Advertisement


    • Walter Warned You
      • Changed Marathon Trials numbers 11/30/2007 9:54PM
      • Walter Warned You
      • I warned you folks about Latimer and his good ole boys not being interested in the masses. If you think that 2:20 is good in the marathon, think again.

        Editor's Note: The new standards are 2:19, 1:05:00 for half marathon and 28:30 for 10k. David Monti who publishes Race Results Weekly asked that his article not be posted to on the message boards even though we at letsrun.com pay to subscribe to his news service. So the full article detailing the new standards can be found here
        https://www.letsrun.com/2007/trials1130.php
    • Shocking News (sarcasm)
      • RE: Changed Marathon Trials numbers 11/30/2007 10:04PM - in reply to Walter Warned You
      • Shocking News (sarcasm)
      • This is the problem with Hawaii as a location for the meetings. This was decided in a unanimous fashion because I will bet that there is not a single 2:19-2:22 marathoner in attendance. They only invite the sub 2:12 guys to make the calls for all of us.

        In 2004 this would of left off Brian Sell (who probably would of retired by now) and Trent Briney who provided the only other piece of Drama of the day. Neither of them had run sub 2:19 prior to the trials.

        The eventual goal is to make the trials so damn boring that no one will care and then Latimer and Estes can select who they think belongs on the team. Afterall, I am sure their knowledge would produce wonders.
    • Yuck the Duck
      • RE: Changed Marathon Trials numbers 11/30/2007 10:19PM - in reply to Shocking News (sarcasm)
      • Yuck the Duck
      • Another Horrible Decision made by MLDR. That means that there would have been 50 guys that started this years race. Of those 50, 17 dropped out meaning that there would of been only 33 finishers. Of the 33 finishers 9 of them would have been Hansons-Brooks Athletes. I am sure that Hansons are probably happy with this decision, but I think that makes for a lousy event with about one-third the amount of spectators. Thanks again MLDR.

        James Carney unattached / New Balance 27:44*
        Josh Rohatinsky unattached / Nike 27:55*
        Daniel Browne unattached / Nike 28:11*
        Matthew Gonzales unattached / Nike 28:22*
        Westly Keating unattached 28:24*
        Edwardo Torres unattached / Reebok 28:28

        Khalid Khannouchi unattached / New Balance 2:07:04
        Ryan Hall unattached 2:08:24
        Abdi Abdirahman unattached / Nike 2:08:56
        Meb Keflezighi unattached / Nike 2:09:56
        Brian Sell Hansons-Brooks Distance Project 2:10:47
        Alan Culpepper unattached / Nike 2:11:02
        Peter Gilmore unattached / MarathonGuide.com 2:12:45
        Mbarak Hussein unattached / Nike 2:12:53
        Dathan Ritzenhein unattached / Nike 2:14:01
        Simon Sawe unattached 2:14:09
        Clint Verran Hansons-Brooks Distance Project 2:14:12
        James Jurcevich Columbus Running Company 2:14:28
        Ryan Shay unattached / Saucony 2:14:58
        Chad Johnson Hansons-Brooks Distance Project 2:15:03
        Mike Morgan Hansons-Brooks Distance Project 2:15:11
        Kyle O'Brien Hansons-Brooks Distance Project 2:15:13
        Brandon Leslie unattached / Brooks 2:15:20
        Luke Humphrey Hansons-Brooks Distance Project 2:15:22
        Casey Moulton Greater Lowell Road Runners 2:15:26
        Nathaniel Jenkins unattached / Saucony 2:15:28
        Miguel Nuci Transports Adidas Racing Team 2:15:34
        Patrick Moulton Hansons-Brooks Distance Project 2:15:35
        Joshua Ordway Columbus Running Company 2:15:39
        Jason Hartmann unattached / Nike 2:15:50
        Hobie Call unattached 2:16:39
        Nick Schuetze Team XO 2:16:42
        Jacob Frey unattached / Saucony 2:16:44
        Nick Arciniaga Hansons-Brooks Distance Project 2:16:58
        Martin Rosendahl Hansons-Brooks Distance Project 2:17:05
        Chris Lundstrom Team USA Minnesota 2:17:34
        Michael Reneau Hansons-Brooks Distance Project 2:17:46
        Michael McKeeman unattached 2:17:50
        Dan Sutton Wisconsin Runner Racing Team 2:17:54
        Ryan Meissen Wisconsin Runner Racing Team 2:18:04
        Paul Petersen unattached 2:18:09
        Cecil Franke unattached 2:18:13
        Fasil Bizuneh unattached / New Balance 2:18:14
        Steve Meinelt unattached / Reebok 2:18:15
        Chris Graff unattached / Asics 2:18:18
        James Lander unattached / Brooks 2:18:25
        Joe Driscoll ZAP Fitness 2:18:40
        John Lucas Team XO 2:18:50
        Sean Sundwall Club Northwest 2:18:55
        David Ernsberger unattached 2:18:56
    • 800 dude
      • RE: Changed Marathon Trials numbers 11/30/2007 11:28PM - in reply to Yuck the Duck
      • 800 dude
      • This is not going to raise the bar for American distance running. The bar has already been raised by the fact the three who made the Olympic team had to beat some excellent runners to do so. Raising the qualifying standard will only convince a generation of sub-elites that they have nothing to train for.

