Glenn Latimer - Qualifying Standards Contradiction?

Condescending much? wrote:

I really can't believe the condescending, elite snobs that bubble to the surface in these debates.

They provide a useful counterpoint to the self-interested 2:25 marathoners who keep bringing up this issue.

Latimer's statement was ambiguous. I took it to mean, more or less, that lowering the standard to 2:30 and allowing many slower runners into the race wouldn't produce a bunch of 2:12 marathoners down the road. I think that he's basically right about that. If the Olympic trials standard had been 2:30 when I was in my twenties (when the standard ranged between 2:19 and 2:20), then I might never have run much faster than 2:29. When the standard was softened to 2:22 (while continuing to allow times from absurdly downhill, point-to-point courses), you suddenly had a bunch of guys looking for 26.2-mile descents that they could run in 2:21:59. That's hardly a way to promote excellence.

Latimer did get a couple of points wrong. He was a few seconds off on the qualifying standard in 1984. And he was too quick to proclaim a 1:05 half-marathon as being tougher than a 2:19 marathon. For a number of marathon specialists, that's true. But for a number of half-marathon and 10k specialists, it isn't. Since the goal is to select a marathon team, and the trials race is a marathon, I think that 1:04:30 might have been a better alternative qualifying standard, and would certainly be more in line with the 10,000-meter alternative standard of 28:30. (I believe that Teddy Mitchell, of all people, may the same point a while back.) But these are very minor quibbles. Overall, I think that it's an excellent move. I wish the women would step up their standards as well.

giffypop17 wrote:

Sure, we've got examples of guys like Briney and Sell in '04. Well, guess what? Sell got rolled up the last few miles. And Briney had a great race, but still didn't qualify.

What does that mean? 4th place doesn't count?

The purpose of a standard in track is to reduce the field to a manageable number. It's the same for the marathon. It makes sense to have a "lesser" threshhold for the marathon trials due to the events propensity for amplifying random variables.

What should the standard be? Is the standard to eliminate everyone (like Briney) who has no chance to make the team? You're not going to have to many on your side. Whether it be 2:19, 2:20 or 2:22, they all seem to be a reasonable accommodation for the capricious nature of the event. We allow qualifying for a 28:3010k or a 1:05:00 half marathon. C'mon, 1:05:00? That sucks! What's the rationalization for that?

I'm all for grass roots programs, but should we drop the standard to allow 2:30 marathoners in the Olympic Trials. Absolutely not. I have no problem accepting that many of them will one day become 2:19, or 2:12, or even 2:08:51 marathoners one day, but they can wait for their time to come. There are more appropriate competitions for them.

Says the little girl crying about elitism in a sport!

Condescending much? wrote:

Red Glare wrote:

There's no enlightening you, son.

"Son," huh? It's rather amusing that YOU are the one who resorts to childish profanity, and yet you imply that I am the youngster in this exchange. I think it's safe to say that you are much closer to the DyeStat generation that I am, my friend.

malmo wrote:

Whether it be 2:19, 2:20 or 2:22, they all seem to be a reasonable accommodation for the capricious nature of the event. We allow qualifying for a 28:3010k or a 1:05:00 half marathon. C'mon, 1:05:00? That sucks! What's the rationalization for that?

I'm all for grass roots programs, but should we drop the standard to allow 2:30 marathoners in the Olympic Trials. Absolutely not. I have no problem accepting that many of them will one day become 2:19, or 2:12, or even 2:08:51 marathoners one day, but they can wait for their time to come. There are more appropriate competitions for them.

I agree with malmo. (I love to say that.)

Red Glare wrote:

There's no enlightening you, son.

Like there is any enlightening you either, boy.

I bet you have a lot of trophies for "Tool of the Moment."

--Good luck with that.

I still don't understand the rational for only changing the men's standard. If anything the women's standard is now way too slow in comparison. And it can't be about drawing equal sized fields because there were a ton of women in the last OT.

How they can sit there with a straight face and make an argument about toughening the men's standard (which I agree with) and then turn around and leave a cupcake time for women is crazy. I think it is condescending to women and feminist groups should file a protest.

Mr. Latimer hates our trials system and has stated this at the USATF meetings several times. He wants to select our marathon team based on his opinion. He would like to see the trials be a failure. He smiles from ear to ear when you ask "how does it hurt having 2:22 guys paying their own way" and then responds with "they will never make the team".

