The main difference is that before an athlete needed to be in the top 65 of the World Rankings list by the time of the Trials in order to secure a "spot" for the US. Now you can either be top 65 by the Trials or top 81 by May 5th.
Not sure what led to the change, would be interested to hear
I think the Brojos and Gault asking USATF about the previous poorly written criteria led to the change
So theoretically, if Mantz or Clayton don’t make the top 3 in Orlando, they’d still be able to go if the guy that beat them wasn’t top 81 by May?
Confoozled wrote:
So theoretically, if Mantz or Clayton don’t make the top 3 in Orlando, they’d still be able to go if the guy that beat them wasn’t top 81 by May?
No these people can earn spots for the US to use but wouldn't necessarily be the people that go. Situation is still:
- If US has 2 people qualify via this method, top 2 from Trials go to Olympics
- If US has 3 people qualify, top 3 from Trials go to Olympics
This is assuming they have the 2:11:30 standard time
Alexi Santana wrote:
USATF made updates to the team selection criteria:The main difference is that before an athlete needed to be in the top 65 of the World Rankings list by the time of the Trials in order to secure a "spot" for the US. Now you can either be top 65 by the Trials or top 81 by May 5th.
Not sure what led to the change, would be interested to hear
It’s still unclear actually unless you personally know what the authors intended. In each case it says “provided they are a Qualified Athlete (defined above) or have ran 2:11:30 in the qualifying period at the conclusion of the selection event.”
So is that saying they can be selected if they become a Qualified Athlete AFTER the Olympic Trials.. in addition to also being able to be selected if they ran 2:11:30 before or At the Trials.
Or is it saying that they have to be either be a Qualified athlete or have run 2:11:30… by the conclusion of the Trials?
Neither actually makes sense. For example, if it’s the first scenario, why can you “chase” world rankings, but not chase times.. especially when the U.S. Men wont get the 3rd spot until May 5th (or May 8th) so the Olympic Trials won’t officially determine the full team anyways.
If it’s the 2nd scenario, why would the World Athletics part about being top 80 be highlighted?
Again, again I say. 2024 will be the last US marathon trials race. WA wants only ranked athletes rendering the trials useless.
-Fog
The whole thing is clear as mud - thank you USATF.
Look if the trials were in Houston at 7:00 AM then the results would produce fast times and all of this would take care of itself by the end of May. BUT the issue is that IAAF qualifying system doesn't really match with running in Orlando from 10:10 AM to 1:00 PM. It could create all kinds of crazy results with the weather. That's a fact, just like every Olympics, World Championships, European Champs, Commonwealth Games, etc. and the LA Trials in 2016, Pittsburgh 2000, etc. that were run in warm and humid conditions. It impacts people differently regardless of their lifetime PR's. This is not a PR course like Chicago, Berlin, Rotterdam, Seville, Valencia, etc.
If they would have just left the Olympic standards the the same as 2020 then all of this would be a moot point. That seemed to work pretty good producing about 100 runners for both the men's and women's fields. Compared to 2016 when there were about 155 in each.
I'd be looking to see who has placed well in hot weather races. Recently Lindsay Flanagan and Zach Panning both ran well in hot and humid conditions at the Budapest World Championships. Those are the kind of people we need on the team who can compete well in Paris on a challenging course in August weather.