        This is a huge slap in the face to Letsrun's favorite archetype: the blue collar runner--the guy who works 60 hours/week and gets up at 4am every day so he can keep his mileage over 100.

        It takes very little imagination to see a trickle-down effect by which this decision could hurt US distance running, even at the highest levels. For example, the Olympic medalists of the next generation look up to the B-standard qualifiers of today. These guys are the local studs, the coaches, the teachers, the ones who first made astounding feats of endurance seem possible.

        The bottom line is that a less attainable qualifying standard will lead to fewer people training hard and dreaming big.

        This choice represents a double failure on the part of the USATF. First, they are obtuse to think that the absence of a B standard won't have a negative effect on the highest levels of the sport. However, this is a mistake that I can forgive, since it is of a merely intellectual nature. The second error is one which I cannot forgive, since it is an error in humanity. I cannot forgive a complete lack of sympathy for this thing inside us that makes us human: the capacity to dream, to hope, and to make great sacrifices to realize those dreams.
    • Avocados Number
      • RE: Changed Marathon Trials numbers 11/30/2007 11:41PM - in reply to Walter Warned You
      • Avocados Number
      • Well, maybe I'd feel differently if I were a 2:19-2:22 guy, but I think these are excellent changes. The softer qualifying time standard in recent Olympic cycles may have gotten the trials through an especially weak period in U.S. marathoning, but it's time to give people something more challenging to work toward. In any event, the introduction of the "B" standard (we'll let you in, but you pay your own way) always struck me as a crass economic decision, and I'm glad to see it go away.

        But the more important change, in my view, is kicking out courses like St. George, Steamtown, Tucson, and Austin 2006 from the list of acceptable qualifying courses. The big sticking point in tightening up course standards has always been Boston. I would probably just bite the bullet and knock out Boston as a trials qualifier. I don't know if Boston is an Olympic Games qualifier, but my recollection is that, back in 2004, it didn't meet the Olympic Games standard for qualifying courses, unless it received some special exemption. In any event, people have lots of alternatives to Boston, and Boston has lots of alternatives to entice fast runners.

        All in all, though, good changes that have been a long time in coming.
    • Off the Grid
      • RE: Changed Marathon Trials numbers 11/30/2007 11:43PM - in reply to Walter Warned You
      • Off the Grid
      • It all comes to $$$$$

        +130 qualifiers is too many. Even if they do not pay travel and lodging, there are other aspects of the race that cost $/participant.

        You think its cheap to have a conference in Hawaii?!?!? that money has to come from somwhere. Why waste it on a bunch of scrubs.

        This just confirms the "winner take all" mentality of USATF that discourages so many people in a "no money" sport like T&F.
    • Avocados Number
      • RE: Changed Marathon Trials numbers 11/30/2007 11:50PM - in reply to Yuck the Duck
      • Avocados Number
      • Actually, you're wrong about that. First, a number of those sub-2:19 guys achieved their qualifying times on courses that will now be unacceptable. As I said, that's an excellent change, regardless of the qualifying time standard.

