ING Ottawa Marathon, who will qualify for Beijing?

I'll just point out a few examples to prove that it is POSSIBLE for a runner will a slower qualifying time to compete well at the World Champs:

Rita Jeptoo (Kenya) went to Helsinki in 2005 with a 2:28:11 personal best from Milan in late 2004. She ran 2:24:22 in Helsinki to finish 7th. Oh, and she has done pretty well since!

Doruta Gruca (Poland) - went to Helsinki in 2005 with a 2:28:49 personal best from Mazatlan in late 2004. She ran 2:27:46 in Helsinki to finish 13th, really 12th since the woman in front of her was busted and suspended for 2 years. Helsinki is still her personal best.

Alex Malinga (Uganda) went to Helsinki in 2005 with a 2:14:22 personal best from 1999. He had run only 2:18:55 to "qualify" for the World Champs. He ran a national record of 2:12:12 to finish 6th in Helsinki. It still stands as his best run.

Nina Rillstone (New Zealand) went to Ozaka in 2007 with a 2:29:46 personal best from Nagano in 2006. She ran 2:33:58 to finish 13th in Helsinki.

Yared Asmerom (Eritrea) went to Ozaka in 2007 with a 2:15:14 personal best from Hamburg in April earlier that year. He ran 2:17:41 to finish 4th in Ozaka! He has improved his time great since. Interestingly, he also qualified for Helsinki with a 2:16:45 time from late 2004. He finished 25th in Helsinki, running 2:18:46. Seems like his federation got it right. They sent a 2:15-2:18 runner to the world champs twice and he came 25th and 4th!

Selectors can't argue with these contradictions, even if they are marathoners and don't understand the sport.

Hey Limited by Ignorance,

Very good - thanks!

This is my whole point. I don't know if you are Canadian, or are aware, but Athletics Canada via Canadian Olympic Committee set the standards based on the following:

From Athletics Canada:

"The A+ standards were established following an analysis of recent World Championships and Olympic Games results as well as a statistical analysis from the past five years in order to reflect what represents - performance wise - a top 12 ranked athlete in the world".

Full article here:

http://www.flocasts.org/flotrack/articles.php?id=268

Here follows a portion of the link I pasted if you don't want to read the whole thing...

Marathons contested at the Worlds, Commonwealth Games and Olympics typically do not provide the stellar performance times found in marathon races such as London, Berlin, Chicago, Fukuoka, Rotterdam and others and anything can and often does happen. For the 2007 Worlds in Osaka a heat-wave baked the streets of Japan's second largest city. Marathoners raced in temperatures well over 30 degrees with a relative humidity of 70%. As a result 28 of 87 competitors did not finish the marathon and 2 did not start. 30 could not crack 2:30, 47 could not break 2:20, and the top 9 ran between 2:15 and 2:19. Kenyan, Luke Kibet only managed to run 1 second under 2:16.

Consider the average finish time in Athens Marathon in 2004 was 2:22, 7 minutes slower than Osaduik's personal best. Paul Tergat who, at that time held the world standard for the marathon, with a time of 2:04:55 finished 10th in 2:14, behind Victoria's Jon Brown who finished 4th in 2:12, incidentally, Jon's time would not necessarily qualify him for international competition according to Athletics Canada, yet the world record holder (Tergat) ran a time that was not only outside of AC's A+ standard, but would also not qualify him for the competition in the first place. The 12th competitor, America's Alan Culpepper ran a time of 2:15:26.

2006 Manchester Commonwealth Games silver medalist Joshua Chelanga ran 2:12.45, outside of the A+ standard. Stuart Hall of England came in that magical 12th spot with a time of 2:19:53.

I'm not up on the data for the distaff side (although of the times you list in your three examples, two would have made Canadian A standard and the third was just off A (2:29:08), but well under Canadian B(2:31:00)), but as far as your two male examples:

As was posted previously, this does not counter the point that for the concept of 'anything can happen' (ie placing top 12 or maybe even medalling). One must be at least a 2:15 marathoner (and even then, they need some significantly stronger shorter distance credentials as exampled next).

Asmeron also had a 1:00:28 half-marathon to his credit from ealier in 2007, so one could reasonably argue his 2:15 wasn't representative. Also, 2:15 is still faster than 2:16, 2:17, etc.

As mentioned previously by 'helsinki', no 2:16 or slower marathoner has placed in the top 12 in recent World's or Olympics. You are welcome to suggest other examples.

Again, what are the contradictions? You've listed 5 athletes who have either explicitly met the 'tough' Canadian standards or run faster at a comparable event than any Canadian has ever come close to. Are there any current Canadian marathoners whose resumes are superior to your presented 'contradictions'?

I'm not sure if you read the posts on the previous page by 'helsinki', but they were (presumably) quite clear that using this type of comparison argument (inserting someone's marathon PB into a championship race run under hardship conditions) is completely groundless and does nothing to support your case.

