you get lapped you're out of the race. Then i see no problems with all 50 in one heat.
Just think of the tactics. Other runner in your group goes out to try to lap as many as possible and shrink the field, catch the folks the coach wants eliminated. What if the winner laps the field, too? Send folks to lane three when they are soon to be lapped might be better. No matter, I lean to two heats, but if there are scratches enough near the end, merge the heats.
Jeff Thies would have a field day!
wejo wrote:
In 2003 I had to petition myself into the Trials as they changed the qualifying window midway through the Trials. I had one of the slower qualifying times. I finished 4th.
I really think it should be 1 race. Happens at NCAA regionals. No problems.
And did they let people qualify with supershoes? How were they so far off on setting the standard?
I remember that and totally supported your appeal to be let in to race.
If I recall correctly, you hit the qualifying time in April or May 2002.
At the time, marks from the prior year counted towards qualifying.
Then heading into the Trials, they changed the window where the time had to occur after June 1, 2002.
That window was arbitrary.
They let you line up and you proved your fitness with a 4th place finish ( and a PR?)
That said, I don’t think you were seeded lower than 25 with the time that got you in.
The Trials are supposed to simulate the Olympics.
I don’t think there will be 40-50 on the line there.
This isn’t a regionals qualifier.
rojo wrote:
...
1) I've never personally seen the problem with putting 50 in a single 10k. ... /
I've seen a couple of problems with too many people in a track race
(1) When a runner is being lapped by a teammate, they will move out of lane 1 to allow their teammate to stay in lane 1 and run the shortest distance on a turn. However, as soon as their teammate passes, they will move back into lane 1, which forces a competitor to pass in lane 2. Thus, this type of team work causes the competitor to run a longer distance.
(2) Two teammates will line up behind each other with the favorite up front. When the trailing teammate sees that someone is going to pass in lane 2, they jump out into lane 2, which causes the runner trying to pass to either go to lane 3 or not pass.
(3) One leading teammate will lead a favorite around the track. When the favorite swings out to lane 2 to take the lead, the leading teammate will slow down to bunch everyone up, while the favorite sprints to the line.
All of the above is hard to accomplish when there are less people on the track.
Isn’t the PanAm team selected at the trials as well?
Something fair might be to select the PanAm team from heat 2. I wonder if anyone in heat 1 knows they wouldn’t stand a chance and would drop to heat 2?
This is entirely possible in Eugene. Rain storms typically roll in later in the evening. Although it never gets terribly windy here but since I haven't been able to get on the new track not sure about it's wind conditions. While the spectator in me likes the idea of someone running a crazy fast time and blowing up the A heat I also just understand why they can't make a rule to have lapped runners move to Lane 2. Someone is counting laps anyways so I don't see a problem enforcing it and I think most runners who are going to be lapped will be the ones just soaking up the experience and be fine moving over. It can't be anymore dangerous than having to go over the first water pit in the steeple in a crowded race.
sheltered wrote:
The 3 turn stagger (or more) is a good idea.
My scenario with 2 heats is that heat one goes for it and sets some good marks and then the weather (wind and rain) sweeps in and make heat two barely able to be run.
world championships are by definition elite.
if you don't have a time that is in the top 20, you don't belong.
sure you consider say the top 10 in the 5000m for time for the A heat.
runners that get lapped should be kicked out.
if i got lapped, i would like to be put in jail, for its a terrible crime against sport, to be an impostor.
i always liked it served up cold and brutal.
except when you're cheated, like by a PED user, or tripped, or called on a phantom meaningless foul, or some crap like that.
It doesn't matter because nobody will hot the standard from the B heat.
Now there are 54 qualified!