Changed Marathon Trials numbers

Volunteer at the Trials wrote:

As a volunteer at the trials, I can say that any problems that occurred at this years trials had B QUALIFIER written all over them. The least deserving were the most demanding. I have no idea if this had anything to do with this decision or not. I would of had a perfect weekend if guys slower than 2:20 were not permitted in the race.

When it comes down to it, I think most of the B qualifiers would rather be able to go without special fluids. The problem was that this change was sudden and unannounced. If they left a B standard in now, but specified this far in advance that in addition to paying their own way, B qualifiers would not get special fluids, I don't think you would hear many complaints. The only reason there was so much grumbling was that this was sprung on people only a few weeks out from the race this year.

And from another volunteer, I didn't think there were any significant problems with this years Trials. From an organizational standpoint, I thought it went off very well. And when I had contact with some of the "B" qualifiers I found them to be very nice guys, most of whom were happy and excited to be there and just wanted to run their best. Sorry, but I didn't see any prima donnas nor did I hear any of the other volunteers griping about anything. I think you had a very atypical experience or you're tyring to serve some agenda with your post.

yikesish wrote:

I love how people talk about how "blah blah blah wouldn't have been in the race with the new standards." You don't think at least 8 out of the 16 (out of 30) would've dug deep and found a way to get an extra couple of secs off their 10k, half or marathon time to get in? Or change the course they ran in so that they could get the qualifier?

This reminds me of how sports announcers would say, "if they only hit that field goal 2 quarters ago, they'd be up by now." The problem is that if they hit the field goal, the game COMPLETELY CHANGES cause everyone's mindset would have changed... you can't assume shit from the last trials cause I'm sure a couple of people "shut it down" once they knew they had the standard in the bag.

The problem with your post is you're saying people can't assume anything from the last Trials, but then you turn right around and assume that a bunch of guys would have "dug deep" and found a way to qualify had the standard been faster. Just exactly how do you know they would have "dug deep?" Maybe those guys gave all they had on that particular day as it was. It would be nice if all there was to running was some mental skill of digging deep. I bet a lot of guys would run really fast if that was the case. As for your statement about changing courses. You do realize that many of the fast, aided courses have been removed from consideration, right? If you're not gonna let the opposite side make assumptions, you can't make any either. All we know is how people have qualified in the past and we can't take it any further than that.

What makes you think that the guys on the edge of qualifying last year won't run a 2:19 and be right back at the race? What is it about a 2:20-2:22 type that makes them a demanding jerk?

The logic that running two minutes faster somehow makes you a nicer person would be mind-boggling if we weren't talking about the USATF. The fact is that you don't need to bend over backwards for these demands. All they need is a number and a chip.

With all due respect you can suck my B qualifier d#@k. What were you volunteering as at the Trials anyway? I didn't hear any B qualifiers complaining about anything. Stay at home next time.

Bump. There was very little complaining this year. The tech meeting was almost all about the race and a celebration of the greatest field ever assembled for the oly marathon trials. If a volunteer complained about an athlete then as the above poster said "stay home".

yikesish wrote:

1 -> the bar is raised: of course there's less margin for error - that's why there's a longer qualifying window of almost 2 years.

I'm all for that. I would be all for having the window be 3 years.

Well, there was that one annoying "B" guy at the tech meeting who made the comment about the water bottle tables not looking like they were safe because people were standing around them in the picture.

I did here a few "B" guys act annoying at times but that is to be expected with that many people. Most are going to be great guys but you are going to get a few that think they are too cool for school.

"hear" not here.

I don't think that would change even if he ran a couple of minutes faster though. Plus, mosts of the A guys seemed to find it pretty amusing. If the official had a better sense of humor he could have turned it around and made a joke of it. I thought it was a light hearted moment, that broke up a very dull meeting (albeit a dull meeting with good food).

i don't see this as a bad thing. i tried for several years to beat 2:22. never did it. it was fun to have as a goal, but i donbt i would have trained any less hard if the standard had been 2:19. i'm sure my PRs would probably be the same, too. i went as hard as i could for as long as i could, regardless of the standard.

i agree that if we're picking an olympic team, we should not be allowed to qualify for the race with women's times. we don't do it in other events.

I would imagine there are many stories on both sides. I remember thinking that training for the marathon took a lot of time and wasn't much fun and the race itself certainly hurt. However, at 2:24, I might have quit and said I had a great race and can't do any better, but that was just too close to 2:22 to give it up without taking a shot. If 2:22 had been just another number only a couple minutes faster than 2:24 it would be difficult to justify the sacrifices, but 2:22 wasn't just another number. I'm another in favor of a provisional standard. Cap it at a certain number of entries and make it like NCAA's. The closer to the auto time you run the more likely you are to make it into the race.

