When was Houston awarded the Men's 2012 Marathon Trials?

I thought that it was down to three -- NYC and Boston being still in the mix.

New York for the women and Houston for the men is the word on the street, but nothing official yet.

When is the announcement scheduled?

If they put it in Houston that'd be super; basically gives us fall 2011 as an extra qualifying season we didn't think we would have.

Not good for the ladies, cause they were short-changed a year to qualify, and if this is true, are short-changed another 2 months.

the men were short changed in 2007 keep in mind..women had their trials in April of 2008, men November of 2007.

They haven't officially announced anything yet, so the Mizuno article obviously is written poorly from that perspective. I hope Houston gets both events and shows that our sport has more than the BAA and NYRR leading professional road racing.

What about having them at Disney? That seems like it would be a good move at least in terms of making them accessible and having good exposure. And it's one of the fastest courses around.

Wait a second, Houston would be terrible! Because those of us who live and train in cold winter climates would be doing our last 8 weeks of buildup to the trials in either sub-freezing temps or on a treadmill.

Sure maybe it can be done (ie, Vega, who does all his training on a treadmill anyway) but NYC or Boston would be a LOT easier for us in terms of weather. Of course you have to train year-round to be good, but with a fall or spring marathon you can periodize so the hardest training happens when the weather is decent. ie, in January you might be doing 18-20m long runs getting down toward marathon pace toward the end, but the 22-24 milers with long chunks at marathon pace get saved for March/April (if running Boston) or September/October (if running NYC). This is why having the half champs at Houston is ok; nobody is trying to be in peak condition for that race!

Now of course this is not a problem for pro runners with the resources to live in warm training climates suited for running, or at least to relocate to these areas for a couple of months.

Picking Houston seems like it is a step in the 'you're not a real runner unless you quit your job to run professionally' direction.

Some people interpreted the lowered qualifying standard to also be in that direction. I personally did not. Somebody training part-time can still run sub-2:19. But running at that level in the middle of January; that is much more difficult if you are under-resourced.

it is the olympic trials to select the olympic team

Ok fine, what about Hansons runners? They obviously have a shot at the Olympic team (or have in the past anyway, ie Brian Sell) but they can't exactly afford to live in California for 2mo leading up to the trials.

Would Houston do a crit course for the trials or just run ahead of the regular race? Watching the men's race in Central Park last time was awesome.

Any course will be a criterium course.

Boston's out of it this time. The only question seems to be whether Houston will get both Trials or Houston and NYC will each get one. And yes, it is entirely about money.

the dude with the funny hat wrote:

Wait a second, Houston would be terrible! Because those of us who live and train in cold winter climates would be doing our last 8 weeks of buildup to the trials in either sub-freezing temps or on a treadmill.

That was my first thought, too.

However, thinking about it again, training in Nov/Dec e.g. in NYC is easier than Jan/Feb/early Mar. And with the latter you have only about three to four weeks left for serious training.

the dude with the funny hat wrote:

Ok fine, what about Hansons runners? They obviously have a shot at the Olympic team (or have in the past anyway, ie Brian Sell) but they can't exactly afford to live in California for 2mo leading up to the trials.

Umm...the Hansons can certainly afford to take their team to Florida and train there for a few weeks before the event, especially considering they've actually done that before.

Same 3 options still in contention for the women's race?

It's been said it's "short-changing" individuals who aren't full-time runners by putting it in Houston because some, who live in more frigid parts of the country, would have to train in poor wintery conditions. Just to shed light on the other side of things, for those of us (like myself) who live in the hot/humid South, to have the Trials in the first week of November again would mean having to train from 3months out in freakin' hot/humid weather (August, September, October). It sucks every bit as much to try to do a 24miler in the South in September as it does trying to get in a workout in freezing weather.

Message summed up: there are going to be people who, either way, won't be happy about the timing. Last time around, it was in New York. I say, why not change things up and put it in Houston?

the dude with the funny hat wrote:

Wait a second, Houston would be terrible!

Women's Oly Trials Marathon, Houston - 1992.

For the three men and women who end up qualifying for the Olympics, Houston, seven months out from the London Olympics, leaves just about a perfect amount of preparation time between trials and Olympics.

Boston, at four months, is too quick a turnaround -- the trials, for either the men or women, are too competitive for the athletes to give much less than full training and effort for the trials and then to have to be at peak again in four months is tough.

New York, at 9.5 months, is not terrible, but not as optimal as Houston -- the risk with having trials a long ways out from the Olympics is that the odds go up that some who qualify will no longer be the best that could be sent by the time the Olympics roll around (stuff happens over time).