Correct, but they will make the trials better. Mr. Latimer feels that is another reason to not let them run.

giffypop17 wrote:

Can anybody give an example of someone who did qualify who would have been excluded by this new 2:19/1:05/28:30 standard? Anyone?

Mark Conover would be "close". He came in with a 2:18:03 PR in '88 and won the trials.

Beyond that I don't think you'll find anyone who has qualified with a slower PR coming in.

There are lots of guys at the track trials who have no business there and won't make the team. Why not get rid of them, get rid of heats and just have a top 8.

Alan

There is a small degree of irony that Latimer, who is British, is here in the US steering men's LDR of USA Track & Field (I am sure he took the model of magnificent depth in Britain's distance running and is now using those tools here). While my opinion means little, I do agree with the folks who argue that we should have a fairly soft "B" standard. It really hurts no one to have a 2:28 guy run the Trials. Will he run 2:09 that day and make the team? Almost certainly no - Latimer is right there - but who cares. If it gets his home town excited and creates more fans of the sport (something we desperately need). "Trying out for the Olympics" is something these athletes could tell their local press, work friends, hell the local garbage man - people would be excited. Unlike the track, the Trials Marathon is a road race, so having 500-600 guys is in no way a logistical problem. Do not offer "elite fluids" - pay for nothing. Hell the hotel revenues alone for an additional 350-400 men and their families (which they would be paying), would pull in some nice revenue for Houston or whatever city is hosting......and yes.....even though Glenn does not see it happening....yes.......1-2 of these guys would break through and become a 2:19 runner, then a 2:15er...then a 2:10er - Beardsley is the PERFECT example. In the end though Glenn pushed hard for the 2:19 (and from what I heard did not even consult many of the other LDR folks before it was pushed through at Reno Convention) and the standard is what it is. Good luck to all those chasing it. By the way - Latimer is WRONG about the 2:18.56 standard from 1984. The standard was 2:19.04 - if it were 2:18.56 - I would not have been on the line. c.s.

Beautiful.

A Truth Seeker wrote:

I still don't understand the rational for only changing the men's standard. If anything the women's standard is now way too slow in comparison. And it can't be about drawing equal sized fields because there were a ton of women in the last OT.

While I agree with much that is being said about a "B" standard helping the sport this argument doesn't hold any water as the Men's and Women's Standards are set by different committees.

Not as many as you do Special Olympics medals, pal!

Get Smarter... wrote:

Red Glare wrote:

There's no enlightening you, son.

Like there is any enlightening you either, boy.

I bet you have a lot of trophies for "Tool of the Moment."

--Good luck with that.

Why not? Because the track trials is a spectator (in-person and televised) package, sold for gate receipts and television advertising revenue. So really you can't apply that to the marathon trials, since they basically lack that completely.

giffypop17 wrote:

Can anybody give an example of someone who did qualify who would have been excluded by this new 2:19/1:05/28:30 standard? Anyone?

Runningart2004 wrote:

Mark Conover would be "close". He came in with a 2:18:03 PR in '88 and won the trials.

Beyond that I don't think you'll find anyone who has qualified with a slower PR coming in.

There are lots of guys at the track trials who have no business there and won't make the team. Why not get rid of them, get rid of heats and just have a top 8.

Alan

The name calling on this thread is silly. Glenn Latimer is a strong leader with even stronger opinions. That is a good thing. If you disagree with his opinions, then contact him and tell him so. And come strong. I have disagreed with Glenn on a ton of things and have aggressively told him so. I have pissed him off to the point that he wanted to strangle me. After all is said and done I consider him a friend that is good for the sport and I believe that he sees me the same way.

I disagree 100% with the changing of the standards. I have no problem with altering the A standard but a B standard is important for several reasons. The number 1 reason is DEVELOPMENT. The reason that DEVELOPMENT has occured in this country is because of hard working athletes combined with "outside dollars". USATF prize money at championship races and developmental dollars are 100% funded by the local races. USATF doesn't have money to give. What they do have is the rights to the Olympic Trials.

