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

proposed when will it be official? and will there be a 10000 option?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

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.

Yes, it would definitely apply to the marathon as well.

Everything becomes official tomorrow at the closing session.

I did not attend any LDR meetings, so I don't know if the qualifying standards came back up for discussion today, but it sounds like they were already voted on yesterday, so that usually means it's a done deal.

And umm no, of course there won't be any age grading at the Olympic Trials Marathon.

I'm good

Any word yet?

Won't work.

I thought nothing wrong with the 2:22/2:20 standards from '08. The word from USATF is this is elite. And while there are great stories of the underdog breat through they don't care about grassroots publicity in local towns but only the 3-5 people who should have a real shot.

Sad really, they don't get today's sport or the fan who watch it.

Survey says...?

anyone have a link to the official announcement?

douglas burke wrote:

anyone have a link to the official announcement?

They haven't officially announced it yet. This is what was discussed and voted/approved at the USATF National Convention.

The just announced that they are increasing all standards by 10 minutes if you stop to eat a dozen donuts at the half way point.

I think the proposed trials standards are fine.

As an FYI---if the new proposed standards had been in place for 2012--there would have been 121 men qualified (161 qualified under with 2012 standard) while 107 women would have qualified (226 qualified with 2012 standard).

Interesting based on 2012 men qualifiers--only 56 (46%)would qualified for 2016 via the marathon (65 would make standard in the half) while 85 (79%)women would have made the 2016 trials in the marathon and only 22 in the half.

sc coach wrote:

Interesting based on 2012 men qualifiers--only 56 (46%)would qualified for 2016 via the marathon (65 would make standard in the half) while 85 (79%)women would have made the 2016 trials in the marathon and only 22 in the half.

That's because...

1) The women's marathon standard is weak as shit.

2) A lot more younger runners (early 20's) are ready to run 1:05 coming out of college than are ready to run 2:19 AND you can run way more half marathons in a year than marathons.

1:05 is actually a slightly better performance, but doesn't take the training/experience/trial and error it takes to run a good marathon. You can run a good half off 10k training. Marathon training is completely different.

sc coach wrote:

As an FYI---if the new proposed standards had been in place for 2012--there would have been 121 men qualified while 107 women would have qualified

There is no way in hell that these proposed changes will go into effect. They don't want to go back to the 70's where hardly any women would run. They want to promote womens running.

Expect 2:46 unchanged. Mens will go to 2:14/2:18.

According to the IAAF scoring tables, 1:05 equals 2:19:53, whereas 1:15 equals 2:40:49. It's no surprise that so many men pursued the HM standard, while women pursued the marathon standards. There will likely be more men in the field in 2016 than women, cause of the weaker men's HM standard and more potential shots at qualifying.

Magdalena Lewy-Boulet qualified for the 2008 trials with a B standard of 2:42:38. She went on to come in 2nd in the trials in 2:30:19.

Stew in the garage wrote:

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?

Well, and "official" word on the standards?!?!

NorCal runner wrote:

Magdalena Lewy-Boulet qualified for the 2008 trials with a B standard of 2:42:38. She went on to come in 2nd in the trials in 2:30:19.

Yes but how did she do at the Olympics? and how did Desi do at the Olympics?

I am not saying that someone who qualified with a B standard has no chance making it to the Olympics. But they have 0 chance at a Top 10 positions AT the Olympics.

I would agree that the women's standard was weaker in 2012---men's top qual time Hall (2:05) made the minimum qualifying standard (2:19) much closer than davilla's 2:22 to the minimum standard of 2:46 based on percentage 89% to 85% (whatever that means as I admit I am not a great statistical guy).

I think the 2nd point is very relevant not necessarily with just young guys but your 3rd point is the key.

The half marathon is a better predictor than the 10K (to the marathon), BUT the half marathon and marathon are two different animals. While there were a couple of success stories from 1/2 to full, it seems like many who got into the '12 trials via the 1/2 route did not have success. Now I guess I need to analyze that to confirm so before anyone blasts me on this, I will check those facts.

Ok--here goes--in 2012-- Men--7 of top the top 10 finishers got into the 2012 trials race based on marathon times --exceptions Carlson, Grabow and Vail. Flynn, Burrwll and Quigley were guys who finished the trials in the 11-20 range based on 1/2 times.

Women---9 of top 10 had marathon qualifying times in 2012--exception Cherobon-Bawcom. 11-20---3 had 1/2 marathon times while Donahue got in with a 10K time. Note: Alisha Williams and Clara Peterson (just went 1 and 2 at CIM this week-end) both qualified via the 1/2 route along with Wendy Thomas in the 11-20 group.

SmartDde wrote:

NorCal runner wrote:

Magdalena Lewy-Boulet qualified for the 2008 trials with a B standard of 2:42:38. She went on to come in 2nd in the trials in 2:30:19.

Yes but how did she do at the Olympics? and how did Desi do at the Olympics?

I am not saying that someone who qualified with a B standard has no chance making it to the Olympics. But they have 0 chance at a Top 10 positions AT the Olympics.

Yes and for Rio 2016 they're implementing a new rule that only people who have a shot at being in the top 10 are allowed in the race. Therefore the Olympic Marathon will only have 10 people.

Seriously, arguments like yours are just annoying. Are you actually implying that because someone doesn't have a chance to be top 10 in the World, they shouldn't go to the Olympics? And if they don't have a chance at top 10 at the Olympics, they shouldn't be allowed in the Trials?

Just about every race in history (except for the finals of track events) has more people in it that don't have a chance to be top 3 or top 10 than people who do have a chance. Do you honestly believe we shouldn't have those people in the race (the guy who just won Fukuoka Marathon, but had a previous PR of 2:21 might disagree with you)? Should major road races be limited to 20 people? Should track races be limited to 4-6? Is this what we as spectators want to watch?

Most of the guys who make the Track Trials don't have a shot at making the team either. Who cares? Races are supposed to have a lot of people in them. The US Marathon Trials is the trials for the Olympics yes, but it is also the US Championships. And I don't see any reason to go out of our way to limit the US Championships to just people who have a shot at being top 3 in the country or top 10 in the World.