I heard the committee was meeting this week to discuss what the standard should be and when the window opens. Anyone else here this + what the outcome was?
Yes there's supposed to be a plan created very soon. Sounds like it won't be official, but will be pretty much how the qualifying process will be. The person I get the info from didn't say anything about it yesterday, so I imagine it hasn't happened yet, so maybe later this week?
Heard rumors that 2:16 and 2:28 are the standards. Also, USATF will observe Ben Rosario’s event in Arizona as a template for how to set up the Trials. Confined space and better for spectators. Also, less costly, less permits, less headaches.
Heard rumors that 2:16 and 2:28 are the standards. Also, USATF will observe Ben Rosario’s event in Arizona as a template for how to set up the Trials. Confined space and better for spectators. Also, less costly, less permits, less headaches.
What does this mean? Trials have been loops since Birmingham men 2004.
Heard rumors that 2:16 and 2:28 are the standards. Also, USATF will observe Ben Rosario’s event in Arizona as a template for how to set up the Trials. Confined space and better for spectators. Also, less costly, less permits, less headaches.
Makes perfect sense. Now make those standards only accomplished on WA certified, record eligible courses and we can eliminate half of the headaches associated with selecting a team. Also, either eliminate the half qualification or tighten that substantially. Sub 1:01:30/1:09.30
Heard rumors that 2:16 and 2:28 are the standards. Also, USATF will observe Ben Rosario’s event in Arizona as a template for how to set up the Trials. Confined space and better for spectators. Also, less costly, less permits, less headaches.
Makes perfect sense. Now make those standards only accomplished on WA certified, record eligible courses and we can eliminate half of the headaches associated with selecting a team. Also, either eliminate the half qualification or tighten that substantially. Sub 1:01:30/1:09.30
I do think that we're beyond the trials as a race for as many "fast" people as possible.
A more select field would be better. A loop course in conjunction with another event (like a 5k/half marathon for the masses) Have it in a park in a bigger city or downtown area with other attractions for families to hang out and watch the truly elite compete.
I remember (with some disdain) a recent trials race (2016?) in Atlanta where the women's leaders were lapping slower runners who were smiling and waiving at the camera.
At least make it look like you're putting forth effort, it IS the trials afterall.
Heard rumors that 2:16 and 2:28 are the standards. Also, USATF will observe Ben Rosario’s event in Arizona as a template for how to set up the Trials. Confined space and better for spectators. Also, less costly, less permits, less headaches.
Makes perfect sense. Now make those standards only accomplished on WA certified, record eligible courses and we can eliminate half of the headaches associated with selecting a team. Also, either eliminate the half qualification or tighten that substantially. Sub 1:01:30/1:09.30
Olympic Trials qualifying can’t be restricted to record eligible courses only as time qualifiers. Record eligibility includes a maximum start/finish separation requirement that isn’t necessary for a time to count as an Olympic qualifier, and under a very reasonable reading of the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act (which governs Olympic sports in the US), you can’t exclude times run on any courses that would be allowed for Olympic Games qualifying times purposes from Olympic Trials qualifying purposes. That being said, it may be reasonable to exclude times run on courses that are net downhill enough that times are not only record eligible but also aren’t allowed to be used as Olympic qualifying times, although I tend to think that’s less of a concern than others (because team contenders can and should make sure they have an Olympic qualifying time on an eligible course) and would do a disservice to events like CIM that have invested so greatly in supporting the development of American pros over the last decade-plus. But a reasonable (and, more importantly, legal) case can be made to exclude those courses for “simplicity of the Trials” purposes (as in, knowing who in the Trials is eligible to be selected for the team).
Makes perfect sense. Now make those standards only accomplished on WA certified, record eligible courses and we can eliminate half of the headaches associated with selecting a team. Also, either eliminate the half qualification or tighten that substantially. Sub 1:01:30/1:09.30
I do think that we're beyond the trials as a race for as many "fast" people as possible.
A more select field would be better. A loop course in conjunction with another event (like a 5k/half marathon for the masses) Have it in a park in a bigger city or downtown area with other attractions for families to hang out and watch the truly elite compete.
I remember (with some disdain) a recent trials race (2016?) in Atlanta where the women's leaders were lapping slower runners who were smiling and waiving at the camera.
At least make it look like you're putting forth effort, it IS the trials afterall.
Agree, men’s standard should be under the women’s WR as it is in the track events.
