Olympic Marathon Trials rumor

What are the various rumors?

According to this Twitter post the rumor is there may not be a trials.

Well, that’d be a shame. We would not have Molly Seidel without the Trials.

215Marathon wrote:

According to this Twitter post the rumor is there may not be a trials.

That would be a joke to not have the trials. If you can't be a top 3 American at the trials why would we expect you to be a top 3 American for the olympics? Just because you got lucky in one of your marathons potentially a year ago, or even 18 months ago? The olympic trials is the most up to date indicator of who our top marathon runners are before the olympics. Molly showed that just because someone wasn't a top marathoner 12 months before the olympics doesn't mean they can't be one of our best 5 months before the olympics. And Abdi showed that just because someone was one of our top 3 18 months before the olympics doesn't mean they're our top 3 the day of the olympics. Assuming there are no trials, they'll be going off of spring or fall marathons, probably only certain ones, and trying to compare them when they have different weather, different pacers, different elevation changes. This is stupid. Just like how Sara Hall is now likely selected for worlds with a 2:27 3rd place on the flat Chicago course with a weak field, and Kellyn Taylor doesn't get to go with a 2:26 6th place at the more challenging course of New York and tougher field.

Most sports don't have trials, and it's pretty simple why. The people who run the sport, by the very nature of seeking a position on the national governing board of a sport, believe they know what is best for the sport, and that includes knowing WHO is best for the sport. While the audience loves trials for the excitement and unpredictability, the bigwigs on the governing body hate the idea that they may not know best.

Lastly, having trials completely removed the possibility that someone on the governing board can be "lobbied" by sponsors to put a marginal athlete on the team.

As much as I enjoy the drama of a trials race and a good Molly Seidel type of story, I also see where they are going with this. USATF selects the most competitive team possible based on performances at major marathons against the best competition. It eliminates our best performers getting knocked out due to ill timed minor niggle, horrible weather, or the proverbial bad day. It gets rid of the expensive and strange bidding process to hold The Trials that often puts the race in a bizarre place with weather unlike the actual Games site (Let's do our selection in Atlanta, in February, on a cold and windy day to select a team for very hot and humid conditions in Tokyo!).

This will not hurt our top pros as they make their living off of the sport and will, like any other profession, need to "hit their numbers" to earn that promotion (in this case, an Oly team spot.). The only people getting shafted here are the fast hobby joggers that use The Trials as their personal Olympics. While that is sad, if squeaking under the OTQ standard is the height of your running ambitions, then you really should be working on your income generating career instead of sacrificing valuable time, energy, and money to garner a bragging right that very few care about outside of this message board or your local running shop.

mathematics wrote:

Lastly, having trials completely removed the possibility that someone on the governing board can be "lobbied" by sponsors to put a marginal athlete on the team.

This isn't a terrible idea. Seidel probably would have qualified anyway; her NYC time would have put her in the top 6 qualifiers for the trials, and we don't know what she can do on a fast course yet. She might very well have fulled of a top-3 time within the qualfying window.

Canada had a Trials race where only the winner was gauranteed a spot. Because of that stupid idea, a 2:29 marathoner got in, and a 2:26er, who had set the national record within the qualifying window, missed out. The 2:29er, BTW, finished DFL in Tokyo. The 2 time qualifers finished 9th and 13th; the both beat Kipyego and Aliphine.

The marathon isn't suited for a winner-take-all race. the only reason people like the Trials is it's essentially a US Marathon Championship. But it's a terrible way to pick a marathon team.

I'll Take This One... wrote:

While that is sad, if squeaking under the OTQ standard is the height of your running ambitions, then you really should be working on your income generating career instead of sacrificing valuable time, energy, and money to garner a bragging right that very few care about outside of this message board or your local running shop.

You are a joyless, soulless, knob. I'm sure your grandchildren will love to hear your stories about making marginally more money. "Grandad, tell us again about the time you jumped two tax brackets in 16 months!" The idea that no one cares about something = it's not worthwhile is stupid...and it follows that the only worthwhile things are those that make strangers think you're great. You must be huge on Insta. How lame and sad your perspective is.