There was a guy who tripped over one of the tables early on. He did get up slowly and I think finished the race. He really went down hard. He had distinct blond hair. Other than that I heard very little complaining

For those in favor of a different standard than Latimer came up with, are we emailing him to let him know? I am aware that he is up for re-election next year. Will this be enough to sway him back? His email has been posted on earlier messages. Does anyone have it? If so could we repost it so all can send him a message about how we feel.

So then we cut it off at 2:15?

failed/retired wrote:

i don't see this as a bad thing. i tried for several years to beat 2:22. never did it. it was fun to have as a goal, but i donbt i would have trained any less hard if the standard had been 2:19. i'm sure my PRs would probably be the same, too. i went as hard as i could for as long as i could, regardless of the standard.

i agree that if we're picking an olympic team, we should not be allowed to qualify for the race with women's times. we don't do it in other events.

fat and out of shape wrote:

For those in favor of a different standard than Latimer came up with, are we emailing him to let him know? His email has been posted on earlier messages. Does anyone have it?

For those that want, the e-mail is:

glennlat @ aol . com

12344321 wrote:

This is where I mean the USATF should step in and create something meaningful to aim at. Do a better job of promoting the marathon championships, do a better job of promoting regional championships. The only reason you have "dreamers" pursuing the OT marathon is because there is a concensus view that this is the most worthy goal.

I agree completely with this post. It would be wonderful to have multiple tiers of "big" marathon goals for people to shoot for.

I'd love for the regional and national marathon championships to become a bigger deal. What can the average joe do to help this become a reality. Would writing letters of encouragement to USATF be worth anything? I've never dealt with the organization.

As it is now, there's Boston at 3:10 or whatever, and OT (every 4 years) at 2:19. Wouldn't it be cool to see regional champs at ~2:45 and non-OT year national champs at ~2:25?

You could have national champs in the years on either side of the OT (ie. 2 out of every 4 years), and regional champs in OT years, and non-nationals years (ie every other year).

Would promotion be enough to get people to run these, or would prize money be required to get faster people (2:15-2:25) to run the regional champs?

Doesn't Japan have multiple tiers of marathon racing requiring qualifying times?

Try Again wrote:

So then we cut it off at 2:15?

failed/retired wrote:

i don't see this as a bad thing. i tried for several years to beat 2:22. never did it. it was fun to have as a goal, but i donbt i would have trained any less hard if the standard had been 2:19. i'm sure my PRs would probably be the same, too. i went as hard as i could for as long as i could, regardless of the standard.

i agree that if we're picking an olympic team, we should not be allowed to qualify for the race with women's times. we don't do it in other events.

i guess i should have said "american" women. but fine. 2:15 it is.

The bottom line is: chasing PRs is not a good feeling. Cavemen did not run hard because they saw some clock about to climb over 15 minutes and neither do we. Cavemen ran hard to catch food, compete with each other for scarce resources, impress the opposite sex, etc.

It's about competition. And what the USATF has just done is eliminated competition for a specific demograph of runners: guys who are post-collegiate, and national class. Not international class, but not regional class either.

If you are international class, you go to the Olympic trials because you have at least a slim chance of making the team. And if you make it then you have a slim chance of getting a medal. And if you don't make the Olympics then you go to a world marathon major and try and mix it up the best you can.

If you are regional class, you just go for big regional races. For instance, if you're a 2:30 marathoner, placing top 10 at the Philly marathon would be pretty sweet.

But what if you're national class? ie, you're not one of the top 10 in the country. But you might be top 50. And you want to prove that you are 50th, and not 150th. Where do you go? That caliber of runner will not get excited about being 4th versus 6th at Philly.

In college they fix this problem with a thing called NCAA xc championships. Yes, that race is about McDougal and Rupp. But it is also about the guy that passes 50 people during the race and gets that last All-American spot, when everyone thought he wouldn't crack the top 100.

We used to have a version of this, for people who were just as competitive as that college kid, but older with more slow-twitch fibers. It was called the Olympic Trials. But no more. Thanks USATF.

At least the international guys still have something to run for, as do the regional guys.

What if they made the Olympic standard 2:10? It's about medals right? No point in admitting a 2:11 guy who will be happy to get top 10, and will not see 3rd place.

To that 2:11 guy, 10th place is everything. And to the 2:21 guy, 50th at the OT is everything. Just like to the 17:30 5k runner, the local turkey trot is everything.

We might be able to fix this problem. We've gotta find some other race that counts as a national championship. But that's not easy when there's like 8 billion USATF road championships. Placing top 50 at any one of those hardly makes you one of the best 50 runners in the country. And we all know it.