2016 Marathon Trials Standards

The plight of the 2:14 to 2:18 US Marathoner: Why do you do it? You don’t do it for the money. You don’t do it for the fame or glory. You don’t even do it because you think you can make the Olympic team or beat the Kenyans/Ethiopians. So why? Why do you keep sacrificing your time and energy towards something that most of society would consider a selfish and frivolous endeavor? Why do you go to bed early on Friday and Saturday nights in the prime of your mid-twenties? Why do you run 120 miles a week in the cold wind, rain and snow? Why?Because you can. Because through years of racing and hard training in high school and college you discovered that you had a knack for something. You achieved high enough in one aspect of your life enough to be considered as belonging to the top 1%. You decided to set the impossible goal of seeing how close you could get to your full potential in something quantifiable. And in the process you realized that you are a part of something bigger than yourself…you are a part of the depth of American distance running,It isn’t the path that the “practical” person would take. It is a road full of risk and a high rate of failure. But in the end it doesn’t matter if you meet your ultimate performance goals because at least you tried. You took the bull by the horns and sought out on a journey that most wouldn’t dare to embark on. You believed strongly in something and decided to act upon that belief.

douglas burke wrote:

it wont matter in 2016 we will probably have 3 sub 2:09 or better guys to make the team. 2:14-2:18 guys dont have much of a prayer to make the team anyways.

last time with the softer standards 2:22 there were i believe 179 mens qualifiers now with harder standards 2:19, 1:05, 28:30 there are 158, i like the longer window they had this time, start the window for 2016 marathon trials on january 1st 2013 until 1 month before the trials race.

i like not having runners slower than 2:18, because those runners rather than be a couple of miles behind the contenders in the trials, could wind up a de-facto pacer for a girl who breaks radcliffes 2:15.25 world record for a mixed race, which would be a bigger impact on the sport.

i would set the standards at

10k-28:30 same as now

half marathon-1:04

marathon-2:14

Very well said, S.Canaday.

I do believe that there can be a "C" standard for men and women, 2:30 and 3:00, for example. That again promotes the local runners who are the best in Cedar Rapids Iowa or Omaha Nebraska, and raises the knowledge, interest, and excitement of our sport to more people. And those people can be the sub 2:10's or sub 2:30's in the next Trials after that, from that encouragement. Our sport is about inclusion, not exclusion.

Well said!

Mike Lundgren wrote:

Very well said, S.Canaday.

I do believe that there can be a "C" standard for men and women, 2:30 and 3:00, for example. That again promotes the local runners who are the best in Cedar Rapids Iowa or Omaha Nebraska, and raises the knowledge, interest, and excitement of our sport to more people. And those people can be the sub 2:10's or sub 2:30's in the next Trials after that, from that encouragement. Our sport is about inclusion, not exclusion.

This is the only drawback that I can think of. If you take away all of the 2:18:59 guys, they will not train to run 2:18:59 anymore. You'll go from having local road races won in 14:50 and saying "wow, that's awesome" to having local road races won in 15:50 and saying "wow, that's awesome". I can see how that could have a net negative affect on US distance running when an 8th grader sees 15:50 as elite and unattainable instead of 14:50.

Conversely, tightening the standard could have a positive affect on US Marathoning. We have to face facts that at any given marathon, a Kenyan could show up and win in 2:05. The United States is not there yet. Maybe, if we say "hey, we gotta get better (and start implementing changes that could effect stronger US showings in marathons)".

haha YO wrote:

What point is there for a 2:15 guy to even keep on going? You can't get travel expenses to your national championship and you have run a time that is the Olympic A Standard and much faster than the World Championship A standard. Great job supporting athletes USATF.

I agree they should be paying for travel expenses for a 2:15 guy, but it's hard to believe they would give up training altogether because their travel expenses are not paid for during that one weekend. That's a stretch.

Mike Lundgren wrote:

Very well said, S.Canaday.

