Both you and the USATF officials keep repeating that the rules “clearly state” the win needed to be under 3:00 but cannot seem to point to any direct mention of this requirement.
If a rule doesn’t exist, it’s not “clearly stated.” Are you just trolling?
Still not sure what you're not comprehending. I'll copy and paste it again:
3. Automatic selection will be given to the first U.S. Male and first U.S. Female at the following races, provided minimum performance standards are met (see 2 above) 2022 Caumsett Park 50K (USATF National 50K Championships), March 6, 2022
Seems like identical language to Olympic team selection. Finish top 3 and hit a time qualifier. They rarely hit the time qualifier AT the Olympic trials, but they still are auto qualifiers. That’s the whole point of having championship races. Not sure how a track fan could read this and assume you need to hit the time in that specific race.
I appreciate you extending support for OP. But are you saying that you are siding with the interpretation that his performances don't auto qualify him? I've read it a few times and have to say that I interpret the rules as OP does. Otherwise, how does the marathon standard make sense? (Of course, I guess the champs winner could have run under the marathon standard during the champs race and then fallen off greatly and won the race in over 3:00. But that doesn't make sense. It would mean running 5:25 miles for a marathon then dropping to slower than 7:50/mile.)
Listen, I think you're getting a raw deal, and I haven't seen the bolded language you referred to before, but based on the language you quoted in your first post, I think the provision requires meeting the standard at the championship race (though the language is a little too unclear for my taste, which is why you're in this situation).
It says, "Automatic selection will be given to the first U.S. Male and first U.S. Female at the following races, provided minimum performance standards are met (see 2 above)." The use of the present tense (or whatever you want to call it) "are met" means to me that the standards "are met" in "the following races" referred to. If they meant "met at any time" before closure of the window, the provision would say that, or something like the standards "were met" or "have been met," but they didn't.
Also, if you look at prior year auto qualifiers, you'll see that this is the interpretation they appeared to use (meeting the standard in the race). In 2020, the world championship "auto" qualifier is listed as: "Kallin Khan, 2:57:51, 2020 USATF 50K National Championship, Caumsett at Heckscher State Park, 3/1/2020." In other words, got the auto because he won the title and did so in a time faster than the standard.
Having said all that, I reiterate what I said before: given the vagueness, I think you're getting a raw deal, and I hope you get a shot. USATF needs better language.
I don't know any of these people or races, but I draft legal documents for a living, and I would never interpret the USATF rule as requiring you run THAT time in THAT race. The main reason is (among many other drafting problems here) it would be very easy to condition the requirement by using "if" -- i.e.,
"The winner of the USATF Championship if such winner breaks 3:00."
It's almost certainly because, as often happens, non-lawyers wrote legal-sounded provisions. (FWIW I agree with you on the language of a better provision.)
Still not sure what you're not comprehending. I'll copy and paste it again:
3. Automatic selection will be given to the first U.S. Male and first U.S. Female at the following races, provided minimum performance standards are met (see 2 above) 2022 Caumsett Park 50K (USATF National 50K Championships), March 6, 2022
Seems like identical language to Olympic team selection. Finish top 3 and hit a time qualifier.
No. Olympic team selection is flat out top-3 head to head.
You need a time qualifier to be qualified, but the selection rule doesn't say anything about the time in the selection race.
Flipsnack is a digital catalog maker that makes it easy to create, publish and share html5 flipbooks. Upload a PDF or design from scratch flyers, magazines, books and more.
Listen, I think you're getting a raw deal, and I haven't seen the bolded language you referred to before, but based on the language you quoted in your first post, I think the provision requires meeting the standard at the championship race (though the language is a little too unclear for my taste, which is why you're in this situation).
It says, "Automatic selection will be given to the first U.S. Male and first U.S. Female at the following races, provided minimum performance standards are met (see 2 above)." The use of the present tense (or whatever you want to call it) "are met" means to me that the standards "are met" in "the following races" referred to. If they meant "met at any time" before closure of the window, the provision would say that, or something like the standards "were met" or "have been met," but they didn't.
Also, if you look at prior year auto qualifiers, you'll see that this is the interpretation they appeared to use (meeting the standard in the race). In 2020, the world championship "auto" qualifier is listed as: "Kallin Khan, 2:57:51, 2020 USATF 50K National Championship, Caumsett at Heckscher State Park, 3/1/2020." In other words, got the auto because he won the title and did so in a time faster than the standard.
Having said all that, I reiterate what I said before: given the vagueness, I think you're getting a raw deal, and I hope you get a shot. USATF needs better language.
One problem with this interpretation is that it says “performance standards” in the plural. Using the plural there implies that either of those could be met, which further implies that it could be done at some other race (since it the US 50K championship is obviously not a marathon).
Also, your tense argument fails as a matter of regular grammar — “if standards are met” can actually be used (and most often is) in a forward-looking context. For example, “you can go to the movies tonight if your homework is done.”
