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

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!

when i ran chicago the elites had their own water tables with their own nutritionals. since chicago is a fast, record-eligble course i'd think the RD would play by the rules to make sure that any records set would be ratified.

Yep, I'm definitely not a woman! :-)

Its just my opinion, not really backed up by science or any data. I just feel like there aren't a ton of women running in the 1:15s for 1/2s, and those who are end up running pretty solid marathons.

[quote]BreakingBad wrote:

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.

______________________________

Have you been to the trials? It's usually a two or three loop course. Do you know what it's like seeing some guys come buy on their second loop, already 7 minutes behind 30 other guys?

It's not entertaining. They have 6 or 8 miles to go, and these guys are already 5 minutes behind?

It's ridiculous. I couldn't do it, but that doesn't mean I should stand there while some guy runs a 2:17 when the first three cross in 2:09.

I say bring the standards down to 2:15, or even 2:13. Let's crack the whip! See what happens.

What about Trent Briney from 2:21 to 2:12 at the 2004 Trials? Or Jenny Spangler, who went from 2L42 to winning the 1996 Trials? Standards are a bit too rigid. I'd go 2:45 & 2:38 for women; 2:21 & 2:15 for men.

This is just my opinion that USATF and USOC are interested in finding a balance. They want to get interest from around the country and have this be a big event, but at the same time they have to make accomadations for the size of the field, and that includes 16 fluid stations (8 men and 8 women) with specialized drinks. Last trials the sequence of tables for each stop stretched a quarter mile long.

I think they are doing a decent job finding the balance. as we get 125-200 runners in each race.

Smartbrah wrote:

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.

If you set the standard to 1:13, that means (just based on the 2012 US performance lists), 14 women would qualify, while 30+ men qualify. Not exactly equivalent.

1:05 equals 1:16:10, based on the IAAF performance lists.

You can't use a linear comparison between men's and women's times because the women's population is non-normal and doesn't follow the same distribution (for whatever reason, which is an argument in itself). This is even with improving depth, with men and women's depth improving at the same rate. As such-- time comparisons are staying consistent (ex. 2:34:52 for a woman has stayed equivalent to 2:12:00 the past 4 years, even with improving depth for both genders). Consequently, you have to use a non-parametric comparison, such as rank ordering performances. This will provide equivalent times and equivalent field sizes.

If it wasn't for the weaker men's HM standard, there would be more men pursuing the marathon, and we'd see ~85-100 men and women under 2:18/2:43, respectively. The Olympic A and B standards are considered equivalent. If you look at Jake's page, 2:20/2:45 standards in 1992 led to pretty close field sizes, suggesting those time standards are equivalent.

Does anyone know when the qualifying window opens???? asnd I assume it will close 30 days before the trials date.

August 1st.

jaguar1 wrote:

If you set the standard to 1:13, that means (just based on the 2012 US performance lists), 14 women would qualify, while 30+ men qualify. Not exactly equivalent.

...

You can't use a linear comparison between men's and women's times because the women's population is non-normal and doesn't follow the same distribution (for whatever reason, which is an argument in itself).

I'll take that argument: there's simply not as much depth in women's running near the top-end of the sport; this is true from the NCAA, to post-collegiate sub-elites / elite-but-not-quite-Olympic-caliber runners who plug away in far greater numbers among men then among women. For whatever reason, there's simply more interest among men in pursuing the sport at the sub-elite/elite level, and it shows in the relative lack of depth in women's running.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

survey says wrote:

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 don't think it's a CAS ruling, I think it's a US court ruling relating to the Amateur Sports Act or something along those lines. I think the short of it is that if you are someone who holds a qualifying standard that makes you eligible for an Olympic Team, that you generally have a right to compete in the Trials for that team. Maybe that only applies to the A standard though, not sure.

I think the USATF BOD has set that as a policy in order to avoid any potential lawsuits.

What other countries do doesn't matter in this case, it's a US issue.

Just my opinion wrote:

This is just my opinion that USATF and USOC are interested in finding a balance. They want to get interest from around the country and have this be a big event, but at the same time they have to make accomadations for the size of the field, and that includes 16 fluid stations (8 men and 8 women) with specialized drinks. Last trials the sequence of tables for each stop stretched a quarter mile long.