        But second, you really have no idea how many runners would have qualified if these standards had been in place for this Olympic cycle. People live up to standards, and people live down to standards. I'm guessing that there will be a significantly higher number of legitimate sub-2:20 (and sub-2:19) U.S. marathoners in the next Olympic cycle.
    • Avocados Number
      • RE: Changed Marathon Trials numbers 11/30/2007 11:58PM - in reply to 800 dude
      • Avocados Number
      • 800 dude wrote:
        It takes very little imagination to see a trickle-down effect by which this decision could hurt US distance running, even at the highest levels. For example, the Olympic medalists of the next generation look up to the B-standard qualifiers of today. These guys are the local studs, the coaches, the teachers, the ones who first made astounding feats of endurance seem possible.

        The bottom line is that a less attainable qualifying standard will lead to fewer people training hard and dreaming big.

        This choice represents a double failure on the part of the USATF. First, they are obtuse to think that the absence of a B standard won't have a negative effect on the highest levels of the sport. However, this is a mistake that I can forgive, since it is of a merely intellectual nature. The second error is one which I cannot forgive, since it is an error in humanity. I cannot forgive a complete lack of sympathy for this thing inside us that makes us human: the capacity to dream, to hope, and to make great sacrifices to realize those dreams.
        Oh, come on. "I cannot forgive a complete lack of sympathy for this thing inside us that makes us human: the capacity to dream, to hope, and to make great sacrifices to realize those dreams." What kind of crap is that? The qualifying standard for the 1984 trials was 2:19:04, and over 200 runners qualified. If you really care, then just recalibrate your dream by three minutes, and don't dream about running downhill for 26 miles. Now get off the Internet and starting training.
    • jollyjogger
      • RE: Changed Marathon Trials numbers 12/1/2007 12:33AM - in reply to Avocados Number
      • jollyjogger
      • I don't even know what to say...I thought I had a chance at 2:22 in 4 years. But now they lower it to 2:19 that’s really pushing it, actually 2:22 was pushing it but it still seemed like a realistic goal. I'm pretty pissed right now at this poor decision by USATF, 2:22 was one of the main reasons why I still wanted to train my ass off for the next 4 years, I still plan on training my ass off, but maybe I’ll have to settle with just a P.R., cause honestly 2:19 just seems out of reach but who knows. Is Latimer serious w/ this comment? “designed to reduce significantly the number of qualifiers, making the race more manageable for potential organizers (the venue for the 2012 Trials has not yet been set)”. I really don’t think any potential organizers would have a hard time organizing a race for less than 200 men, with marathons now hitting over 30,000 people and running smoothly. Just another bad decision by the morons over at USATF. I hope they had fun at their little meeting over in Hawaii. They sure aren’t helping the sport the way they should be.
    • Ruler of the Universe
      • RE: Changed Marathon Trials numbers 12/1/2007 12:34AM - in reply to Walter Warned You
      • Ruler of the Universe
      • I think this was a great move! It is a positie step for US long distance running.. It will make everyone work much harder... Mark my words... Even with these changes, there will be just as many runners who qualify in 2012 as there were in 2008 because runners "who really want it" will step up to the challenge and work harder...
    • Runningart2004
      • RE: Changed Marathon Trials numbers 12/1/2007 8:44AM - in reply to jollyjogger
      • Runningart2004
      • Not much difference between 2:22 and 2:19. Just train harder. Don't make it by 2012? You still have 2016. 2:19 will make it a truely elite race. You could also go after the 1:05 mark, which may be a little easier than the 2:19.

        Alan
    • 221isME
      • RE: Changed Marathon Trials numbers 12/1/2007 9:06AM - in reply to Shocking News (sarcasm)
      • 221isME
      • Shocking News (sarcasm) wrote:
        This is the problem with Hawaii as a location for the meetings. This was decided in a unanimous fashion because I will bet that there is not a single 2:19-2:22 marathoner in attendance. They only invite the sub 2:12 guys to make the calls for all of us.

