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

The principle objective of the trials should be to send the largest number of people who have the best chance of doing well at the Olympics. To that end, I've always believed that the standard for the trials should be the A standard for the Olympics, unless we don't have three who have met that standard during the window. Then, let everyone who has the B Olympic standard compete for the remaining spots - the A guys can rest, they're pre-selected.

Ask Kristy Johnson why this might be a good idea.

yeronerown wrote:

Seems like the primary goal of the trials should be to select the 3 runners with the best shot at doing well at the Olympics. It isn't the primary objective of the trials to help the next "tier" develop. Heck, there are a zillion quality marathons each year in the US, so there are plenty of chances to develop.

We don't let a hundred people try out for any other track and field event, so what makes the marathon any different?

How about we save all the expense of running a separate trials race? Just run the trials alongside a large US marathon that is already established.

Instead, use that money to support the 3 who are selected so they won't have to run another marathon in the interim.

There is a limited amount of space on the track, therefore field sizes must be limited. Otherwise, there would be too many and/or overcrowded heats which might hinder the top athletes.

The marathon does not have this problem. There is a lot of overhead to running a marathon (close the roads, security, timing, etc.), but the marginal cost of adding one more runner is minimal. When you are talking about 'B' qualifiers, runners that are paying their own way, the marginal cost is almost exactly zero given that the field size is no larger than a thousand people. This is what "makes the marathon different".

Regarding the argument that picking the top three runners is the top priority of the trials - no one is arguing against this. The point is that as long as all the guys with a remote shot are there, the race does a fine job of picking the Olympic team. A race with 50 or 100 or 200 or even 500 guys will be equally good a picking the top 3.

The question then becomes what are the other priorities of the race? I would say generating fan interest and developing young talent are probably the next two. Both would be hindered by standards that are too fast. I am not in favor of having many hundreds of 'B' qualifiers, because I also think that qualification should be prostigious and thus give guys on the cusp something meaningful to shoot for. I think the standard on the men's side was good last time. If I was in charge I would probably have an A and a B with a B of 2:20 and an A in the 2:15-2:17 range. The half would be 63 minutes and half qualifiers would be considered A qualifiers. The 10k would remain as is. For the women, I would leave the 2012 A and lower the B to either 2:42 or 2:43, cut 60-90 seconds from the half and make it an A, and make the 10k an A.

2016 baby wrote:

I understand the proposed US Olympic Marathon Trials standards for 2016 have been released. I believe these still need to be voted on and approved but the proposed stardards are reportedly:

A: 2:15 Men and 2:37 women

B: 2:18 Men and 2:43 women

Alt B: 1:05 HM Men and 1:15 HM women

I can live with that.

____________________________

I think this is a move in the right direction. When it was 2:22, I was like Whaat? What good does that do?

Does a 2:22 marathoner have a legit chance of making the team? No. So, that was only done to throw some guys a bone and let them say they were an OT qualifier.

2:15 makes it all legit contenders.

There's a reason why 1 million people line the course of the New York City marathon... To support one or two of the 40,000 runners they know. How incredible would 1 million people be cheering on the runners at the USA Olympic Trials?! That would also generate more general public interest. That could only happen if the usatf allowed more runners into the field. I'm not saying make the standard weak, but try to be more all-encompassing to having a bigger field.

Yes... I know New York also has a huge population, but that would just add to the friends and family that travel out to the trials to support their runners.

SmartDde wrote:

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.

Oh my god, not this argument again. No one is saying that the trials should not be primarily about choosing an olympic team.

We are saying that if the trials have a big field, then that will generate interest in the sport because there will be more people who have a friend, family member, or coworker trying to qualify for the race. We have this super prestigious marathon in a country that is obsessed with the marathon, and NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT. C'mon.

It's so obvious that it's actually painful for me to think about the turds at the USATF making the wrong decision. It's like watching wheel of fortune when you've figured out the puzzle, and the clueless contestant is like, "Uhh, can I buy a Q?"

Thought this was interesting. It's a breakdown of all the past US Olympic marathon trials.

http://www.wasatchandbeyond.com/2012/12/2016-olympic-trials-marathon-standards.html

ONE of the factors to limiting the field is that ALL runners have the oppertunity to have their special fluids.

