Proposed 2016 US Olympic Marathon Trials Standards Lowered From 2:19 to 2:18 and 2:46 to 2:43

Location(s)?!?!?!

Supposedly the window would open on Aug 1, 2013 and stay open until 30 days before the trials.

BreakingBad wrote:

Location(s)?!?!?!

Bid process is separate and hasn't begun yet.

I'm surprised there is no 10k standard, although I think that is a good thing.

2/10

They'd never set the bar so high for women. They won't more to participate, not less.

Remind me. What was 2012 standards?

the olympics have or had A and B standards of 2:15 and 2:18, nothing wrong with mirroring those, although i would object to trials standards faster than olympic standards

tycobb wrote:

Remind me. What was 2012 standards?

2:46. No way they change it to 2:43. How would Heather Utrata qualify then?

cenotaph wrote:

the olympics have or had A and B standards of 2:15 and 2:18, nothing wrong with mirroring those, although i would object to trials standards faster than olympic standards

There was a ruling at CAS which prohibited USATF from having qualifying standards for track which were faster than the Olympic qualifying standards. This was in the sprints. I haven't read it but I assume it would apply to the marathon as well.

I'd like to see the window open at the half marathon championships. That may bring more runners to the race.

Start banging the drums, people. We've got to get these standards adjusted before the vote happens. 2:20 B for the men, 2:45 B for the women. If these "extra" participants have to pay their own way to the race what difference does it make if there are a few more of them? Runners chasing the trials standard is good for US running as a whole; it encourages people to keep at it, resulting in deeper fields and more people pushing each other to get faster. Continual tightening of the standards takes away from this. Seriously, if the 2:18 men's B standard holds it will mean that you now have to run 10 seconds per mile faster to make the 2016 trials than you did to make it in 2007 (2:22 B standard). 10 seconds per mile may not sound like much, but at this level it's massive. USATF, please do what's right. Don't keep squeezing people out.

I'm not sure if a B standard runner ever made the OG team but I doubt it.

Don't they divide the races in an OG year one OG Trials and at another time and location do the National Championship Marathon?

On the other hand, the B standard runners generate media in every hometown newspaper and pay their own way to the Trials.

I guess we can only wait for an official release of the 2016 standards. At this point, it's still speculation that the standards are what the OP announced.

It’s hard to just be 100% happy with their decision, since a higher (2:20/2:46) time would allow for more participants, but at the same time, those runners would just be that – participants. I am a convinced that a guy/girl that barely makes the time is ecstatic, and their friends and family are supporting their dream, along with their community. And most of the runners that make the standard are not delusional and think they can make the team, but most of them should (and have) taken that opportunity to race against the best runners in the country and run an amazing PR. There is no other place that a sub-elite American marathon would rather be than at the trials in peek condition ready to run a PR. The “slower” time standards make more people happy, and allow for something to chase after, as suppose to unattainable goals. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure a 2:22 guy will still attempt to qualify and improve on his/her time to make the standard, but when will the usatf leave the standard alone and realize that the pervious standards were fine and challenging as they were. Is there mentality that; since the last trials with its faster standards produced the fastest and deepest trials EVER, that by raising the bar again will make an even Faster trials than last…?!?! It might just do the opposite…

Any chance they will age grade them like Boston-and what do you think the time would be for a 48 year old male. The olympic trials is on my bucket list.

No I don't think the Olympic Trials standards will be age-graded, nor should they be. There's no "age grading" in the Olympics.

I don't understand why USATF keeps feeling the need to cut down on the number of "participants" in the trials. Sure the people who qualify between 2:18 and 2:20 would (probably) not be contending to make the team, but in setting up a race does it make a difference if there are 150 people instead of 100? Especially when the extras are paying their own way? I don't see who loses if the standard is a couple of minutes looser. It is obvious who loses when the standard is tightened.

not in daytona wrote:

It is obvious who loses when the standard is tightened.

Yes, the losers are the people who are on the wrong side of the standard. That's the way it always works.

I don't really care about the A/B thing. 2:18 sounds fine. I assume that the course standards will be the same (anything goes, as long as the net downhill is no greater than the net downhill at Boston). I would prefer to tighten the course standard, so that it at least matches the Olympic qualifying standard, but that's very unlikely to happen.

I do have a problem with the 1:05 alt-B standard, however. I'd reserve the alt-B standard for extraordinary cases -- generally, legitimate contenders whose circumstances (injury, inexperience, selection of races, and so on) have made it difficult to get a good marathon time during the qualifying window. Nothing slower than 1:04, and I wouldn't object to making it tougher. Everyone else needs to run a real marathon. If the B and alt-B standards are 2:18 and 1:05, I think we'll see an awful lot of people focusing on the half-marathon instead of the full marathon. That seems a bit counterproductive.

I agree with the motion of what difference does it make if there is an extra 50 to 100 people if the standard is slightly lower. I think it's better for the sport. I think that they got it right in 2008 when the B standard was 2:22.

BreakingBad wrote:

I guess we can only wait for an official release of the 2016 standards. At this point, it's still speculation that the standards are what the OP announced.

You are right. Suppose that three months from now, Merck announces that results from preclinical research show promise for a new breakthrough thyroid medication, and a few weeks later, the Olympic B standards are tightened to 2:01 (M) / 2:14 (F). How embarrassing would that be for USATF?

It is much too early to publish standards for 2016 now.

not in daytona wrote:

Start banging the drums, people. We've got to get these standards adjusted before the vote happens. 2:20 B for the men, 2:45 B for the women.

No.

They are already too slow.

Nobody who hasn't gone under 2:15 before trials has a hope in the world of making the team.