Ultimate Trials Qualifier; 3900ft elev. drop!

These downhill "marathons" are a joke. I would like to see USA Track and Field refuse to recognize them for any qualifying purposes, even if that means ruling out the Boston Marathon as a qualifier. A race like this is no more legitimate as a marathon than a course that's acknowledged to be short by half a mile.

Old guy,

I agree. Thats why Im making my attempt at a different marathon. I want a PR I can tell my knowledgeable running friends about, without them saying "Oh, yeah but you ran it at (Vegas, St George, Austin, Cal, Steamtown, etc)"

But if I was a cheesball just looking for a Trials Qualifier, Id go there.

Considering those poor slobs only get a few chances to do so, I don't begrudge some 2:25+ bumbly the chance to get in the prom at the expense of some knee cartilage. Hell, I can remember when a lousy 2:30 got you in!

But they should have to wear a big "D" on the fronts of their shirts when they get there.

If it would prevent us from sending 1 guy/gal to the Olympics ... then we should hold the trials on a downhill course.

Fastest course is Chicago anyway.

And another thing...

Sure I agree that a 2:20 on a flat/hilly course is better than a 2:20 on a "downhill" course, BUT who cares? Does it matter if there are 200 trials starters instead of 150?

What matters is how you run at the trials. But as far as getting there... I say the more the merrier!

Last post of the day for me...

We should have a lot more giuys talking about running as fast as they can instead of how to hopefully run under 2:22.

I agree, but I dont think that these types of courses are jokes because the downhills early on leave your quads in a MESS.

I ran Nagano in April 2002, which features a huge downhill for the first 6km, and I was toast by 30km.

while i agree that it is probably easier to run 2:22 on vegas, tri-state, or steam town than NY (for example) i wouldn't call qualifying at one of them a "cheeseball" qualifier. on the day of olympic trials would you rather be proud of your 2:24 marathon PR on flat ground and running the Butt Plug 5K at the local YMCA, or be in birmingham on the line with the big boys? i choose alabama. i'd have no shame to be on the line with a sub 2:22 downhill - that's just me. is what you say much different than if a track star said "i won't race in any meets with rabbits, because that's just a cheap way to run fast?"

Is the Butt Plug the sponsor, the prize, or both? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

But I am in full-on agreement with "JEH," who wrote "We should have a lot more guys talking about running as fast as they can instead of how to hopefully run under 2:22." Thorough letsrun.com viewers with canonical memories will recall that I have often argued that too many guys who might be 2:15-2:16 dudes (or 2:35 chicks) are painting themselves as 2:22 or 2:48 dudes and chicks by aiming for the USOT mark.

Not that my case is a touchstone example, but my attitude has always been that I'll just take one race at a time, and if I get the qualifying mark, fine, but if I don't, I'm not the caliber of runner who should even be thinking about trying out for the Olympics.

Maybe two good brains to pick here:

- Andy Herr's -- if memory serves, he was injured going into the 2000 USOTM (presented by UPMC Health System), started the race pretty much knowing he couldn't run more than 2mi (he made 4mi of it). Andy thus knows, better than just about anyone, the personal value of making the field.

- John Gregorek's -- A previous Olympian (steeple), he won his debut 'thon, the 1995 United Health Plans of New England Ocean State Marathon, which qualified him for the 1996 USOTM (presented by Bank of America), but after his debut I recall him telling a newspaper or something that he'd never run another one. And he didn't. John thus may have a different take.

Andy or John, care to offer your $0.02?

i don't agree that an elevation drop is all that much easier than a flat course. I have to agree with one of the previous posts that chicago is still the fastest. With a down hill marathon your legs and feet take such a pounding that over the last few miles, you're in worse shape than if on a flat course. -just my 2 cents

I believe that USATF has stated that certain races cannot be used to qualify for the 2004 trials because of elevation drops. I don't have the information in front of me, but I think St. George's and one other popular one, maybe Cal Int'l or Vegas? Don't quote me on those specific races - I know that a friend of mine was really bummed because he was planning to run one of those races and then found out from someone connected to USATF that it wasn't an "eligible" race. I think St. George was dropped from the list for 2000 as well because I remember looking at the list of women qualifiers for 1996 and quite a few just made the cut at St. George's - and went on to run 3:00+ in the trials!

I can't imagine that USATF would "disqualify" Boston simply because it is so popular and has so much tradition, plus friends who have run it say it is much harder than the net downhill elevation would lead you to believe.

Wrong.

You can qualify at any USATF certified marathon, even if the start is on top of Mount Everest, and the finish is in the Marianas Trench. (Though that might be a slightly long course.)

Check the qualifiers list, several are from St George, Cal, Steamtown, etc.

observer wrote:

I can't imagine that USATF would "disqualify" Boston simply because it is so popular and has so much tradition, plus friends who have run it say it is much harder than the net downhill elevation would lead you to believe.