Still not sure what you're not comprehending. I'll copy and paste it again:
3. Automatic selection will be given to the first U.S. Male and first U.S. Female at the following races, provided minimum performance standards are met (see 2 above) 2022 Caumsett Park 50K (USATF National 50K Championships), March 6, 2022
Seems like identical language to Olympic team selection. Finish top 3 and hit a time qualifier. They rarely hit the time qualifier AT the Olympic trials, but they still are auto qualifiers. That’s the whole point of having championship races. Not sure how a track fan could read this and assume you need to hit the time in that specific race.
Yes, and it doesn't really make sense to have the time qualifier in a championship race. What if the race if run in 50 mph wind or 90 degrees? Conditions, tactics, etc. a lot of factors can influence the winning time that participants have no control over.
Both you and the USATF officials keep repeating that the rules “clearly state” the win needed to be under 3:00 but cannot seem to point to any direct mention of this requirement.
If a rule doesn’t exist, it’s not “clearly stated.” Are you just trolling?
Still not sure what you're not comprehending. I'll copy and paste it again:
3. Automatic selection will be given to the first U.S. Male and first U.S. Female at the following races, provided minimum performance standards are met (see 2 above) 2022 Caumsett Park 50K (USATF National 50K Championships), March 6, 2022
You are bolding that phrase as if it’s existence clearly settles all debate. Do you not realize this is the exact phrase the rest of us have been interpreting for the last 4 pages of this thread?
2) Minimum qualifying performance standards for auto qualification and considerationMale: 50 km Road or Track - Sub 3:00:00; Marathon Road - Sub 2:22:00 Female: 50 km Road or Track - Sub 3:33:00; Marathon Road - Sub 2:45:00
3) Automatic selection will be given to the first U.S. Male and first U.S. Female at the following races, provided minimum performance standards are met (see 2 above)
2022 Heckscher (Caumsett) 50K (USATF National 50K Championships), February 27, 2022 2023 Heckscher (Caumsett) 50K (USATF National 50K Championships), March 5, 2023 Mad City 50K, April 23, 2022
I was told they would be changing the criteria to require that my win at the 2022 USATF National 50k Championships be done in a time under 3:00 in order to count for automatic qualification.
Your response:
"I am very happy to hear that you will be changing the language or qualification requirements for future teams. I, however, have automatically qualified for the current team based on the standards that have been in place throughout this selection cycle. It is under the current standards that I competed, and under which I met the standards. I am honored to accept my spot on the team.
On an unrelated note, did you ever hear of a mountain biker named Susan Haywood? What an interesting lawsuit!"
(If you don't know, USA Cycling screwed up and left her off the 2004 Olympic team and it cost them $319,000. The negligence in the case that we are discussing would be similar, although the settlement would likely be for much less. 50K Worlds isn't the Olympics. While I have no idea if the OP would take legal action if left off the team, I would like to see him do so. When governing bodies screw up like this (if they leave him off the team), they deserve to get hammered.)
On an additional note, doesn't this show that men were earning qualifying times at races other than the Nationals?
A: They always intended that the 50k champion would need to win in under 3:00 to auto-qualify (just in case no one good showed up at the champs, you don't want someone running 3:20 to auto-qualify). Unfortunately, they unintentionally wrote the selection criteria in a very ambiguous way.
B: For unknown reasons you are somehow persona non grata at the USATF, and meanwhile there are these four politically connected darlings who just happen to be right on the bubble for the 50k worlds team, and so there is a big conspiracy to keep you out.
There are a max of two other auto qualifiers for six spots, so you should be a shoo-in based on your champs win and marathon time. So as you said yourself, why go around pissing off the selection committee?
A: They always intended that the 50k champion would need to win in under 3:00 to auto-qualify (just in case no one good showed up at the champs, you don't want someone running 3:20 to auto-qualify). Unfortunately, they unintentionally wrote the selection criteria in a very ambiguous way.
B: For unknown reasons you are somehow persona non grata at the USATF, and meanwhile there are these four politically connected darlings who just happen to be right on the bubble for the 50k worlds team, and so there is a big conspiracy to keep you out.
There are a max of two other auto qualifiers for six spots, so you should be a shoo-in based on your champs win and marathon time. So as you said yourself, why go around pissing off the selection committee?
They emailed me with an amended set of rules, which is why I interpreted their actions as a rule change.
A 2:15 marathoner is essentially a nobody. I am not well known in any running scene and I am pretty used to getting written off because people don’t know who I am (which is why I’m always time trialing in smaller races). I don’t think there is a conspiracy, but I know that I was not who they were expecting to win and get the auto-qualifier. I think my freshness to the MUT scene means they are more likely discount my win as a fluke.
It makes no sense to include "50km Road or Track..." in the performance standards if they actually wanted to say "Win the 50k USATF National Championship with a time under 3:00:00". Why specifically include different surfaces for the 50k distance if the only 50k time that matters is the USATF National Championship? This on top of the non-sensical inclusion of a marathon standard on eligible courses...
