2024 Olympic Marathon selection criteria partially announced. Find out what the 2024 US Olympic Marathon Trials will look like

So when does the window open to achieve whatever the time standard will be?

Your interpretation is not entirely correct and there will be an info session shortly explaining the details. Basically a country will be allowed to replace up to three athletes as long as those replacement athletes have run 2:11:30 (men) 2:29:30 (women)

This reads like something a bot wrote

Is this what it means by “quota reallocation”.

“Any national Olympic committee may choose to reallocate a quota place to an unqualified athlete, provided the athlete has achieved at least a 2:11:30 (men) or 2:29:30 (women) eligibility performance within the qualification window.”

Based on your comment, I’m assuming that a country would receive a “quota” based on the number of athletes in their country that have “qualified”. So if 3+ athletes met qualification standards that country would get 3 ‘quotas’ and could give a spot (or 2 or 3) to a ‘non-qualified’ athlete provided that athlete still ran 2:11:30/2:29:30 or faster.

*Not all countries can automatically receive 3 quotas- otherwise the standards would effectively be pointless (the standard would simply be 2:11:30/2:29:30) so that’s why I’m guessing the quota system would be based on # of qualifying athletes.

* I don’t understand why they don’t just clarify the quota system and the qualification window in this article. What’s the point in being vague and making us guess? It would take maybe 2 simple sentences to address. At least they clarified the “entry standard” would be decided on at a later meeting.

I may not be the only reader with question:

how do the marathoners get ranked (a 2:12:xx is ranked above a 2:08:xx guy)? Is it based on times posted only in the last year? Does course difficulty (somewhat subjective, and weather on race day is also a factor) factor into the ranking?

The takeaway here is that World Athletics sees the original Olympic ideal as dead. It wants the best athletes in the Olympics regardless of nation. By 2028, maybe 2032, Western countries better get their crap together and have qualified athletes or we will have mostly all African distance finals at both the Olympics and Worlds.

This isn't local youth sports where everyone is guaranteed playing time. It's a shame that a handful of 2:04 - 2:05 marathon runners from East Africa sit at home because spots must be reserved for non-factor runners with a 2:12 PR and a dream.

Race difficulty does not matter. They give bonus points (way too many in my opinion) to people placing high at bigger races like world marathon majors.

For example Keira D'Amato at Houston set the American record of 2:19:12 but it was worth less ranking points than Emma Bates running 2:24:20 at Chicago because Emma got more bonus points at Chicago than Keira did at Houston. If Chicago keeps only paying out 5 deep international athletes then it makes it the ideal race for world rankings. Any fast international people often drop out once they're not in the money, which is 5th place. 6th/7th/8th/9th/10th still get a ton of bonus points, and it's a flat course, so you can really move up in the world rankings with a result that isn't equivalent to a different race like New York.

For example Ben True was 7th at New York battling with Bekele and Kibiwott Kandie in 2:12:53, it is a tougher course. This result got him 1178 ranking points

Colin Mickow also got 1178 ranking points from Chicago by finishing 6th (only top 5 got paid so a lot of people dropped out and the field was weaker to begin with) in a 2:13:31 on a flatter course. The same course and day that Rupp was able to run a low 2:06 for 2nd place.

I'm just pointing out that their world ranking points are not perfect, they give way too many bonus points to certain races. Even in sprints, people running slow times at 'world athletics label' track meets are surpassing NCAA sprinters running significantly faster, just because it's supposed to be a more competitive race which isn't always the case.

Thank you for the detailed explanation.

Having a race run-off (e.g., the USA Trials race) seems to be a fairer way of selecting the three athletes than using the rankings.

I see what they’re trying to do in terms of making sure the field is a true representation of the fastest in the world, but now the question begs if this should change the qualifications for the US trials.

If they’re selecting off of the top ranked 65 and the time standard, then do we even need the US trials? For example, if the women’s standard is 2:37 but the world standard is 2:29, then there’s really no chance for those 2:37 runners to crack the ranks in the top 65, so why hold a race that won’t change much in the long run? Perhaps I’ve interpreted this wrong but I’d love to hear other thoughts on this.

I think it has to do partially with what label WA grants a race. For instance Lindwurm's 2:25 at Grandma's is impressive but probably not worth as much points wise as a 2:29 at NYC which is a gold label WA race. Same with someone who ran 2:08-2:10 at a non-major compared to True who ran 2:12 at NYC.

