I'm a huge fan of the U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials. In fact, I may have attended more Marathon Trials than anyone else, beginning in 1968. Just one problem: The Trials are also stupid and misguided. How would you select the best U.S. marathon runners to compete in Paris?
Photo: Banksy mural/MH illustration The U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials is easily the most anticipated, tense, and emotional road race held in the U.S. every four years. I absolutely love the drama of the Marathon Trials.
A) Isn't the article simply concluding that the men's team should be selected using the results at Chicago???
B) We've seen how the USATF marathon trials selection process unfolded. I would NEVER trust that organization to pick the best athletes to represent the USA in any event. I'd much prefer a trails race to a committee formed by USATF.
Takes all the fun out of it though. And I love the widening spheres of attention to the also-rans which you don't get in a marathon major. Second-tier Americans may run those races as well, but there are no dreams tied to 15th place that the general public can get vested in. Trials are a trickle-down economy unto itself: podcasts, olli-pops sold, qualifying at CIM.
I reject the idea of anyone in this sport making a selection on subjective criteria. Who knows what backroom dealings would occur, and how the shoe companies would interfere or leverage sponsorship money to get their person in.
I do favor a 2+1 system in events that have three spots for Americans.
You hold a trials that guarantees a spot to the top two finishers.
You have a points system or definitive metric, known to all well in advance, that allows one athlete to earn a spot, objectively, based on performances over an established period (12 or 18 months, whatever).
I'm really glad you brought this up. But first, Christine Clark made the 2000 Olympic team,not the 1980 one.. For years now, maybe decades, I have heard that our trials system is fair and that it identifies the athlete who can be at his/her best on a given day. Both assertions are reasonable but questionable and does not guarantee that the athletes we send are the ones with the best chance to medal or do well.
I've thought the system could improve ever since Marty Liquori was hurt for both the '72 and '76 Trials. In '76 especially he was one of the best 5,000 meter runners in the world. He'd proven that many times in the year or so before the Trials. Yes, it's probably fair to reward someone who can have their best day on the day of the Trials final. But is it really fair to ignore years of excellence, years of being clearly the best athlete in your country because you pulled a muscle at a really bad time?
So we're left with the Trials identifying the athlete who can perform at his/her best on a given day. Yes, that can happen. But a one race trial does not distinguish between someone able to have a really good day on command and one who is just lucky enough to have a career day at absolutely the right time. I hate to speak ill of the dead but a prime example is Mark Conover. He qualified for the 1988 Trial with 2:18:03 at Cal International and followed that with 2:12:26 in Jersey City to win the Trial. He didn't finish in Seoul and never ran under 2:15 again. That's not a criticism of Conover but before I'd sent someone like him to the Olympics I'd like to see that not only is able to run 2:12 but that he's able to run a time in that range consistently.
That said, I do not like the idea of using selectors, though if I was one this year I'd probably select the same runners you did. You probably remember that Jack Foster ran at Boston in 1976. He'd already been selected for Montreal then. A friend of mine was talking with Jack and said to Jack that he must be happy to know he was picked. Jack said that he was happy but he wished New Zealand used a system like ours because everyone knew what they needed to do if they wanted to go to the Olympics and if they'd do it, they're in. They don't need to worry that they won't be picked because somebody doesn't like them, something that has long been part of how New Zealand picks their Olympic teams. I think there's too much potential for subjectivity and favoritism when you have selectors.
I do think you could devise selection processes that don't rely on a one shot trial but still can be objective. Thinking back to Liquori, you could pick someone who was ranked in the top five of his event in the world rankings in the preceding year or two. You could devise a point system where athletes are given points for running faster than a specified time or place high in major competitions. In the marathon you could do what the Japanese sometimes do and have more than one trials race and select the athletes with the best cumulative places. Essentially you create objective criteria for selection and send the athletes that do the best job of meeting it.
But an issue that will come up with any proposal for a major change in our selection procedure may meet with a lot of resistance from USATF because the Trials are not held purely to pick an Olympic team. Televising them bring in loads of money to USATF. They're the biggest domestic showpiece track has in the US and that's mostly because of the drama that comes from seeing the team "select itself" at the Trials. What with life working the way it does I suspect that while USATF wants to select a team that will perform really well at the Olympics what it wants even more is the money that will come from ticket sales and TV money.
I just read an NBC article on the qualification system for this year’s Olympic trials marathon. I am a big running nerd and it was not at all obvious to me what it was trying to say. Is it true that the team won’t even be decided at the end of the race? What a disaster. Maybe the commentators can use the 2 hour of race time to try and explain the qualification system to the public.
I'm a huge fan of the U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials. In fact, I may have attended more Marathon Trials than anyone else, beginning in 1968. Just one problem: The Trials are also stupid and misguided. How would you select the best U.S. marathon runners to compete in Paris?
Amby, with the way that World Athletics is going with both the standards and the world ranking system, the Trials may be moot in 2028 if their goal is to have a field of ~80 for the Olympics. Folks may be selecting themselves through a combination of fast times and placing in World Athletics Platinum/Gold level races.
Instead of having a time standard for the Trials (if the Trials are a must), maybe limit the Trials field to the top 100 (the number is arbitrary) based on a descending order list that closes 60-75 days before the Trials, or anyone who runs the WA qualifying standard, and fill the field with the rest to get to 100. I like the first two in, plus the athlete who has the highest ranking on the World Athletics list.