I think they are doing a decent job finding the balance. as we get 125-200 runners in each race.

The issue of fluids has already been addressed in this thread. They could allow personal fluids only for A qualifiers. B qualifiers could drink gatorade and water at aid stations just like in any major marathon.

Yes, I was in the race (2012), getting my a** kicked, but it was a great experience, and a great journey getting there. Family and friends were very supportive, and am going after the new standards again. I can see how it's not entertaining to watch a bunch of guys/gals slugging along 1-3 miles behind the leaders. But if a city is going to host a race, why not have more competitors?

Overall, the standards are there for a reason, and I think it's much more fair than on the track where you have to be the top 24/28 in your event. The greatest thing about the marathon trials is that there is no cap. Let whoever in, as long as you hit the time. And that's why I think so many people are upset about it. With that leeway more runners just want to be in it.

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!

That's not true at all. At elite marathons, certain people get elite water bottles and others don't.

At the Trials, the grounds for a protest would be non-existent. They could say, "If you've run under xx times, you get water bottles. Otherwise, you don't."

I think the more the merrier for the Trials. People can relate to the Olympics and the marathon so if more people are in the Trials, then more stories are written about running as an elite level sport and not charity event.

Take 500 or make the time some round number like 2:20 and 2:40. I hate when Trials standards are some random number which makes no logical sense.

Oh yeah, one more thing. Scott Douglas has confirmed the original posters post that the Trails standard will be lowered from 2:19 to 2:18 and from 2:46 to 2:43.

http://www.runnersworld.com/races/tougher-standards-2016-olympic-marathon-trials

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.

polevaultpower wrote:

I don't think it's a CAS ruling, I think it's a US court ruling relating to the Amateur Sports Act or something along those lines.

What other countries do doesn't matter in this case, it's a US issue.

Fair enough if it's a US court. If it were the CAS it would be another matter, which is why I was surprised.

BreakingBad wrote:

Looks reasonable. I hope the women don't get too flustered by their qualifiying times.

They shouldn't. The men's standards are still way tougher comparitively.

Smartbrah wrote:

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.

This is correct. If you want to analyze it even more. The world record for a woman in the half is 12.76% slower than the men's world record.

Multiply 1:05 x 1.1276 and you come up with 1:13:17 for the women's time.

You can't deny that the pool of men represented by that world record is FAR deeper than that of the women's side either. So the correct ratio might be more like 1:11 or 1:12 but we should work with past history and let it go at 1:13.

The Marathon standard speaks for itself.

The female athletes have nothing to complain about. They should be happy they had a chance to qualify when the standard was set so incredibly low in the last trials.

mathgeeek wrote:

This is correct. If you want to analyze it even more. The world record for a woman in the half is 12.76% slower than the men's world record.

Multiply 1:05 x 1.1276 and you come up with 1:13:17 for the women's time.

You can't deny that the pool of men represented by that world record is FAR deeper than that of the women's side either. So the correct ratio might be more like 1:11 or 1:12 but we should work with past history and let it go at 1:13.

The Marathon standard speaks for itself.

The female athletes have nothing to complain about. They should be happy they had a chance to qualify when the standard was set so incredibly low in the last trials.

This is a statistics problem, not a math problem, involving a normal population vs. a non-normal population, and you can't make a linear comparison. As far as depth, men's and women's depth is growing at the same rate, so there is no 'gap closing' by the women. Because of the equal depth growth, 2:34:52 for a woman in 2008, is still equal to the same time (2:12) in 2012. There is still a 25 min. spread for women vs. 12 min. for men, of the top 600 on the IAAF performance last year. You can look at year after year, and it's this way every year (large women's spread, positively skewed to the right), which suggests a far more complicated difference in populations than a supposed 'lack of depth' or 'lack of motivation'.

And the men are the one's who shouldn't complain-- the IAAF scoring tables says their HM standard equals 2:19:53, vs. 2:40:49 for the women's HM standard. There will be more men qualifiers at the 2016 Trials.