Will the OTQ get faster? Probably, but as someone who hoped to take a crack at 2:18, the 2 minutes drop in time predicted by many makes the dream feel less achievable
Makes perfect sense. Now make those standards only accomplished on WA certified, record eligible courses and we can eliminate half of the headaches associated with selecting a team. Also, either eliminate the half qualification or tighten that substantially. Sub 1:01:30/1:09.30
I do think that we're beyond the trials as a race for as many "fast" people as possible.
A more select field would be better. A loop course in conjunction with another event (like a 5k/half marathon for the masses) Have it in a park in a bigger city or downtown area with other attractions for families to hang out and watch the truly elite compete.
I remember (with some disdain) a recent trials race (2016?) in Atlanta where the women's leaders were lapping slower runners who were smiling and waiving at the camera.
At least make it look like you're putting forth effort, it IS the trials afterall.
You seriously don't know what year the trials were in Atlanta? How old are you....68?
If you seriously thought they were in 2016, which was L.A., all I can say is wow! If your mind is going, they have things called search engines;)
I do think that we're beyond the trials as a race for as many "fast" people as possible.
A more select field would be better. A loop course in conjunction with another event (like a 5k/half marathon for the masses) Have it in a park in a bigger city or downtown area with other attractions for families to hang out and watch the truly elite compete.
I remember (with some disdain) a recent trials race (2016?) in Atlanta where the women's leaders were lapping slower runners who were smiling and waiving at the camera.
At least make it look like you're putting forth effort, it IS the trials afterall.
Agree, men’s standard should be under the women’s WR as it is in the track events.
But with all due respect, you don't "truly" know if that's the real world record for women;)
Genuinely, what's the purpose of having more than 80 people per gender? We know out of probably 20 people who the team will be.. make the standard the Oly Standard and let in enough to make it an 80 person field. Flat, fast, 5-10k loop, be done with it. IMO if you're getting lapped in the Oly Trials, you shouldn't have been there to begin with (this goes for the track too)
TOWN HALL FOR 2028 OLYMPIC TRIALS MARATHON QUALIFYING STANDARDS AND TIMELINE (TUESDAY FEBRUARY 18)
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION: Considerations for setting a trials qualification standards without guarantee of a traditional trials selection event. Field Size Single Standard or A & B Model Qualifying By Alternate Standards (i.e. allowance of half marathon times, championship placings, etc.) Trials Qualifying Window
1 - They're thinking about three different field sizes: Small (100), Medium (150-200), Large (300+)
2 - Talked about Single Qualifying Standard versus A/B. Support differences between A standard and B standard? Fixed number of A standards and then descending order list of B standards?
3 - Qualifying Window. Deciding in Early March, potentially open for Berlin 2025.
4 - Qualifying by alternate standards like Half Marathon or placement at USATF Road Circuit.
5 - Thoughts on releasing Trials qualification standard without guarantee of standard selection event. This one seemed up in the air and a little unclear based on potential World Athletics standards getting tougher.
One big highlight was Clayton young with the points of: The more marathoners the better! The more LOCs that bid the better! The younger the athlete getting into the marathon the better!
Molly Seidel also spoke about her perspective of getting more athletes into the marathon younger would help the US on the world stage.
1 - They're thinking about three different field sizes: Small (100), Medium (150-200), Large (300+)
2 - Talked about Single Qualifying Standard versus A/B. Support differences between A standard and B standard? Fixed number of A standards and then descending order list of B standards?
3 - Qualifying Window. Deciding in Early March, potentially open for Berlin 2025.
4 - Qualifying by alternate standards like Half Marathon or placement at USATF Road Circuit.
5 - Thoughts on releasing Trials qualification standard without guarantee of standard selection event. This one seemed up in the air and a little unclear based on potential World Athletics standards getting tougher.
One big highlight was Clayton young with the points of: The more marathoners the better! The more LOCs that bid the better! The younger the athlete getting into the marathon the better!
Molly Seidel also spoke about her perspective of getting more athletes into the marathon younger would help the US on the world stage.
I favor standards (2:20/2:40) that would cause more people to run the race. It's good for somebody from every town to be in the field. It generates local news coverage and gets people excited. That's good for the sport.
USATF requiring the host committee to pay for the travel for every qualifier, that is why nobody bids. I think local clubs and local associations should be able to raise funds for B standard qualifiers. Maybe make the A standard Sub 2:26/Sub 2:12 and B standard for everyone else.
Also don't have it in hot weather or on a hilly course!
From the meeting, a lot of people voiced support for the largest fields possible. Hot take (maybe), but I think we should continue to pursue faster standards to uphold the integrity of the trials. If the standards are too soft, we’re not doing any favors to our domestic talent, and qualifying for trials loses its luster. 2:15, 2:14, 2:13, I don’t care, I’ll train for whatever USATF puts in front of me.