World Athletics had a road running webinar this morning that covered this in more detail. I will share later today. Now off to the track here in Eugene.

What I don't get is why World Athletics doesn't give difficult course like NY a time bonus. Everyone knows NY is slower than Chicago but a key part of the rankings is how fast you run.

Anyways, Jonathan Gault has written an article about the whole thing.

letsrun.com

World Athletics Will Allow Countries with 3 Qualified Athletes For 2024 Olympic Marathon to Name Whoever They Want to the Team – As Long as They’ve Broken 2:11:30/2:29:30

Jonathan Gault

This gives the US more leeway but doesn’t guarantee that the top 3 finishers at the Olympic Trials will be on the team. Repeat after us, if a country is sending 3, they should be allowed to send any three they want, particula...

Open link

In the US, be top three in our Trials, and meet the qualifying time. Or am I wrong?

The 65 person trials race is a good idea in my opinion. My non-judgmental personal belief is that a legitimate trials races has only competitors who have a reasonable chance to make the team. The criteria for putting together a trials field should be like track and field---athletes should have a fathomable shot at making both the top 3 and meeting the championship/Olympic standard.

For the marathon, I think anybody with a sub-2:13, sub-1:03:30 and/or sub-28:30 should be allowed to compete in the U.S. Mens' Trials---all times within 12 months of the trial.

On the same day, starting 90 minutes before the trials race, I'd host a sub-elite championship for all U.S. men with times under-2:30 in the past 12 months. There'd be no prize money, no travel, no housing provided for this sub-elite race. I could foresee a 1000 athlete field for that. Same set up for women the day before or after.

As a younger man, I'd have qualified for and been excited to participate in the sub-elite race and be a part of the weekend, but those of us who flirted with 2:20 give or take know how far that is from 2:12. Likewise, btw the 2:12ers know how far that is from world class times in the sub 2:05 range, but that's another discussion.

I'm confused by this - if they've run 2:11:30, won't they already be qualified? Are they just saying here the standard will be quicker that?

Currently you don't have to pick based on quota places anyway - as long as you have the standard, your national federation can pick you - so I don't see too much new there?

I misunderstood the rule. World Athletics has confirmed to us that as long as we have 3 in the top 65, we can replace them with anyone that has run under 2:11:30 or 2:29:30. I thought the rule was you could only repalce 1. You could replace all 3.

Gone are the days when the standard for men was 2:18. Anyway considering Paris 2024 will for the first time allow public mass participation, i wonder why World Athletics is so strict in not allowing more Elite runners to enter the Olympic Marathon. Aside from Japan , US and East african nations, other countries around the world don't have a rich distance running culture where Full Marathons are held like every other month. For them the Marathon is a difficult sport. In India with over billion people, the best this year is 2:14 or something, only one significant international Marathon (fast course) that takes palce once a year in Mumbai.

But this is no different to the current situation? The USA currently have 12 men qualified by time for the marathon. If any of them finish in Top 3 at the trials - they go. You don't need to be in the top 65 if you have the time anyway.

I don't understand what they're changing. They're basically saying saying the qualifying standard for the marathon 2024 will be 2.11.30 for major countries

I like the hard limits of 2:11:30 and 2:29:30. This seems to guarantee nobody slower than that in the race, which I think is good. In all past Games, there have been plenty that I'd have finished in front of.

What I DON'T like is the official LRC stance that if a country has 3 that meet whatever standards WA has come up with, they should be able to to send any 3, regardless of whether any of the particular 3 chosen by their federafion meet WA criteria. Terrible idea that I have read around 30 times on this site. One of the problems with the Bojos favorite theoretical rule change is that it would have to apply to every country with an Olympic Comittee.

All those clown that have no chance to break 3 hours (M) or 3:30 (W) do not need to be there. If that means Bhutan and Central African Republic don't get to send a single one, great! All nations whose fastest marathoner is slower than I am are cut out. WA is finally moving in that direction. If Haiti hopes to get someone in the race, they have to get someone under 2:11:30 or 2:29:30. Then, the marathon is like all other Olympic T&F events. In past Games, 6 minute 1500 runners and 35 second 100 runners have had no Olympic options. Finally, the marathon will be just like the other events!