Part of me thinks that the Trials are a money grab by USATF to sell the race to NBC, as well as extort whoever's dumb/crazy enough to want to host the Trials, knowing that the LOC will never come close to breaking even.
I'm a huge fan of the U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials. In fact, I may have attended more Marathon Trials than anyone else, beginning in 1968. Just one problem: The Trials are also stupid and misguided. How would you select the best U.S. marathon runners to compete in Paris?
I'm a huge fan of the U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials. In fact, I may have attended more Marathon Trials than anyone else, beginning in 1968. Just one problem: The Trials are also stupid and misguided. How would you select the best U.S. marathon runners to compete in Paris?
The purpose of the marathon trials is to provide an entertaining race, which a selection committee is not.
It also happens to pick a good team. Your selection committee idea would never have selected Molly Seidel in 2020 or Galen Rupp in 2016.
This is a good point.
As someone who follows the sport relatively closely, I really have no clue how either the men or women's race will turn out on Saturday. At the very least, the people selected will be starting the year at a good spot. And yeah, 1 or 2 or even all 3 might bomb at the actual Olympics, but that could happen any way you select the team.
Let's be honest. Even though I will be very excited to watch these races on Saturday, they are almost entirely irrelevant for the Olympics this year. Runners around the world have gotten better, so a repeat Seidel shock will be even more unlikely.
It's wonderful to see someone of your stature posting here. We are honored by your presence. That said, I respectfully disagree with your proposal for several reasons:
1) A system that selects people based on the past 18 months would prevent the possibility of up and comers making the team. Think about Molly Seidel, who made the 2020 team in her debut and went on to win a medal. That wouldn't have happened in your proposed system.
2) Having a panel of people making selections doesn't guarantee they would get it right. Look at the Ethiopian Federation leaving Bekele off their 2016 marathon team. He proved he should have been selected by running the second-fastest time in history just a few weeks after Rio. The Ethiopian Federation's terrible decision deprived us a potential epic duel between Bekele and Kipchoge, and it probably deprived Bekele of a marathon medal.
3) It's not always clear who the 3 most "deserving" athletes would be. It can be very difficult to compare performances achieved in different contexts and on different courses (such as Boston vs London), and there would likely be times when two or more athletes' resumes are very close.
4) A huge part of sport is drama and the unexpected. Few people expected the Diamondbacks to make it to the World Series last year, but they earned it. Upsets are part of what makes following sports fun.
5) If you're going to select people for the Olympics based on "proven excellence," why even bother having an Olympics? You can just award medals based on prior performance. The best part of our sport is that there is no subjectivity. We don't need judges to score people based on form. It's all about who gets to the finish line first, second, and third. It should stay that way.
I'm a huge fan of the U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials. In fact, I may have attended more Marathon Trials than anyone else, beginning in 1968. Just one problem: The Trials are also stupid and misguided. How would you select the best U.S. marathon runners to compete in Paris?
I'm a huge fan of the U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials. In fact, I may have attended more Marathon Trials than anyone else, beginning in 1968. Just one problem: The Trials are also stupid and misguided. How would you select the best U.S. marathon runners to compete in Paris?
Mr. Burfoot, You make strong points for a need to overhaul the selection process. It is quite possible this will be the last marathon trials race. With WA using the rankings table and the aggressive Olympic standard, the US men will struggle to get a partial team to Paris. If the US women had the same troubles, a trials race would be useless, simply call it the national championships and let everyone who paid entry race. In your day, guys raced to find their limits and to feed their families. Now, guys and gals only want to run 2:18/ 2:37 to get to the trials. I agree with the poster “The point may be moot” who suggested taking the top 60 (200 may even be manageable). If the standards were removed and athletes had to race for a spot instead of simply running paced time-trials at pop-up multi-loop staged events we could see a lot more sub-2:10 and even men challenging the 22-year-old 2:08:53 record.
Your example of Joanie (I once made the mistake of calling her Mrs. Samuelson) is one that may need deeper review. Her procedure, recovery, and dominance in the spring of 1984 was simply legendary. She had the surgery and was intently focused on the rehabilitation and racing onto the team. However, it could have gone much differently. Had a selection committee known of her injury, it is quite possible she would have been left off the US roster as damaged goods. She could have been denied the opportunity to become the Olympic goddess we all admire. Olympians Molly Seidel and Jared Ward both announced they will not start the race on Saturday due to injury. A selection committee could decide to reward past success and place an athlete in this situation on the team. Admittedly not every athlete and every injury are alike, but will the committee include medical professionals who will perform their own examinations? Or will they trust the diagnosis and assessment of the athlete, agent, and coach who may financially benefit from making a team. Injured athletes have been known to start a marathon at the Games, earn the title Olympian and their shoe company bonus money, and simply step off the course with a DNF just a few miles in. Joanie raced her way onto the team.
It was difficult watching Dan O’Brien falter in New Orleans. The mistake he made was in not recognizing the purpose of the event. He was there to make the US Olympic team. From outside of his camp, it appears he was distracted by the Reebok buzz. With the primary purpose of making a team, a no height is inexcusable. As a spectator and young coach in the stadium that day I learned a valuable lesson. Open with a soft height, get a “little q,” and then pass on heights if you wish. The US Olympic Trials are simply the first round of the big meet, and you cannot falter and move on.
Thank you for giving me something to think about this evening.