I do believe that there can be a "C" standard for men and women, 2:30 and 3:00, for example. That again promotes the local runners who are the best in Cedar Rapids Iowa or Omaha Nebraska, and raises the knowledge, interest, and excitement of our sport to more people. And those people can be the sub 2:10's or sub 2:30's in the next Trials after that, from that encouragement. Our sport is about inclusion, not exclusion.

I agree with the "C" standard for men. But for women at 3 hours, it's already not equitable with the men. Whenever I meet or know a guy who had qualified I'm really impressed, but with the women I think "good for them", but I'm not in awe of their accomplishment when someone like myself can run the equivalent mens time.

I think they should keep the 2:19 men's standard as it is. Tighten up the women's standard by a minute or two. But get rid of the 1/2 Marathon and 10K qualifying times. There are several people in the trials that have never run a marathon!

douglas burke wrote:

rupp, derrick, solinsky, teg, wesley korir and sammy chelanga have applied already for USA citizenship

I'm pretty sure Rupp, Derrick, Solinsky and Teg are already US citizens.

I get that the organizers want to keep costs down, but at a certain point, doesn't it become silly to shut down city roads and put on a whole marathon just so what, maybe 30 guys and 30 women can race for 2+ hours?

I like the idea someone floated of having a relatively "tough" A standard with expenses paid, a reasonably strong B standard where a qualified athlete can pay for his or her own travel/lodging and a respectable C standard with a ~500 dollar entry or so, split between the race organizers and the USATF.

I think it makes sense to put the A standard at whatever the Olympic A standard is for that cycle- the logic being if it's good enough to compete at the Games, it's good enough to get your expenses covered to run in the selection race. The B standard could be about where the Trials standard is now- gives plenty of guys a strong but doable goal, most of whom would gladly pony up the expenses associated with racing the Trials. Put a C standard up at 2:23-25 or so; that still keeps the field pretty limited and if those guys would like to put up some extra cash to go, more power to them.

I'm just pulling these numbers out of thin air, of course, but honestly, what could possibly be the marginal cost of adding ~60-75 2:15-2:19 guys to a race? So they keep the course open an extra 20 minutes for the statistically likely few who blow up and run 2:30.

Likewise, is the marginal cost of adding another, what, 100? 2:24 marathoners really going to be more than the ~500 dollar entry fee?

On the track, it makes complete sense to keep field sizes limited. There's not that much space, and you wouldn't want to have 40 heats of the men's 1500 because the standard was 3:50 or something. But in a marathon, I've gotta think that the guy running 2:21 isn't getting in the way of the 2:11 winner all that much.

get ugly wrote:

They should do themselves a favor and make the trials more accessible to regular people.

Are the Olympics for "regular" people? If the only reason you want to compete in this event is because it has the word "Olympic" in it then you need to find a different goal or improve and make a completely reasonable standard.

Back when they lowered a few years ago I sent many back and forth e-mails with the distance chair of the USATF and was basically told the event is to see who will make the Olympic team, not to put people on the starting line.

Which I agree with. What I don't agree with is their reasoning and short sightedness:

1. They would rather see 10 guys fighting for 3 spots rather than 200 and it be a big event. Club guys don't matter and add nothing to the event. Only the top 10 true contenders are what matters.

2. The tougher the standard develops talent. Ryan Hall was used as an example of American distance running and how the tougher standard has helped push America back into prominence.

3. Yes, the course being on a road can hold an easy thousand but they are not interested in making money, or making an event of it.

There were a few other things but they are even more ridiculous such as "we are the best we have ever been in distance running," and "the tougher standard will force runners to be faster."

Just in outer space.

I hardly think 2:19 qualifies as a regular people...

csdsrthtr wrote:

I hardly think 2:19 qualifies as a regular people...

A 2:19 does not compare to a 2:10 (What Hodge has run).

2:19 is pedestrian even compared to 2:15, and 2:15 is a joke to someone running a 2:10. Every minute under 2:20 is like 10 minutes to someone running around 3 hours. That's what a lot people have a hard time understanding. It's progressive as you drop in time.