There is a reason why the average finish time in Athens was 2:22 - it's because conditions were such that everybody ran slower than their best! Same with Osaka.

To suggest that somehow magically a 2:16 or 2:17 marathoner would not be affected in the slightest and therefore could have medalled (or placed top 12) is being completely ignorant of physiological reality and blind to the statistical reality that no 2:16 or slower marathoner has placed top 12 at recent World or Olympic marathons.

wetcoast wrote:

From Athletics Canada:

"The A+ standards were established following an analysis of recent World Championships and Olympic Games results as well as a statistical analysis from the past five years in order to reflect what represents - performance wise - a top 12 ranked athlete in the world".

One last point. You may want to have a more detailed look at the AC published qualification criteria. Now that we are in 2008, the whole A+ standard thing is rather a moot point. It appears to have been primarily a standard that could be met in 2007 (to be followed by a lesser proof-of-fitness in 2008).

For 2008, Canadian athletes are pretty much faced with the same IAAF A and B standards as the rest of the world (except, obviously, for the marathon).

Asterix,

Ok, I am going to stop here, becuase you see things your way, which for the most part I agree with, as stated. Funny you are not capable of picking up on that. Must be the blinders.

However, every human is different, every situation is different and every course is different. The rules must be laid however, they being rules and everything must be rigid...as stated I understand this.

But to disregard the fact that the criteria DID say 'top 12 performance' as per above...yet thetop 12 did not relate to actual times regardless of the hardship of the day or course, is IGNORING the whole argument.

Enough from me...

Asterix and Helsinki,

Please come down off your high horses. 2:15:14 vs. 2:16:00, are those 46 seconds really the difference between contemplation of finishing in the top 12 or not being worthy to give it a shot?

The argument that Asmeron was a sub-1:01 half marathoner and that 2:15:14 was not an indicator of his abilities is moot. A good half-marathon indicates a decent marathon only slightly better than a good 10k on the track.

Let's say Reid or Simon ran 2:16 in their debuts. Their 13:21 and 27:50 times suggest they could have some potential to do better given the opportunity. Should Canada send them?

A better example may be Dylan. Dylan ran 1:04 and 1:03:50 in the 9 months prior to his debut. He had problems in his 2nd half, so let's say he would have run 1:03 in Houston. He just ran virtually the same time in Rotterdam as Asmeron had. We could say based on his 1:03 ability, he would have the potential to run well in his next marathon given the opportunity.

To be honest, I don't think 2:14 is unreasonable as a standard. 2:12 when no Canadian has come close doesn't make a lot of sense. Sub-2:18 seems pretty loose, I agree.

But what I hate is that anybody would say 2:18 is too loose a standard when the IAAF has said it is not. I personally did not believe anyone has the right to judge in Canada otherwise. The IAAF has set this standard in order to assure there will be a good level of participation and make the championships interesting. Otherwise, let's just wait for the next London or Berlin marathon.

But at least Athletics Canada gave the athletes fair warning this time around. Everyone knew the standards with plenty of time and has to try to meet them.

It isn't a question of whether or not 2:18 vs. 2:12 is the right standard. It is a question of WHY is 2:12 a better standard to hold the men to, if noone is close. The only guys close to that capability are ones who just changed citizenship or who have a chance to qualify in the 10K/5K. I'd love to see either in the marathon as well.

France set their standard to 2:10:30. They have athletes who have done that previously.

Spain was 2:12:30. They have athletes have done that previously.

Australia was 2:12:30. They have athletes who have or are close.

Italy was ~2:12. Same story.

Germany was 2:15. Close, but no cigar.

Japan, Kenya, Morrocco and Ethiopia don't set time standards. Guess why?

In fact, one each of Morrocco and Kenya's three qualifiers just qualified on the basis of the runs in Boston. Is Boston even an approved course for Beijing purposes? No. See, those countries don't have a need for the technicalities, because there are a plethora of 2:05-2:09 guys.

Setting high standards only works if they are still achievable, or if the motivation is there.

wetcoast wrote:

But to disregard the fact that the criteria DID say 'top 12 performance' as per above...yet thetop 12 did not relate to actual times regardless of the hardship of the day or course, is IGNORING the whole argument.

Can you link me to the original source specifying how they determined the A+ standard? I don't see it covered in

This document talk about selecting a team that is capable of finishing top 12, not necessarily must be ranked top 12 to qualify. When it comes to the marathon, history shows one must be at least 2:15 or better (even then, there are few 2:14 examples).

Regardless, as mentioned previously, the A+ standard concept is not very relevant now that we are in 2008. Look at Appendix B to see that IAAF A and B standards are now of more relevance.

limited by ignorance wrote:

Please come down off your high horses.