A: They always intended that the 50k champion would need to win in under 3:00 to auto-qualify (just in case no one good showed up at the champs, you don't want someone running 3:20 to auto-qualify). Unfortunately, they unintentionally wrote the selection criteria in a very ambiguous way.
B: For unknown reasons you are somehow persona non grata at the USATF, and meanwhile there are these four politically connected darlings who just happen to be right on the bubble for the 50k worlds team, and so there is a big conspiracy to keep you out.
There are a max of two other auto qualifiers for six spots, so you should be a shoo-in based on your champs win and marathon time. So as you said yourself, why go around pissing off the selection committee?
They emailed me with an amended set of rules, which is why I interpreted their actions as a rule change.
A 2:15 marathoner is essentially a nobody. I am not well known in any running scene and I am pretty used to getting written off because people don’t know who I am (which is why I’m always time trialing in smaller races). I don’t think there is a conspiracy, but I know that I was not who they were expecting to win and get the auto-qualifier. I think my freshness to the MUT scene means they are more likely discount my win as a fluke.
And yeah, now I’ve probably pissed then off.
The second-place finisher had a minute slower marathon PR than you. Third place has no listed marathon results, fourth place had a marathon PR of 2:32.
Imagine if the committee decided they didn’t like the team that finished top 3 at the Olympic marathon trials and decided that they only intended the race to select the team if the top 3 times were under the Olympic A standard? It would completely erase any faith in the process.
Review the 1968 Olympic Track Trials situation and you will find similar activity occurred.
Ya'll, please refresh my recent memory. Wasn't the selection process for the marathon team at Eugene Worlds changed to include results from an event that had already been contested?
Just wanted to comment and say that I sympathize with your situation. I have had somewhat similar issues with the FAA (another notoriously difficult governing bureaucracy). It’s a very helpless feeling. With the support you are getting on this thread, I would be confident that the ball is rolling in the right direction to get things squared away. Please fight this; it would be a travesty if you let them win. In my opinion, the original wording cannot be interpreted in any way other than how you did.
Just wanted to comment and say that I sympathize with your situation. I have had somewhat similar issues with the FAA (another notoriously difficult governing bureaucracy). It’s a very helpless feeling. With the support you are getting on this thread, I would be confident that the ball is rolling in the right direction to get things squared away. Please fight this; it would be a travesty if you let them win. In my opinion, the original wording cannot be interpreted in any way other than how you did.
The wording certainly CAN be interpreted in USATF's favor here. The language is at least ambiguous -- it admits of different interpretations. In that situation a court would try to figure out USATF's original intent and look at all the circumstances to determine which interpretation is more likely the correct one. I think the natural and better reading is that you have to run sub 3:00 at Caumsett to auto qualify, and that USATF would likely win this dispute. It seems pretty clear that their basic intent was to require a sub 3:00 time. The counter argument about the marathon standard is unpersuasive. Sure USATF could have more clearly stated that the 50K standard must be met in a 50K race, but it is often, indeed almost always, true that operative language could be more precisely stated; the question remains whose interpretation is better. The answer is: not, unfortunately, the OPs.
Just wanted to comment and say that I sympathize with your situation. I have had somewhat similar issues with the FAA (another notoriously difficult governing bureaucracy). It’s a very helpless feeling. With the support you are getting on this thread, I would be confident that the ball is rolling in the right direction to get things squared away. Please fight this; it would be a travesty if you let them win. In my opinion, the original wording cannot be interpreted in any way other than how you did.
The wording certainly CAN be interpreted in USATF's favor here. The language is at least ambiguous -- it admits of different interpretations. In that situation a court would try to figure out USATF's original intent and look at all the circumstances to determine which interpretation is more likely the correct one. I think the natural and better reading is that you have to run sub 3:00 at Caumsett to auto qualify, and that USATF would likely win this dispute. It seems pretty clear that their basic intent was to require a sub 3:00 time. The counter argument about the marathon standard is unpersuasive. Sure USATF could have more clearly stated that the 50K standard must be met in a 50K race, but it is often, indeed almost always, true that operative language could be more precisely stated; the question remains whose interpretation is better. The answer is: not, unfortunately, the OPs.
Glad to see someone from USATF decided to weigh in with a completely incorrect take.
The question is so simple: If the time HAD to be achieved at the 50k National Championship, why would there even be an alternative for a marathon time?
Because the time did NOT have to be achieved at Nationals.
I don't think there's anything ambiguous about what USATF wrote or what they intended to convey.
They wouldn’t have outlined eligible marathon courses if the only marathon that mattered for the time standard was the marathon split during the 50k USATF National Championship.
They wouldn’t have written “50km Road or Track” if the only 50k that mattered for the time standard was the 50k USATF National Championship.
They wouldn’t have devoted three bullet points if they actually wanted to convey “Win the USATF 50k Championship with a time under 3hrs”