I believe that Mens Long Distance Running has a huge opportunity to enhance DEVELOPMENT, and has dropped the ball. B athletes do not cost the trials a significant amount of dollars and the upside is immeasurable. Hansons-Brooks B level qualifiers have almost always made our A level qualifiers better. They also bring additional excitement and dollars to the host city. These athletes help in creating the buzz. Every small town paper in the country becomes interested in their 2:21 entry. They follow build up and the race itself. It is also additional press for our Olympians because now the local paper has a reason to run the story. This is a perfect way for USATF to help with DEVELOPMENT without it costing them anything.

If you agree or disagree that these athletes add something to the event it is unimportant. What is important is to ask if any of these athletes hurt the event? I contend that no B level qualifier has changed our eventual Olympic Team Selection. For this reason it is a silly argument to say that the trials are only to select our Olympians. Because the addition of guys running 10 minutes behind them does not in any way change that. The best are making the team and we are helping development. This does not need to be an either or situation. One does not need to be exclusive of the other.

Kevin Hanson

Hansons-Brooks Distance Project

hansonsrun@aol.com

Kevin Hanson wrote:

Because the addition of guys running 10 minutes behind them does not in any way change that.

Good post. I will ask where do we make this cut-off? Why not 2:25 instead of 2:22? Why not 2:35? 2:19 seems pretty fair to me considering the guys coming in at 2:18:58 have no shot at the team but can be there and develop for the future. The guys at 2:20-2:25 have something to bust their ass for.

Great point, why not open it up to 2:19-2:30 marathoners and charge them double the entry fee of the regular marathon and put the difference into a fund to support grassroots programs? Even on a 10k crit course, 2:30 marathoners would not be in the way as they'd only be about 20-25 minutes behind the leaders.

What is important is to ask if any of these athletes hurt the event?

Ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner.

So far the only argument anyone, including Latimer as far as I know, has made for excluding the 2:19-2:22 guys is that they have no chance of making the team. Is that the best you can come up with?

Detracts from the prestige of the event. Keeping the bar set low allows lower expectations to remain. There are other ways that USATF serves emerging and developing athletes, the OT does not have to be that.

Kevin does a nice job of laying out some of the competing objectives for the Olympic Marathon Trials. As mentioned before, contrary to the track and field trials that have fairly set logistical limits on how many can be in the field, in practical terms adding people to the marathon trials (up to a point) does not negatively impact the event.

So to sum up as I see it, the Trials essentially has these objectives:

1) To select the best Olympic team possible in the fairest way possible

2) Act as a marketing tool for the sport attracting attention to our best distance runners

3) Act as a development tool, giving our 2nd tier runners both something significant to shoot for (keeping them in the sport), providing a clear measuring stick aginst top tier runners, and providing the chance for a "diamond in the rough" to perhaps surprise.

How you weight each of the objectives defines how many people you let in and how you run the event. The women's trials put a different emphasis on objectives 2 and 3 then the Men's and hence you get different standards.

From a marketing perspective, perhaps a good comparison could be made to the NCAA Basketball Tourney. If all it was designed to do was select the best basketball team in Div. 1, you would not need 64 teams. Yet the marketing (and revenue) advantages are so significant for keeping all those extra teams in there you will never see the field size reduced.

The trials are different because there is not nearly the same amount of money involved but the principals are the same. In the interview with Latimer, he obviously discounts the value of the "slower" (2:19 - 2:22 runners) bring from a marketing perspective (home town paper, friends, etc) and dismisses the 3rd objective (Kevin's point).

I would argue this is the wrong approach, I think that by not having a B standard not only are you losing out on the positive marketing contribution those runners make to the race, you are also alienating a good number of running’s most loyal and best "customers" [which includes not only those who make the time but those who think they can]. If running is to stay truly viable as a sport it must start doing a better job of thinking of itself as a product. Good products do not piss off their best customers, especially ones that are young and have a lifetime of potential involvement in the sport.

That does not mean let everyone in, as that has a lot of negative consequences (example a see how valued all of those "World Age Group Championships" are in Triathlons where all you have to do is pay your entry fee to get in).

That's why I would suggest a work backwards approach - like the track trials - find a largest field size that best balances the exclusivity of the event, financial constraints, and race logistics and figure out a standard that will get you that field size (or just use a provisional standard). This field size would be part of the package that each city uses in their bid.