2016 Marathon Trials Standards

Patrick Russell wrote:

I can't say I've read all the responses so maybe somebody already made this point, but in Olympic Trial years isn't the Trials also the US Championship? So the drawback of stricter standards and a smaller field is that you're undercutting the US Championship.

Actually you are making it a more competitive race than it normally would be as all the best will compete there.

But I think the "development" arguments hold more weight when you're talking about US Championships as opposed to the OT where selection is the goal.

Patrick Russell wrote:

But I think the "development" arguments hold more weight when you're talking about US Championships as opposed to the OT where selection is the goal.

There is so much room for improvement in this country in developing long distance runners that available competitions including US Champs. is really the least of it.

On the other hand, there is a well known paradigm for success and a simple basic method to get there if you have the will.

Channel Yuki Kawauchi.

Wow so a freshman in college 15 min 5k runner who has never run 50 miles per week or having a max long run of 8 miles should quit while they still can by this reasoning right? It comes down to training age, drive, and innate talent, if you are 35 and have thousands of miles in your legs and are a 15 min 5k guy and want to" go up in distance" because your "track leg speed is gone" I agree with your blanket statement. I am sure you know with your experiences that qualifying is a huge honor and major milestone in and of itself, and much like someone achieving say a major grant or equal entry to a top tier school, one should encourage the next generation not look down one's nose.

As for a solution to the USATF's qualm I think that only the top 10 qualifiers both men and women should get comped entries and travel and they all have to be under a window of 2:12 or faster, again to aid the talent going into the Olympics, as well to avoid having stale athletes that have been over raced for promotion fees and such. Also the top 200 fastest times by a certain date get in, and that is final, Nike can't squeak in a guy or gal, and the USATF can't fudge 10k numbers from 5 years ago etc.

But really again back to the original post, to say a certain 5k runner should not even have some far reaching goals such as breaking 2:18 or so in the marathon is limiting at best.

It baffles me that people want a strict standard for the Olympic Trials marathon. What's the point of putting all the work and organization into a measly backwoods-looking 35-man marathon? It's like holding a heavyweight title fight in a high school gym.

If you want a tiny field, why have hold a Trials race at all? You could just name the Houston Marathon the Olympic qualifying race, take the top three American finishers to the Olympics, and save yourself all the trouble of organizing the Trials.

The Olympic trials standard, at least for the marathon, should be attainable enough to have a sizable race. It could be a really cool event. The faster your PR during qualifying, the better your starting position. Slower people would have to pay their own way, fans get a big race to watch with lots of people to cheer for, competitive runners would have something to aim for in their training, lots of runners have a great experience, and everyone wins.

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.

If the US has athletes who have a prayer of being in the medals, then why bother w/ the trials race? A marathon is not like other races. Its not only popping a good one under perfect conditions, its also being consistent and being a competitor.

I can't help but think back to Tera Moody's fantastic performance at the 2008 Trials. She barely squeaked into the event with her 'B' time at the weirdly hot Chicago marathon and ran just under the then 2:47 qualifying standard. She shows up to the trials wearing a high bib number, basically a non-factor, and has a breakthrough race by finishing fifth in a huge PR of 2:33. Now, she's established herself as one of the better female marathoners in the country after being given that opportunity to have a big performance in an Olympic Trials race. Sure, she probably would have eventually had this type of race at another venue, but I am sure there was extra motivation to maybe grab that last spot as she was having the race of her life up to that point and the Olympics were on the line. This potential Olympic experience causes runners to take racing risks they may not otherwise have done because that risk may result in an Olympic berth, even though it's a long-shot. Having this chance to show up and compete seems worth the "hassle" of having a bigger field, and in Tera's case, highlighted the ability that she had but had not yet shown. And, love it or hate it, the media(think a thoughtful yet probing Bob Costas) love to play up the Olympic "human interest story," and having a bigger field could allow the USATF to harness that emotional connection to the audience by highlighting its human interest stories.

Exactly!! Why don't they just go to the Selection process and quit playing games? If true so much for them supporting and building the sport of LDR....

Also Trent Briney came in with a 2:21 and finished 4th at the trials one year in 2:12. Call that a breakthrough on the big day, and that is very inspirational to the sport.

Agreed with most of what has been said. Tighten the standard too much, and the trials become an unnecessary nuisance for the elite athletes. Make it too lax, and qualifying loses its cache. I don't agree that the standard should be raised to 2:30, because I personally feel the latter would happen. As with most things (ironically perhaps, besides training for the OT), everything in moderation - there is a sweet spot right around 2:20 that would let 60-80 guys (ballparking it here, for the letsrun grammar/number police), giving hope to enough sub-elite/amateur guys to keep interest and participation in the sport at a healthy level. It is perhaps the highest honor an amateur athlete can obtain for themselves in our sport. I think its important that USATF balance the goals of keeping this an elite event, as well as generating some local/grassroots interest in it ("Did you hear Bill over in accounting qualified for the Olympic Marathon Trials?") As others have brought up, the financial aspects to this are welcoming to a larger field, as almost all costs are fixed.