Maybe I like it up here on my high horse.

Are 46 seconds really relevant? If they aren't, then what is the purpose of setting standards in the first place? A line has to be drawn somewhere and if you are going to start making exceptions because 46 seconds isn't that much, then you might as well not create the standards in the first place.

You let the guy 46 seconds off in, so why not the guy 66 seconds, since he's only 20 seconds off your previous guy? Where does that 'close enough' end?

In historical statistical meanings, those 46 seconds are pretty big as no one has placed top 12 having run slower in the last 25 years.

As for what a 1:00:28 half-marathon suggests for the marathon, most would say more than a 1:03 half or a 27:50 10,000 (which Merciers to a 1:01:34 half). Why were people all hyped about Wanjuri's debut when all he had to show were some 58/59 minute halfs?

Lets back up a bit though. What this all really comes down to is a difference of valid opinions. Competing in the Olympics or Worlds is not a right but a privilege and every country is free to enact tougher standards for their own reasons. It may be because of limited funds, maybe because they feel pressured from corporate sponsors (via COC) to have a team of 'achievers', whatever. Canada is by far not the only country to make changes and certainly doesn't have the toughest standards out their either.

One can (and many have) make the argument that getting outclassed at the Olympics when there is no hope of decent success is a 'good experience' and 'provides a carrot' to chase. Sure, that's possible. But it is also possible that getting ones doors blown off in the international spotlight is not an appealing thing and that a better experience might be had in an environment more suited to ones competitive abilities (again, like Pan Ams, Commonwealth, Francophone, NACAC, etc).

Is 2:14 too tough but 2:18 too easy? Those are entirely debatable points given the lack of definition as to what constitutes 'tough' or 'easy'. For whatever reasoning, 2:14 has been picked by AC as their B standard, a time still achieved by hundreds of athletes every year, so it's hard to say absolutely that the time, while tough, is TOO tough.

But where folks have really very little to stand on, is when they pull out the tired 'anything can happen' argument as to why 2:14 is not reasonable. Reality is 'no, unless you are sub-2:14, many things can not happen'.

When it comes to Canadian athletes, we have had many in our history who have gone sub 2:14. Just because we don't currently have any at that level does not automatically mean that it is an unreasonable standard.

limited by ignorance wrote:Please come down off your high horses. 2:15:14 vs. 2:16:00, are those 46 seconds really the difference between contemplation of finishing in the top 12 or not being worthy to give it a shot?

Most of your post seems pretty reasonable, so I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue here. I think we can probably agree on one thing: Whatever the standard for selecting a team is, it's foolish to pretend that the runners who run one second faster than standard are "internationally competitive" while the runners who go one second slower are local bums who would never have a shot.

Any standard, however you set it, is going to be arbitrary. So to me, there's not much difference between a 2:15:14 guy and a 2:16:00 guy, unless the predetermined standard happens to fall between those times.

So the question is, where do we set the standards? As I said (repeatedly) above, I think we should just use the IAAF standards, for several reasons. AC, for reasons of their own (and not, in all honesty, just because they like to make people cry) has decided to set the standards higher. What I've been trying to get across here is that, if you/we are trying to make the case that the standards should be softened, arguing that 2:16 guys can be competitive because anything can happen on the day is just a weak argument.

But what about Asmerom, you say? Exactly: he's the ONLY 2:15 guy since 1984 to crack the top 12. In that sense, he pretty much proves AC's argument that, barring a miracle, 2:15 guys won't be competitive.

(And the fact that he had run 1:01 previously is, in fact, relevant. Zatopek won the Olympic marathon in his debut. John Treacy came second in his debut in 1984. Does that prove that we should adjust our selection criteria to send as many debut marathoners as possible? No -- those performances are remarkable because they're unusual.)

To reiterate: I probably agree entirely with you about what our selection policy should be. I just don't think the best way to justify it is by arguing that our guy might be the exception that proves the rule.

Cool, you two have good arguments. Anyhow, it is what it is.

2:14 was/is actually a pretty good "carrot" this year. It got Dylan to give it a go at a relatively young age. It may have provided some incentive for Danny to try get qualified, and has probably provided extra incentive for some of the landed immigrants who have become Canadians - the idea they would want to represent Canada is uplifting in my mind! I doubt that some of the younger Brooks guys/girls in Ontario would be targeting a fast time in Ottawa if it weren't for the possibility to have one of those days, and at worse potentially qualify for Berlin next year.

Stepping stones.

Having been around some of these 2:15-2:18 guys or 2:32-2:35 girls, I am probably just wishing I could see them succeed further and reach international competition sooner than later - or in some cases, while in their marathoning prime while balancing work and families.

It would be cool to see them in the World Champs or the Olympics. I would never say they don't deserve it, but I can't say for sure they would be "competitive" once there. Additionally, I don't doubt that would prepare as best as possible and I wouldn't be surprised to see them make their familes and friends proud (and hopefully their country).

