Olympic Marathon Trials rumor

Running Cult Member wrote:

Grandpa wrote:

Just to correct the above . . . Grandma's DOES meet the World Athletics drop rule. It has a net elevation drop of 38 meters (under the allowable 42.2).

Just not start/finish separation.

very true, said loop course, meant the 50% difference thing.

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.

This.

fullstack wrote:

Running Cult Member wrote:

Just not start/finish separation.

very true, said loop course, meant the 50% difference thing.

Grandma's can be used to obtain a WA qualifying time.

Yeah it'd be a pretty big bummer for the sport if the marathon trials went away. That's THE goal for so many post-collegiate runners and I can't think of what else could fill its place other than just generally chasing fast time.

It also brings in so many non-runners as well since many know someone that is running. I don't think the fields need to continue to be as big as they were in 2020, but getting rid of it completely would be a shame.

Not horrific wrote:

barista wrote:

Um, the Trials was Seidel's first marathon.

Yes. if there hadn't been a Trials race, she would have run a different marathon.

Wasn't it Rupp's also?

Grandpa wrote:

fullstack wrote:

very true, said loop course, meant the 50% difference thing.

Grandma's can be used to obtain a WA qualifying time.

To elaborate on this last point: there is no circumstance where times only from races that are record-eligible (net drop of less than or equal to 1 meter per km and start/finish separation of less than 50% of the race distance) would be considered. This goes counter to the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act, which states that the US’a qualifying standards can be no more restrictive than the international governing body’s qualifying standards, which allow for times from some non record-eligible races to be used as time qualifiers.

What is being discussed (although we’ll see whether it’s actually implemented) is only allowing times from races that meet World Athletics’ standard for qualifying times, which does have the net drop requirement (ruling out, say, CIM) but doesn’t have start/finish separation requirements (allowing, say, Grandma’s).

We’ll also see whether athletes can qualify for the Trials by world rank (in which case, while times wouldn’t count from CIM, performances from that race—with their score discounted by World Athletics’ formula for net downhill races—could still matter for qualifying purposes, as they could contribute to athletes’ world rankings despite not being able to be used as time qualifiers).

And of course, in all circumstances, any place-based performance that counts as an Olympic qualifier (e.g., a top-10 finish at a WMM) will count as a Trials qualifier, regardless of time, as it has to by the aforementioned TedStevens Amateur Sports Act.

I think Pete Buddha-Judge should decide.

Being from the UK, I'm jealous of the US Olympic Marathon Trials - they're awesome. As has been pointed out a lot, it's a great way to develop the sport both from an athlete and fan perspective. The only reason I can see for cancelling it, is that shooting itself in the foot is completely on brand for athletics as a global sport.

Also, for those arguing that it's a bad way to pick a marathon team, I think you should look at the Olympic Marathon results - the US did a lot better than most of the rest of the world thought you would. Seems like it works to me.

Trials are one of the most interesting races.

2:18 wrote:

LetsRun posters are really slipping, collectively speaking, if you haven't heard the discussion of this. It's publicly available information. You all used to be more resourceful from that.

The posters in the know have moved on.

If the 1984 US Olympic women’s marathon contestants were picked by a committee, Joanie would have never become The Goddess.

And do you really think that World Athletics will give CIM Platinum or even Gold Level status?

Serious question.

Listen my wife has qualified for every Olympic Trials since 2004 with 1 kid and 3 kids always working full time as a high school teacher. I’ve enjoyed every trip as I never made it myself, falling short on the track and roads. However: we never once dreamed she’d make the team. It was an honor just qualifying. If it disappeared would be fine as it didn’t help her get a job or elevated our status in the community. Most people don’t really care. Atlanta was special. Good luck to all of there is another go-round.

Now what city is willing to pay USATF/USOPC for the rights to host the Marathon Trials after what happened in Atlanta?

Or did you conveniently forget that Atlanta lost their ass hosting this race? Remember that the Atlanta Track Club did not get a dime of the NBC TV money.

"Hell, even the trials could make money - charge $5 to stream the one race instead of sell it as part of a stupid subscription. Earlier in the thread it was mentioned over a million people watch the trials. I'm sure the trials could be put on, complete with a modest prize purse, for under 4 million..."

Guess what? Even if you stream the race, not a single dime goes to the local organizing committee--it all goes to the USOPC and USATF.

I'm in agreement with the comments of "that would be a joke". Sara Hall proves she's a great runner on flat and ideal conditions. Molly Seidel continues to do well under challenging conditions. Trials helps select the athlete that's best prepared for the Olympics. Trials course can be set to duplicate the expected conditions of an Olympic marathon. It seems the committee is interested in selecting by popularity and not ability.

Ballin More wrote:

Now what city is willing to pay USATF/USOPC for the rights to host the Marathon Trials after what happened in Atlanta?

Or did you conveniently forget that Atlanta lost their ass hosting this race? Remember that the Atlanta Track Club did not get a dime of the NBC TV money.

"Hell, even the trials could make money - charge $5 to stream the one race instead of sell it as part of a stupid subscription. Earlier in the thread it was mentioned over a million people watch the trials. I'm sure the trials could be put on, complete with a modest prize purse, for under 4 million..."

Guess what? Even if you stream the race, not a single dime goes to the local organizing committee--it all goes to the USOPC and USATF.

This is is the biggest reason why the Trials (and possibly it’s standards/which races it allows as qualifiers) likely has to change. There may not be any cities/LOCs wiling to bid, especially for a race with a soft qualifying times and a likely large field, after Houston, LA, and Atlanta all lost money (large amounts, in Atlanta’s case, with the unexpectedly large field).

Atlanta dug their own financial grave by stepping up and paying for flight/hotel for every qualifier. No one said they had to, but they did anyway. For other B qualifiers (like myself) I know almost every single person would've been more than content paying their own way.

Actually, ATL failed to anticipate how supershoes would have the effect of swelling fields. Combine supershoes with aided course races like CIM and you wound up with a lot of pretenders who didn't really belong there. That plus WA giving the OT gold label status didn't help their cause any. If they could have got USATF to at the very least eliminate aided courses like CIM they would've shed a bunch of OT tourists and been well within original budget. And per the alleged rumor, that looks like it could be the case going forward.

Why do you think having World Athletics granting Gold Label status was a bad thing?

The Atlanta course was challenging and there was the potential for the top three athletes not achieving the time standard. Gold Label status ensured the top three men and women would be allowed t compete in the Olympics. Thanks to the super shoes the Gold Label status wasn't needed.