215Marathon wrote:

According to this Twitter post the rumor is there may not be a trials.

USATF sure is doing a good job of killing the sport.

I can see USATF going towards a points system where athletes who race at IAAF gold label races score more points by time and place and they take those in consideration and select the Olympic team. With that said, killing the Trials is killing the development of the sport and the up and coming athletes in it.

So some random person makes a claim on Twitter and people post it here like it's a fact... what's new

The Olympic marathon trials is the single best event that USATF puts on. It combines elite competition with a level of inclusion for sub-elites, allowing them to live the dream just a little. Getting rid of it is a monumental act of self-harm.

Distance running is too popular in the US not to have a trials. Other countries select teams on time because they'd have trials with like 15-20 athletes. It would be a big step in the wrong direction and really hurt the sport if we didn't have a trials. All the big marathons that rely on subelites to get name recognition would be really hurting as a lot of guys would stick to shorter distances instead of lay it on the line at the few decent marathons in the US.

High hopes wrote:

The Olympic marathon trials is the single best event that USATF puts on. It combines elite competition with a level of inclusion for sub-elites, allowing them to live the dream just a little. Getting rid of it is a monumental act of self-harm.

think how much the ceo could increase his 4 million dollar salary by if usatf didn't pay for that though...

Personal olympics? You don't understand the sport at all. Was regionals your personal nationals? Is conference the 8th fastest guy on the team's personal regionals? Your argument is stupid enough to make me mad.

Income generation is what people should focus on? Its not an either or bud. Most the guys and gals at the trials focus plenty on income generation for 40 hours a week, 2000 hours a year. I guess you're too lazy to even consider running at a high level with the 4-5 hours of free time the average 40 hour a weeker has a day (after commuting, eating, taking care of errands).

Here's a news flash for you - if you spend much more than 40 hours a week on income generation - its not worth it. You are a boring uninteresting person and you'd be better served with a hobby. There are few exceptions to this rule.

Trallz wrote:

I'll Take This One... wrote:

While that is sad, if squeaking under the OTQ standard is the height of your running ambitions, then you really should be working on your income generating career instead of sacrificing valuable time, energy, and money to garner a bragging right that very few care about outside of this message board or your local running shop.

You are a joyless, soulless, knob. I'm sure your grandchildren will love to hear your stories about making marginally more money. "Grandad, tell us again about the time you jumped two tax brackets in 16 months!" The idea that no one cares about something = it's not worthwhile is stupid...and it follows that the only worthwhile things are those that make strangers think you're great. You must be huge on Insta. How lame and sad your perspective is.

Mom: "Boys! Hurry up! We don't want to be late for Thanksgiving. Your grandfather gets very upset if we don't eat exactly at 3:00. He gets very hangry after his morning Turkey Trot race."

Grandkid 1: "Ugghhh! It's the same every year, Mom. We have to act all impressed by his finisher medals and hear that lame story about how he ran 2:19 back in the 20s and got to try out for the Olympics. I looked it up on the metaverse. Girls could run faster than that even then! Now they are 10 minutes faster and the men's record is almost 25 minutes faster."

Grandkid 2: "Grandpa's running stories are boring. Mommy. Then he gets all mad at me if I ask him to do e-sports with me. He gets all worked up and won't shut up about how hard he worked and how much he sacrificed and couldn't buy a house until he was 40 and how gamers are spoiled and not real athletes. It makes me sad because I want to be a professional gamer and go to the E-Games in 2072."

Mom: "I know, kids. I had to hear all this when I was your age. It's just for a few hours and he is your grandfather. Just remember not to use the word hobby because that just upsets him more."

Yeah, but I don't buy the either/or here...a well-rounded person would have plenty of stories to tell, and most of grandpa's stories are lame anyway. And do people actually talk to their families about their turkey trots afterward? It's usually about 15 seconds when I get back to wherever I'm staying:

"How'd it go?"

"Went OK. Where's the wine?"

Um, the Trials was Seidel's first marathon.