That we even have an Trails is quite different from other countries who often just take the fastest qualifiers.

The standards should be tighter, we had a 2:19 standard in '84 and in general haven't gotten all that much faster. Outside of London and a freak Boston Day...Ryan Hall is a 2:07/2:08 marathoner...

30 runners would make for much better racing if that is all who qualify.

For many the race is actually QUALIFYING and not actually COMPETING in the race itself. Running 2:14 at CIM and then turning around in less than 60 days...c'mon now...

SCanaday there are more than a handful of people running 2;14 - 2:18 who hold full time jobs and run 120mpw..really it's ok to do both. The old FTC guys were world class and becoming lawyers, writers, professionals at the same time.

Make it 1/2 or full marathon qualifying, no 10k and use the international A and B standards

Limit the USA Olympic Trials entry to those M&W who have an Olympic B and give the A athletes air and a 1/2 share in a hotel room.

That is all.

Walter Eugene wrote:

Limit the USA Olympic Trials entry to those M&W who have an Olympic B and give the A athletes air and a 1/2 share in a hotel room.

That is all.

Why? There is no good reason not to let slower people in, and there are lots of good reasons to let them in. USATF is short-sighted and stubborn.

Maybe what needs to happen is that the standard should be the top 50 times (based on individual) over the qualifying period.

It does not seem to me that you would want people running the trials as their first marathon, so get rid of the 10k and half qualifying times.

You can't just ignore races like London and claim he is a 2:08 runner. Outside their PR, everybody is a slower runner.

optorealist wrote:

Outside of London and a freak Boston Day...Ryan Hall is a 2:07/2:08 marathoner...

[quote]Sayer of Things wrote:

The extra 100 to 200 people who would qualify for the trials if the standard is 2:21 or 2:46 hardly qualify as an 'onrush'.

You can't tell me it costs a dime more to run the race with 30 people or 300. They already charge a $50 entry fee to take the line. I presume that covers your chip and what not it sure isn't a drop in bucket for holding the event. The cost for closing down the streets is going to be fixed regardless.

I don't have a problem with making the A standard harder if USATF doesn't want to foot expenses for the B qualifiers. I doubt if the B standard qualifiers would have a hard time finding their own hotel rooms and getting to the race.

In my opinion the biggest thing this will do is eliminate anyone who is not a full time professional runner from competing in the trials. That goes completely against the Olympic ideal. Admittedly the ideal of amateurs competing for the love of the sport died many years ago but it would still be nice to think regular 8-5 people could work hard and make it to the starting line with the people who are going to go the Olympics.

Also well as picking the team I think the trials is about a celebration of the sport. Making that celebration that much smaller will only help relegate our sport even father into the shadows.

In track it makes sense to limit the field to the professionals, there are only 8 lanes. In the marathon the winner's performance is not going to be affected by the guy finishing 2 miles behind him in 2:19. Nor will it inconvenience the race venue to hold the course open for an extra 10 minutes.

Does any other country have a special race to pick their marathon team? If we just want to have the best 3 guys and girls on the line at the Olympics then the holding the trials is foolish anyway. We would probably be better of just sending Hall, Ritz and Meb without a trial and letting them train for the games. (or pick up a few bucks on the roads)

Hopefully USATF reconsiders the stupidity of this decision but as I said in my first post it was a rumor which came from Mike Morgan's twitter feed.

[quote]

I agree completely. If the Trials is just about picking the top three then there really is not much point for its existence. If we really want to make it all about the best men getting to the Olympic starting line in the best shape, then we should all realize there is a better way to do it than with a trial race.

I've always thought that the marathon trials was an opportunity to showcase the best in the sport and the connections they have with the elite, but non-professional guys. Given the limited opportunities in our sport (no money, few careers, little prestige), why can't the fellows who are busting their asses after college get the chance to compete in an event with some connection to the Olympics?

I know I would probably be willing to contemplate spending $600-$700 for the chance to run an Olympic trial marathon. If there is such concern about a C-level guy like myself watering down the field, why hold the event in the first place?