The details are here:
The details are here:
For the marathon, I would say yes. It's not like you are talking about a track race where there is a limited number of lanes and you would have to run extra heats. It's a road race, and there is plenty of room for everyone.
Agreed
joedirt wrote:
For the marathon, I would say yes. It's not like you are talking about a track race where there is a limited number of lanes and you would have to run extra heats. It's a road race, and there is plenty of room for everyone.
No. Don't turn the OT's into more a participatory race than it already is. These new "qualifiers" would have no shot at winning. What's the point of letting them in?
Yes, let them in. They qualified by meeting the standards. If you don't want a larger field, tighten the standards.
Yes, they should let them in.
Standards mean something to the athletes and it is a valid goal to meet the US Trials standards.
So it's strange to say that you met the Olympic standards but was denied a chance to compete at the US Trails.
Be Faster wrote:
No. Don't turn the OT's into more a participatory race than it already is. These new "qualifiers" would have no shot at winning. What's the point of letting them in?
?? Plenty of room on the streets around USC for anyone who made the time.
I think I'll pay someone to run it in a hot dog costume just to upset you some more.
Yes. Gain some much needed goodwill. And the 2:18 is much tougher than 2:43
Hell, let in Women under 2:45 as well. Why not?
Desi got into the 2008 trials with a marathon time that was just under 2:45. She ran 2:37 at the trials. The 2008 trials were a big springboard for her career. The tighter the standard gets, the less the trials serve as a developmental tool.
I believe you article is factually incorrect in this statement:
"The US Trials standard is often faster than the Olympic one for sprint events but there are no lane constraints in the marathon."
According to a tweet by camille Herron, discussing trials standards: I know USATF has a policy that they won't set standards faster than IAAF
Although Camille has it as a USATF policy, I believe USATF lost a case before an Arbitration panel or a court interpreting the Ted Stevens amateur Sports Act which prohibited them from having more stringent standards. I have been unable to locate the original decision (poor google skills).
Anyway, if they are going to be consistent with their standards, then they should let in the new qualifiers.
It may save the court battles.
the #s might be slightly off guys- for instance Joe Moore already has the OTQ with a 1:03 half. He wouldn't be a "new" qualifier. I didn't scan the whole list but there may be a few others included who have already qualified through half times
And yes they should relax the standards. Immediately. So people can train and be ready to race in February
Kruppe wrote:
Yes, let them in. They qualified by meeting the standards. If you don't want a larger field, tighten the standards.
No they didn't qualify.
Good article but some factual errors:
Tyler McCandless and Scott McPherson have qualified for the trials.
Tyler ran 2:15:26 at 2014 Twin Cities
Scot ran 2:16:02 at 2013 Twin Cities
Are those A or B standards? Natosha Rogers had a sub-32 10k time, but did not make a 31:45 standard last go around, I believe.
rojo wrote:
The details are here:
http://www.letsrun.com/?p=97597
If it was a track race, I would probably say no for logistics reasons, but for a road race there are far more positive than negatives. On the women's side, I already thought the U.S. standard was weak compared to the men. If they make is slower, an NCAA XC all-American can jump into a half and probably qualify without any specific marathon training. This is an easy way for a female to be able to say they once qualified for and competed in an OT.
Yes for the men. No for the women. Women's standard is too easy.
Yes.
It serves no good purpose to set higher standards than the IAAF, there is plenty of room for more runners in a marathon, and increasing participation in the trials help develop running, contrary to the blinkered view of the Canadian, Brits, and the rest.
The American system of letting people into the trials and then sending everyone who qualifies to Worlds or the Olympics has resulted in the most consistently successful track nation in the world. Letting everyone who meets the Olympic standard into the marathon trials would just continue that wise policy.
Cheap advise wrote:
Are those A or B standards? Natosha Rogers had a sub-32 10k time, but did not make a 31:45 standard last go around, I believe.
There are no A/B standards anymore. Just a standard.