Furthermore, we get our butts handed to us at big city marathons, so I don't think it would come as a shock in international competition, if it happened. Hopefully taken in stride and look to improve and creap a little closer to the upper echelon of the sport.

At the end of the day, we all know that it is possible that a person can exceed expectations and do well (top 12 is a ridiculously high target, not a reasonable one in the marathon). But we all know that it is more likely that the marginally qualified athlete will likely be mid-pack or further back. That is okay with me also, but I am a fan of the sport and in general am impressed with the level of committment each athlete makes.

For better or worse, I think given good conditions in Ottawa, we may see quite a few Canadians make a good jump in performance and run 2:15-2:18 and/or 2:34-2:39.

It would be cool if they got to go to Beijing, but they wouldn't have the standard, and it would be understandable why they wouldn't be selected. The nice thing this year is that they would be that much closer to going to Berlin next year, which is decent consolation!

Looking forward to checking the results and hearing the stories.

So, it appears that differences between the "warring camps" are not huge. Let's try and find the dividing line.

We all know that Canadian marathoning is not at an apex. The Brooks Project is obviously a good initiative. Also, it seems to me that some recent immigrants/refugees from other parts of the World will become citizens, and add to the "Pool". Nothing wrong with that, as Canada's recent sprint fortunes were largely based on Caribbean immigrants.

Now, who has a problem with sending the top Canadian(s) having achieved the International Standards to the Games?

Even if only 1 athlete with B standard, how could this be a bad thing? To me, it seems that the more athletes with "hope", the more likely it is that our top athletes will run faster. Yes? No? Why?

turku wrote:Even if only 1 athlete with B standard, how could this be a bad thing? To me, it seems that the more athletes with "hope", the more likely it is that our top athletes will run faster.

I agree 100% -- and that's one of the main reasons I'd support using IAAF (rather than harder) standards.

And further to ignorance's point above, I agree that 2:14 has been a successful carrot this year. I thought it was a great move by AC to introduce the Rising Star criteria for the first time this year (something that wouldn't have been permitted under the COC rules in 2004), and it has succeeded in encouraging guys like Dylan to give it a shot. And the decision to send a full team to Berlin next year is also awesome. I'm pretty confident that the Canadian marathon lists for 2008 and 2009 will be the deepest we've seen in a decade or more -- and hopefully that will eventually translate to some action at the very top of the list.

turku wrote:

Now, who has a problem with sending the top Canadian(s) having achieved the International Standards to the Games?

Basic principal? Sure, why not?

However, as discussed previously, there is also the valid opinion (expressed by COC and their 'funding partners' and then passed on to AC to implement) of wanting a 'competitive' team at the big show, not just also-rans.

As a result, the standards created are in line with that thinking and despite the fact that many want to tar them as mean, cruel and unfair, they are consistent with that philosophy.

Remember back in 2001 when Canada hosted World's. They did try the concept of taking everyone and anyone they could qualify and had representation in many/most events. That is just what some have been advocating for as the 'carrot' to chase to get everyone else motivated. But look at the results from 2002-2003 for evidence of how well that philosophy worked. How many of the lower qualifiers in 2001 used that as the stepping stone to the higher levels?

As Kevin Sullivan posted in another forum, "we blew it" when it came to taking advantage of that opportunity, suggesting that making things easier is not necessarily the best way to improve international competitiveness.

Vancouver V wrote:

AC has a history of vague , subjective values in the selection process. Nicole was the current National champ, and achieved her Olympic A Standard. Canada has a history of sending sprinters without any standards and not finishing in the top 3 in the trials.( I think Glenroy Gilbert comes to mind ) You are correct, I like Nicole as a person and respect her competitive spirit so my "olympic " definition of her is pretty biased.

Cheers.

V.

1. So why was she left off the team?

2. Glenroy Gilbert won a relay gold -- I think he earned his flight.

So Asterix,

I'm sure that neither yourself or KS are saying that a 1 year trial (Edmonton/2001) is enough to prove anything. Or are you? Who are the also-rans? You may think it's those who aren't in the top 12, some will think it's only medallists we should send, myself and some others may think that if they achieve International Standards, they should be there. I don't see any over-riding wisdom to empirically support one or other of these positions. What I do know is that when we were funding full cross-country teams every year, and sending A/B qualifiers on the Track every year, and everyone bought into that, we were much deeper in the distance events than we are now. I know that times have changed, and there are a lot of factors involved, and there is no easy answer to having 1, 2 or 3 Canadians in the finals in every distance event. But to me, just setting the Standards higher, without being able to provide additional support mechanisms to achieve those higher Standards, makes no sense.

Maybe we should just send Gary Reed - that would certainly cut down on the "also rans".