if you can't run sub 2:20, you have no chaance, so why show up @ Oly Trials?

well actually since the olympic cutoff is 215 if you cant run 215 you have no chance, but everyone should just relax this is 5 years down the road and there probably will be advances in coaching, training methods etc. anyways isnt it the same for everyone just do the best you can do and be proud of that.

If you're going to pare the race down to a field size of 50-60 of which maybe 35 will finish, why bother having a trials at all? You're just forcing your top guys to waste a hard effort.

I think if you look at the results of the last 2 trials we have selected very good teams using the system we had in place. Why change what isn't broken?

I guess in 5 years we'll know if this was good or bad. I don't know why anyone would want to tinker with anything in distance running right now since things have been so much on the upswing the last few years.

My PR is almost the same as Jason's (2:18.30) and I have run with him a few times.

I ran 3 Olympic trials. All three were like my Olympics since I didn't have much of a chance to make the team.

I agree with Jason that it isn't just about the top 3 spots.

If we get the "4th might as well be 400th" attitude we actually start sounding less like true running fans and more like the Runner's World crowd. (Hell, we might as well just completely sell-out and only listen to shiny, top-40 pop music while we're at it).

I don't think I'll have much of a shot at sub 2:19 again...but as long as St.George still counts who knows?!

Why show up at the Olympics unless you're going to win? What about NCAAs?

Those who can't run coach.

the marathon qualification time is soft at 2:19

wtf do we have club nationals for??

It sure is easier on the body

Qualifying for an Olympic Trials is something that many marathoners aspire to even though they know they have little to no chance of making the team. But the chance of qualifying drives many people to run marathons when they otherwise might not and to train harder for those marathons than they might otherwise.

I pushed myself for years in the marathon because I thought I had an outside chance of getting the 2:22 standard. It didn't happen for me, but I knew a lot of guys like me that it did happen for. The overall effect was that the talent pool of US marathoners got much bigger. And a very small number of guys who thought that 2:20 or so was about as fast as they'd be able to run ended up under 2:15.

At some point though, if you make the standard too tough I think a lot of people will figure, "Why bother? I have no chance. I'll just run 10ks" and your talent pool decreases.

I think that USAFT should be encouraging people to train for and run the marathon seriously. I think a slower standard, rather than a faster one will be more likely to do that. I'd rather see the standard go to 2:25 or so.

I completely agree with Mayeroff and HRE. Way too many people on this board act like if you are not the best in the (nation/world), you shouldn't bother competing.

As someone just said, why bother sending anyone to the Olympics who won't medal? Why bother sending people to Nationals who won't get All-American. For post-collegiate runners, the Olympic Trials are one of very few goals that exist outside of PRs.

I don't entirely disagree with the new time standard, but that should be accompanied by things like promoting the National Champs marathon, which few people even know about. Or adding more standard-based competition for those of us who are not Olympians or international competitors, but may be working our asses off as regional or national level runners.

And I'm not saying that as a "look-at-me" kind of thing. It's not really about personal recognition for those kind of events, but more about promoting the sport. If you kill off opportunities for the 2:20 guys, what happens to the next Brian Sell?

SAY WHAT?! OF COURSE the Olympic Trials race is "about picking the Olympic Team." It's about NOTHING ELSE than "picking the Olympic Team." It is NOT about making middling-caliber runners feel good about themselves (however that might be accomplished). If one wants "national" recognition, there are many other ways to get it...beginning, for example, with the USATF X-C championships which, if I recall correctly, have pretty lenient entry standards.

It's not like it hasn't been done before...for the next trials it will be back to the standards that were in place nearly 30 years before for the same event...

This is all about money. Just read the statement - it comes down having fewer runners at the trials because they don't want to pay for "179 qualifiers" like this year. They know that 64 met the A and assume that "under the new scheme the number would likely be between 65 and 85".

It's all about money.

Ok, fine. What about the woman's trials? If Ryan Hall can run 2:09 and the standard is 2:19, and Deena can run 2:20 the woman's standard should be under 2:40 right, right?

Actually, if the Women follow suit, the Standards would be:

Marathon, 2:30:00

Half Marathon, 1:10:00

10K, 31:30

Leirbag wrote:

Actually, if the Women follow suit, the Standards would be:

Marathon, 2:30:00

Half Marathon, 1:10:00

10K, 31:30

That would not be "fair", only 10 women would ever qualify...maybe even less.

If it's all about money, and I agree it probably is, then pay for people under the new standard and let people who've run under 2:25 into the race but require them to pay their own way.

HRE wrote:

If it's all about money, and I agree it probably is, then pay for people under the new standard and let people who've run under 2:25 into the race but require them to pay their own way.

You nailed it, my thoughts exactly.

****That would not be "fair", only 10 women would ever qualify...maybe even less.****

Well I guess the women need to step up a little then.

It's time for the women to get some equal rights. Instead of them getting a 30 minute spread between the fastest runner and the slowest qualifying time perhaps they should get the same spread as the men.

Now, how many women are going to step up and run under 2:29 and qualify?

Is it really hurting the true Olympic hopefuls if a bunch of non-elites are in the race also? If so, that would be a good reason to lower the qualifying time. Otherwise, what's the harm in letting a bunch of wannabes run their little hearts out and have a few moments of Olympic hope?

Then again, if you let just anyone into the race it could just turn into a big joke with runners finishing the Olympic Trials in 3:52. There are plenty of races throughout the year where 4:00 types can line up with elites and feel "included".

I'm riding the fence on this one.

i kinda like running wrote:

Is it really hurting the true Olympic hopefuls if a bunch of non-elites are in the race also? If so, that would be a good reason to lower the qualifying time. Otherwise, what's the harm in letting a bunch of wannabes run their little hearts out and have a few moments of Olympic hope?

Then again, if you let just anyone into the race it could just turn into a big joke with runners finishing the Olympic Trials in 3:52. There are plenty of races throughout the year where 4:00 types can line up with elites and feel "included".

I'm riding the fence on this one.

I'd say that there is a pretty good reason not to have non-elites in the OT race. The more folks on the starting line, the more pushing and shoving you're bound to have in the first few miles and the more chance that someone will get tripped or hurt. The point of the race is to choose the Olympic team members, pure and simple. Only those runners with a realistic chance of making the team have any right to be on the starting line. It's fine to define "realistic chance" as those with sub-2:20 credentials.