All this being said, I see where the USATF is coming from. The goal of this race is to give everyone a fair shot at qualifying to the US Olympic Marathon Team. Does cutting out the 2:18:01 + qualifiers eliminate, in reality, any potential qualifiers? Probably not. But lets face it, everyone loves an underdog, which brings me back to my above point (which others have also mentioned). People love to cheer for their horse in the race, especially if its a guy/gal who puts in their time at the office/classroom/work site before going out to run 13-4 miles.

I usually stick to the more trolly type threads, but this is a real heartbreaker for me. I, like just about everyone on this site, know about a dozen or so guys in the 2:20-2:30 range that (whether they will say it out loud or not) have had the dream of qualifying for the OTs as the driving force in getting them out the door each morning.

When I was still in college the B standard was 2:22:00, and it was the kind of mark that seemed all but guaranteed to the 15:00 5K guy who paid his dues for the next 3-4 years after school. It was a great reward to that kind of dedication to the sport. The reward was also paid back to the USATF and USOC and the sport of distance running in the very way that everyone has stated: we rooted for our town's guy whether he was 1st or 100th at the OTs. He earned it.

Hall, Ritz, Meb and the like are going to place just as well at OTs and the Games whether I or anyone else finishes 15 minutes back of them at Houston, but if the 50+ extra qualifiers that have some sort of 'B' standard inspire a few dozen young runners to get set even greater goals, then you've planted a seed in nearly a 1,000 future USA representatives.

Not cool, man. Not cool at all.

Doofus wrote:

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.

If the US has athletes who have a prayer of being in the medals, then why bother w/ the trials race? A marathon is not like other races. Its not only popping a good one under perfect conditions, its also being consistent and being a competitor.

1. because there could be more than 3

2. more importantly the USA is a meritocracy, where people have to EARN their success, no one in the USA gets anything handed to them.

3. it is the only fair way, 3 spots on the team are available so top 3 in the trials make it.

4. without a meritocracy there could be corruption example in last years world champs kenya put a steepler with a 8:25 personal best on the team and left paul koech who would have had an excellent chance of winning.

Well said.

I ran the last two trials and I knew going into it that I was not going to make any Olympic games. But, it made me train even harder and it got a lot of local attention and it got quite a few people interested in the trials..they knew someone in the race. I can pretty much garuantee that most of these people knew nothing about the trilals before a guy in their area ran in the race.

I pretty much knew after the NY trials that things were going to change( and in my opinion not for the better). If you were not one of the five "big" names you pretty much didn't matter. I understand that only about ten of the runners actually have a chance to make the team and I personally wasn't expecting any special attention...but at the same time I do not feel I took anything from the race.

I understand that the triials are to pick the team to go to the Olympics but I also think it is a chance to get some interest in our sport and to help but the future of US running.

Totally agree with you on the national attention the sport receives by opening up qualification a bit to say the 2:19 guys at least. Some small town individual qualifies and all of a sudden you got a bunch of people following the sport and creating interest in the sport. On top of this, the money flowing into the sport and the host city would increase. When you have added competitors you have added spectators therefore increasing city revenues that weekend. Another aspect is say once again a small town individual qualifies, then everyone starts following him back home which increases interest in running and gets these people to the store to buy a pair of shoes or other running apparel, etc. To me it just doesn't make sense to continually increase the qualifying standards.

I like a lot of the thoughts on here about increasing exposure of the marathon trials by having more competitors. It seems as though USATF should have a mission to promote the sport in the US, although I couldn't find their mission statement on their website. I know about 8 women who have qualified for the trials, and I'm trying to get down there to cheer them on. I did so in Boston in 08, and it was a lot of fun running around with other fans who were cheering on people they knew. We were the most enthusiastic people out there, and the enthusiastic fans are what I love about college basketball and football which are hugely popular. It's also better for the top competitors out there so they have more people cheering for them. This also makes it better for potential TV coverage having more fans out there rather than just having guys run down empty streets early on a Saturday morning.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

When I was still in college the B standard was 2:22:00, and it was the kind of mark that seemed all but guaranteed to the 15:00 5K guy who paid his dues for the next 3-4 years after school. It was a great reward to that kind of dedication to the sport.

Here is another thought - maybe those 3-4yrs are wasted. Rather than rearranging ones whole life around running when the real world beckons, a productive college educated person should focus on his/her work/career etc. in he is a 15:00 5k runner.

I 2nd the idea of a selection committee. There are plenty of races where an athlete can have a breakthrough race. The term, "Olympics" is nice, and gets the media's attention. Perhaps the whole idea of a carnival to pick the marathon team is misguided.

Idea: under 2:14 gets free entry to the Trials, hotel, airfare, etc. 2:18 and under get free entry to the Trials, pay their own way on hotel and airfare. 2:22 and under qualifies for the Trials, but pays for race entry and their own airfare etc.

Give as many guys a taste of the Trials as is reasonable, but don't pay their way unless they have an arguable case as a qualifier for the Olympics.

I like it.

themanontherun wrote:

Idea: under 2:14 gets free entry to the Trials, hotel, airfare, etc. 2:18 and under get free entry to the Trials, pay their own way on hotel and airfare. 2:22 and under qualifies for the Trials, but pays for race entry and their own airfare etc.

Give as many guys a taste of the Trials as is reasonable, but don't pay their way unless they have an arguable case as a qualifier for the Olympics.