With large numbers of participants, the special fluid stations can cover distances of over 100's of meters. This can be problematic for athletes trying to find their own bottles. There have been many situations where athletes got their wrong bottle.

At the Olympics (and World Championships) athlete's coaches distribute these bottles during the event. At the trials, it's volunteers.

The collection, transportation and distribution of these bottles are more complicated then most runners know.

FYI(slight tangent) - a race walker in this year's Olympic Games was DQ'd for taking fluids from an individual that was not at an official refreshment station!

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.

Any link to this ruling? Lots of countries had standards tighter than the London Olympic standards, especially in the marathon. Canada, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands....

survey says wrote:

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.

Any link to this ruling? Lots of countries had standards tighter than the London Olympic standards, especially in the marathon. Canada, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands....

He means trials standards, not each country's made up A+ / B+ whatever standards for selection.

The whole process is an ultimate absurdity. Those crying for more inclusive standards don't show up to meetings where standards are set. Those crying for more attention and sponsorship do their best to exclude the very elements that will grant more attention and sponsorship to the sport.

David Katz wrote:

ONE of the factors to limiting the field is that ALL runners have the oppertunity to have their special fluids.

With large numbers of participants, the special fluid stations can cover distances of over 100's of meters. This can be problematic for athletes trying to find their own bottles. There have been many situations where athletes got their wrong bottle.

At the Olympics (and World Championships) athlete's coaches distribute these bottles during the event. At the trials, it's volunteers.

The collection, transportation and distribution of these bottles are more complicated then most runners know.

FYI(slight tangent) - a race walker in this year's Olympic Games was DQ'd for taking fluids from an individual that was not at an official refreshment station!

No personal fluids for B qualifiers. What else ya got?

survey says wrote:

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.

Any link to this ruling? Lots of countries had standards tighter than the London Olympic standards, especially in the marathon. Canada, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands....

I'll try to find it. I would like to read the full decision myself. As noted below it had to do with Trial's entry standards, not selection (and funding) to the Olympic team.

Maybe Polevaultpower knows?

I can only speak for the Trials that I was inovled with (New York). ALL athletes (A & B) had the oppertunity for their own bottles.

I mean if that is an issue with a big field, then they should change the rules to only allow personal fluids for A qualifiers. What other issues with a big field do you have?

Seems that the women have always had an easier way to the trials:

1984: 201 men, 267 women

1988: 136 men, 246 women

1992: 112 men, 118 women

1996: 135 men, 187 women

2000: 114 men, 210 women

2004: 104 men, 151 women

2008: 173 men, 181 women

2012: 160 men, 227 women

Interesting that in 2004 the women had 2:47A/2:48B standards, yet of the 151 qualifiers only 25 were A. Last note, when I read that the author felt like the women's HM should be 1:16 because that is more in line with 1:05 for men, I immediately knew she was a woman. There is no way 1:05 for a male is equivalent to 1:16 for a female.

If these standards are real and they were in place in 2012, we would have had:

Sub 2:15 men: 21

Sub 2:18 men: 34

Sub 1:05 men: 64

Sub 2:37 women: 27

Sub 2:43 women: 58 (counted a girl that ran 2:43:00)

Sub 1:15 women: 24

Total 'A' men: 21

Total 'B' men: 98

Total men: 119

Total 'A' women: 27

Total 'B' women: 82

Total women: 109

Over half the men's qualifiers would have come from the half marathon. In my opinion this is pretty dumb. With Q via marathon going from 2:19 to 2:18 this will further incentivize shooting for the unchanged 1:05 standard.

Technically all runners must be treated exactly the same from the time the gun is fired to the time they cross the finish line. Imagine if a "B" runner (not allowed to have his/her own fluid) comes in 4th place overall. They would have grounds for a protest!

David Katz wrote:

Technically all runners must be treated exactly the same from the time the gun is fired to the time they cross the finish line. Imagine if a "B" runner (not allowed to have his/her own fluid) comes in 4th place overall. They would have grounds for a protest!

David, is that in the competition rules? Can you provide a cite for that?

might be wejo wrote:

when I read that the author felt like the women's HM should be 1:16 because that is more in line with 1:05 for men, I immediately knew she was a woman. There is no way 1:05 for a male is equivalent to 1:16 for a female.

1:16 is 11 min over the WR

1:05 is 7min over the WR

If you want to make it equally hard, set the half standard to 1:13.