Good news Olympic hopefuls, they are more lax than 2015 Beijing across the board.
What do you think?
Good news Olympic hopefuls, they are more lax than 2015 Beijing across the board.
What do you think?
Now if USATF would only roll back the US Marathon Trials standard...
Besides the 5/10/marathon it's quicker/furhter/higher or the same in every single event??? Across the board is a bit of a blanket statement...
only glanced over it so far but the mens standards from the 100-marathon are anything but "lax across the board" compared to 2015.... some harder, some easier, some the same
I'm assuming these are 'A' standards? Are they doing 'B's for Rio?
The 10000m stands out the most to me.
Going into the 2012 trials, there were 8 individuals with the standard and 15 who were 28:20 or better, with the trials being their only real shot at hitting the mark. That 27:45-28:20 group (which included Ritz), basically turned the race into "Who can get top-3 in a sub 27:45 race?"
If the that games had had the same standard as Rio, and we went in with the same field, it would have been a much more tactical race. Would Ritz have started his push later, knowing the standard was safe? Would that have opened the door for Derrick to sneak in? Those 15 seconds mean a lot in a field that tight.
The softer standards in the 5000m and 10000m means we may have 10-20 individuals sitting at home watching the Olympics that August who have run under the qualifying standard, probably more than in any previous Games.
Makes for more drama next season for sure.
adsfasdfds wrote:
Now if USATF would only roll back the US Marathon Trials standard...
Employee 1.1, is that you?
I suggest they retroactively move it back to 2:23:13 for 2000.
these standards are almost the same as the A standards to actually get into nationals, USATF is ridiculous, they're the ones that need to ease back, not IAAF
POWERFUL and INFORMATIVE training website :
No B standards, just the single standard.