        In 2004 this would of left off Brian Sell (who probably would of retired by now) and Trent Briney who provided the only other piece of Drama of the day. Neither of them had run sub 2:19 prior to the trials.

        The eventual goal is to make the trials so damn boring that no one will care and then Latimer and Estes can select who they think belongs on the team. Afterall, I am sure their knowledge would produce wonders.
        Honestly, I think this post says it all. I am a 2:21 marathoner and when I read the "news" it didn't really concern me (because I am definitely planning/hoping to run faster than 2:19 before 2012). HOWEVER, you are 100% right. Someone like Sell probably/possibly would have retired and that illustrates what a "plan" like this can do to the grass roots. It's not often that I change my mind in a debate, but you had me convinced before I even had time to think. AND, I'm NOT being sarcastic! I'm also not sure what the concern was with having the 2:19-2:22 guys there? They paid for everything anyway!
    • ramboner
      • RE: Changed Marathon Trials numbers 12/1/2007 9:10AM - in reply to Runningart2004
      • ramboner
      • The real travesty here is not the lowering of the standard, but the fact that Glenn Latimer gets to decide which races are on his list. Didn't these assholes learn from the New York selection fiasco that you have to avoid that shit at all costs? New York and Boston don't qualify but we'll let them in, 'cause they're not fast ayway. If I'm the director of the Pudf*** Marathon, I'm pissed that the all powerful "Oz" gets to make that choice.

        If you wanted to go run St. George to get your standard and you can still run 2:19, God bless you. If the women follow suit it will be further proof that this group has their heads so far up their asses that they can't see the light of day.
    • Runningart2004
    • blastoid
      • RE: Changed Marathon Trials numbers 12/1/2007 9:28AM - in reply to ramboner
      • blastoid
      • Maybe the men solicited input and feedback prior to making the decision..........

        Bahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!
    • Yuck the Duck
      • RE: Changed Marathon Trials numbers 12/1/2007 9:48AM - in reply to Runningart2004
      • Yuck the Duck
      • Runningart2004 wrote:
        I'm pretty sure Sell ran 2:20 or better for his first marathon.
        He ran 2:19:58 which is not fast enough under the current proposal. The number is 2:19
    • Checking in from Michigan
      • RE: Changed Marathon Trials numbers 12/1/2007 9:54AM - in reply to blastoid
      • Checking in from Michigan
      • blastoid wrote:
        Maybe the men solicited input and feedback prior to making the decision..........

        Bahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!
        I am in the process of sending Kevin Hanson an email. I don't care how he feels about the changing of the standards. What I want to know is if they were asked of their opinion? THIS IS IMPORTANT. The Hansons have done as much for development as anyone in the sport and if Latimer and his isolated group of friends never asked their opinion, then that is corrupt. I will bet they weren't even asked.
    • Mary Maid
      • RE: Changed Marathon Trials numbers 12/1/2007 9:59AM - in reply to Checking in from Michigan
      • Mary Maid
      • Maybe they used the same scientific reasoning the ladies used after the 2004 trials. Didn't they rely on a survey answered by like 17 of the 186 participants?
        Now there's a good sample size. All indications are the men used a smaller sample.
    • toughen up.
      • RE: Changed Marathon Trials numbers 12/1/2007 10:01AM - in reply to 800 dude
      • toughen up.
      • Some of these responses are ridiculous. One-third the amount of spectators? The most spectators are there to see the top one-three, not to hang around to provide pity applause for those trickling in after the top 10 have finished.

        The Olympic medalists of the next generation look up to medalists like Meb a hell of a lot more than they do any local B-standard qualifier. The local B-qualifier is simply someone who couldn't finish within even a football field behind the real stars of the sport. People who work 60 hours/week are OT tourists, they aren't a part of the main show and they're only there because someone threw them a bone.

        Raising the bar, at this juncture, is what the sport needs. The state of the competitive marathon in the US is heading in the right direction again and this gives it a boost. There really isn't a HUGE difference between 2:19 and 2:22, if it seems impossible then that's nothing more than a mental barrier. I bet there will be more qualifiers next time than there were A qualifiers for this last OT marathon.