USATF has updated their selection criteria for the marathon team as the first version was terribly worded and didn't say what they wanted it to say. We've also reached out to USATF to make sure everything is as we thought.
The new policy prevents athletes from "chasing" the Olympic standard but otherwise does its best to honor the results of the Olympic Trials when selecting the team.
I appreciate the heads up on this, and it's great to see that you guys are on top of things by reaching out to USATF for clarification. It's crucial to have a clear understanding of the criteria, so athletes can make informed decisions and prepare accordingly.
Has anyone else checked out the updated criteria? Any thoughts on the changes? It's always interesting to see how these things evolve, and the community here usually has some insightful perspectives.
Looking forward to hearing more updates and insights as we navigate the ever-evolving world of competitive running! Keep those strides strong, everyone!
The article repeatedly states the qualifying window as ending on the Trials day. This can't be coincidence. Is this WA's date or USATF's? I doubt WA specifically intended to include the Trials but nothing later. For every other country and their federations, is Feb. 3 a meaningful day? I believe either LRC made up this date of window closing or USATF inaccurately told them that.
If that really is the literal end of the actual window, an Ethiopian running London under 2:08:10 doesn't count for anything. You could have won Boston, which doesn't count, and go to specifically get the standard. My suspicion is that USATF won't allowed "chased' times - that's fine - but that Feb. 10th is still very much within WA 's window. If not, a half this Spring wouldn't affect anything.
The article repeatedly states the qualifying window as ending on the Trials day. This can't be coincidence. Is this WA's date or USATF's? I doubt WA specifically intended to include the Trials but nothing later. For every other country and their federations, is Feb. 3 a meaningful day? I believe either LRC made up this date of window closing or USATF inaccurately told them that.
If that really is the literal end of the actual window, an Ethiopian running London under 2:08:10 doesn't count for anything. You could have won Boston, which doesn't count, and go to specifically get the standard. My suspicion is that USATF won't allowed "chased' times - that's fine - but that Feb. 10th is still very much within WA 's window. If not, a half this Spring wouldn't affect anything.
Sorry I should have been clearer about that. It's an American-specific date. The Olympic qualifying window ends April 30. But if you're an American looking to make the team via the quota reallocation route, you need to have run 2:11:30 by the conclusion of the Trials on February 3.
The article repeatedly states the qualifying window as ending on the Trials day. This can't be coincidence. Is this WA's date or USATF's? I doubt WA specifically intended to include the Trials but nothing later. For every other country and their federations, is Feb. 3 a meaningful day? I believe either LRC made up this date of window closing or USATF inaccurately told them that.
If that really is the literal end of the actual window, an Ethiopian running London under 2:08:10 doesn't count for anything. You could have won Boston, which doesn't count, and go to specifically get the standard. My suspicion is that USATF won't allowed "chased' times - that's fine - but that Feb. 10th is still very much within WA 's window. If not, a half this Spring wouldn't affect anything.
Sorry I should have been clearer about that. It's an American-specific date. The Olympic qualifying window ends April 30. But if you're an American looking to make the team via the quota reallocation route, you need to have run 2:11:30 by the conclusion of the Trials on February 3.
Thanks for the clarity. The window actually ends April 30. Our Trials date means nothing to WA nor to any other national federation. This post clears up any confusion I had.
USATF made updates to the team selection criteria: https://www.flipsnack.com/USATF/2024-olympic-games-men-s-and-women-s-marathon-athlete-selection/full-view.htmlThe main difference is that before an athlete needed to be in th...
USATF has updated their selection criteria for the marathon team as the first version was terribly worded and didn't say what they wanted it to say. We've also reached out to USATF to make sure everything is as we thought.
If we weren't slow as heck in the marathon this would be a non-issue.
If world athletics didn't cave and have a fast 'auto' standard to go with their rankings then it would be a non-issue. The rankings is generally how you qualify, forget about the time. Everyone with the standard is ranked high enough to qualify by ranking, but not everyone who will qualify for the olympics has the standard. So if we completely ignored the 2:08:10 standard and just looked at the rankings, that's how we know if someone is qualified. If someone has to performances that average around 2:11, one of them being 2:11:30 or faster, then they'll be ranked high enough.
So what we already said last month when you guys were creating the fake news outrage.
What you thought the process was and what USATF said verbally was at complete odds with the written selection procedure document. Thankfully they completely revised it and now the selection process is crystal clear. Had no one pointed that out it would have been a complete sh!tshow after trials. USATF would have announced the teams, the guys who had the top world rankings would have pointed to the document and sued, and our next Olympic team would have been picked by a court months later.
Agree, the all the red cross-outs in the new USATF document are kind of funny. Appreciate that they did that though instead of just posting the new version. Still hard to follow.
I appreciate the heads up on this, and it's great to see that you guys are on top of things by reaching out to USATF for clarification. It's crucial to have a clear understanding of the criteria, so athletes can make informed decisions and prepare accordingly.
Has anyone else checked out the updated criteria? Any thoughts on the changes? It's always interesting to see how these things evolve, and the community here usually has some insightful perspectives.
Looking forward to hearing more updates and insights as we navigate the ever-evolving world of competitive running! Keep those strides strong, everyone!
the way you write, it's like you're a chairperson for a crochet club. i am only surprised you didn't bring biscuits and tea. letsrun is not the place. take it to runnersworld please.
The USATF is setting itself up for a potential lawsuit just like the 2019 Pan-Am Games.
So some guy wins the trials on a warm day in 2:11:31 and then runs another marathon in the next three months (before April 30th) under 2:11:30 and they don't go to the Olympics even though they will be listed on the IAAF Road to Paris list???? Not to mention guaranteed pretty much they would be top 80 with the added world rankings points from the placing at the trials (category B)?