I've long wondered if the perceived need to preserve the status of the Boston Marathon has inhibited U.S. officials from imposing stricter standards on certified or qualifying courses. Although I'm not sure of it (and someone here will doubtless correct me if I'm wrong), the downhill marathon seems to be something of an American phenomenon, specifically marketed toward runners of all abilities (not just prospective Oly trials qualifiers) who want to inflate their standing in the running world by acquiring certified "marathon" times that they would likely not be able to achieve on legitimate marathon courses.

As for the Boston Marathon, I think that it deserves its designation as an aided course. Although weather conditions and race strategies can play havoc with finishing times at Boston, times there can be very fast when you've got a tailwind, cool weather, and intelligent pacing. The problem, of course, is that you don't know ahead of time whether you're going to get conditions like those in 1975 (when Bill Rodgers ran 2:09:55 while stopping two or three times along the way, and half of the marathoners in America got P.R.s) or those in 1976 (when Jack Fultz won the "run for the hoses" in oppressive heat).

Um...For those who care, on the website Cal International has this wonderful downhill slope tot he finish line where you think it is all fun and games. Sorry, they first 16 miles are quite hilly with a few steep inclines. While it may drop a bit in net elevation it is not a faster course then Chicago or one of the other fast marathons. It is a tough and legit course.

My point of view...not like it matters but the fact is a marathon is tough and all this talk about 2000 foot drops in a marathon is crazy. I have never run one but I don't think there is a marathon out there all gradual down hill where you can run 6 min effort and hit 5:20's for your split. The marathon is work, no matter where you do one. You also need to think about these runs that start at 5000-6000 feet. There is less oxygen up there, which in the marathon is a very important thing. Once you go into debt, it is hard to recover from.

I'm sure Boston has a lot to do with the relative abundance of downhill marathons in the U.S. More than one explicitly advertises itself as a great place to get a Boston qualifier. But that ought to be a separate question from whether or not it serves as an OT qualifier. It cannot be that problematic logistically for the USATF to disqualify times run on marathons with net drops exceeding a certain limit.

On the other hand, marathons really like having top finishers run OT qualifiers -- it makes for good press. So I suspect that the reluctance of the USATF to exclude certain downhill marathons has more to do with that than with considerations of Boston.

Moreover, the OT marathon does not appear to suffer from a surfeit of runners, so there seems to be no particular reason to exclude aided marathons.

Finally, has anyone ever systematically checked whether OT-level runners run all that much faster in downhill marathons than they do in flat ones such as Chicago? I've heard more than one person say they found Chicago easier than Steamtown (and I think this year's Steamtown winner has run 2 minutes faster at Chicago, for example).

Okay Ladies,

Here is the Ultimate List to America's Fastest Downhill Marathons. Forget carbo-loading, or putting in that extra 20 miler. The key to running under 2:22 is picking the right race. Here you go:

Courses are all USATF certified. Here is the link to the certifications:

http://www.runningusa.org/index_ldr.html

Net drop is listed in feet.

Tri State Utah March 29 3,488 ft. (starts at 5800 ft)

Bendistillery, Bend Oregon August 2 2,865ft (starts at 6400ft)

St George, Utah October 2,560

Mt Rushmore, SD October 2228 (starts at 1700ft according to website??)

Tucson, AZ December 2048 (starts at 4700 ft)

Deseret News, Utah July 1605

Steamboat, CO June 1400 (starts at 8100 feet, I dont reccomend it)

Steamtown, PA October 955 (starts at 1700 ft)

Las Vegas, NV Febuary 872 (actually CLIMBS from 2850 to 3050 in first 8 miles)

Austin, TX February 448 (starts at 800 ft)

Boston April 447 (Starts at 500 ft)

Cal International December 332 (starts at 350 ft)

Most of the people I know who have run both Boston and LaSalle Bank Chicago (ranging from 2:13 guys to 3:30 guys) say that LaSalle Bank Chicago is a faster course.

But it's an aided course, so I expect to see a lot of USOT hopefuls at Boston this spring. Not.

According to Ken Young of the Analytical Distance runner:

Road performances are classified as "record quality", "statistically valid", or "statistically invalid" based on the start/finish separation and the net drop of the course.

Record Quality

.....Start/finish separation is less than 30% of the race distance and the net drop is less than 1.0 m/km

Statistically Valid (suffix "a")

.....The net drop is less than 5.0 m/km and the net effect of tailwind and/or drop does not exceed 5 sec/km

Statistically Invalid (suffix "x")

.....The net drop is 5.0 m/km or more

.....The course has been shown to have been short on remeasurement

.....The course is suspect based on an analysis of the race time bias that exceeds 5 sec/km faster than expected (-5.0 sec/km)

Only record quality or statistically valid performances are included in records/rankings lists (except for the rate time bias adjusted lists that compensate for drop,

shortness, and wind-aid).

Thus Cal and Boston and Austin are "statistically valid", and the rest are not.