Stale Qualifying Standards

This already happens:

http://www.usatf.org/events/2002/USAOutdoorChampionships/entry/qualifyingStandards.shtml

For this years 2002 USATF Champs, marks counted from back in May of 2001.

I know, I want to know what you think...good...bad...indifferent...unjust...stupid?

Oh, sorry about that. I think the way it is now is good. Once you have the time, you don't have to worry about chasing it the next year. I know people who have had to do this. The focus becomes getting the time, and not the actual USATF race at the end of the tunnel. You can pick and choose races that fit with your build up to the USATF meet and not worry about time trialing all over the place.

They're just the trials. Its not like you're given a spot on the Olympic team. You've got to prove yourself at the trials, that's where it matters.

Of course it's "just the trials", one reason I ask is should we just consider the people in the field who are there but who have no shot at a spot as being filler. Say a guy runs 28:10 the year before the trials and is then injured badly enough to where he loses three months of good training before the trials. Obviously the 28:10 guy is not the same runner as the year before(no-longer a threat), but he may be able to muster a 29:10ish. Then you have a young athlete who runs 28:41 in the year of the trials, but he is only qualified with the B standard and is 19th on the list at the time of the race(they take 18). The 28:41 guy is basically screwed, and he is more ready than the 28:10 guy with the "stale standard." I know this happens in all events, not just the distances, but wanted to know what you guys thought. Holding out the 28:41 guy seems to impede the developmental progress on a future potential olympian. If you magnify this times all the events, plus the 19th, 20th, 21st or more places on the list being held out by people with "stale standards", you realize you are holding out a lot of young developing guys in what could be a very important race for their developing race resume. Just a thought I had when thinking about keeping young potential in the sport.

Here's the deal, there's always going to be a 19th, 20th, and 21st person feeling like they were "screwed," and they probably were. But, I would rather let in a 28:10 guy from the year before over a 28:41 guy because the 28:10 guy could pop a good one. He knows more what it's like to be close to the World Standard. It's fair to say that both probably won't make it, but the guy with the time from the year before could mix it up better, give a better experienced competitor in the race, and he deserves the bid over the 28:41 dude.

There's definitely something to be said for not having to chase the time during the season. The season starts at Nationals or Trials or whatever. That's what the rest of the world does. You should be training and racing in the spring for the sole purpose of opening up well at Nationals and then competing well during the world's season, the summer. Worrying about a dumb standard while you're trying to train shouldn't be for the competitors who want to race well in the world scene.

Just my opinion.

I don't see how holding out someone from the trials impedes their developmental progress as a future potential olympian. Are they no longer able to train? Too jaded? If you're on the bubble you should be training your balls off to get faster. Potential means shit, results rule. If you're a 28:41 guy you should not feel that your spot is secure.

I think that a couple of you guys are missing my point. The athlete with the stale mark is also basing his right to be at the trials or national championships on HIS potential. I agree potential doesn't "mean shit", and results do rule, however, and old result is just that, old. This is especially true when a lot can happpen in a year(12-14 months), injury, sickness, a bad run of racing/training. I don't think that a 28:41 guy should be secure, but at least he has shown that he can break 29:00 in the year of the championship race. Jaded? I think I would be jaded if the "stud" 28:10 guy went out and ran 29:30 or dropped out, especially when he most likely new he wasn't ready and was only there taking up a slot on the hope that he would "pop a good one." The gamble on the athlete with the mark/time does seem better, but there should be some kind of check to make sure he/she has been doing it right in the months leading up the the race. The only way I can see doing this is to throw out the previous years mark/time and start fresh every year, especially in the year of an Olympic Trials. If an athlete, let's say in this case, a 10,000m runner is "forced" to run a 28:40(A standard for guaranteed entry) at for example the first Stanford or Mt SAC meet. Will this be an unnessesary burden? I mean, a time like that should be, for a legitamate contender, only about an 80-85% effort at max. This leaves plenty of time to work on that last 15% for the actual trials race, and also puts them within 30 seconds of the A Olympic Standard. Same goes for a 1500m or 5000m runner or any event for that matter-it's not like they won't be competing at all, this way it will mean something.

I'm not missing your point, I just don't agree with it (regardless of how many times you state it.)

Personally, I like the simplicity of it all. Those with the fastest times get in. The rules are the same for everyone.

You're asking for our opinion, right? Well, the World Standard can be taken from the year before. Why shouldn't Olympic Trials? If the runner deserves to be in the Olympic Trials, he/she will hit the standard. Generally speaking (at least in the 1500m in 2000), they only took the people with the standard and didn't do a decending order list. The standard of 3:40.50 was pretty rough, and quite often, someone is in that shape, but the races here in the states don't go that fast (ask Nedeau or Powell about it). Runners can hit the standard the year before and focus on racing for the sole purpose of tuning up for the Trials.

Forcing someone to run a 28:40 the year of the Nationals sucks. The reason being that what if the guy was hurt a bit in the winter. He can get back to 28:10 or even 27:50 shape by June/July, but making him run a time he already has early in the year could really hamper his progress.

If there ever should be a "proof of fitness" test or whatever, I think the Canadian system offers a bit of insight (something I'll never repeat). To show proof of fitness the following year, make a separate standard, a bit slower (like 3:43.00), such that it won't be a burden to hit if they are ready, but it will eliminate some of the guys that have gained 20 lbs over the last year. That's as far as I think it should go though.

I say, if you can't hit the standard, you shouldn't cry about it.

Well, then we should just make it carry over from the previous Olympic trials. Why put a time limit on a mark/time at all? I mean, that same guy might always be able to pop one, so just give him the benefit of the doubt until he retires. Same basic idea...you agree? Of course you do. It is kind of like a seniority vs. merit based system. Once you get a time/mark(seniority), you are in. If you are hot and up and coming(28:41) basically you are pushed back if favor of the other guy who no longer has to prove anything. While we are at it we should rally the NCAA to let a mark/standard stand for the duration of the athletes competetive college career. That way, a frosh or soph that "pops" one can just focus on training and school for a couple of years and just "race the big ones." I'm in where do I sign.

I think that the trials serve two purposes.1.To select three Olympic contestants.2.To reward athletes who have run fast times,the majority of whom,realistically have no real hope for qualifying,but for whom qualifying for the trials is a major triumph.At the distance events,contestant NO.19 is not about to win.So,the fastest go even if they might be coming off injury.

Dude, you're missing the point here. I'm not belittling your argument by stating that you're saying that the qualifying times should be within 1 month of the Trials. I mean in all seriousness, that would make sure everyone was fit. USATF should go off the descending order list from times in the last month before trials. You moron. Hit the standard in the previous 13 or 14 months and you won't have to worry about it. If you can only run a 28:41, then guess what? You've got another 10000m to race because you don't deserve to get in till you do. On the flip side, run a 28:39, and you're just as well off as if you ran a 28:00.

That's the reality of the sport. If you don't like it, go play co-ed softball where you don't keep score so everyone can be winners...