Was far better in '08 when it was 2:22 for the B. If USATF cares about money, then set the A standard as hard as it needs to be - 2:15 or whatever. But let the low 2:20s guys run. The trials are a fantastic development tool for American marathoning and you hard-nosed "only the champs matter" idiots are ruining it. Even Renato Canova thinks the Trials standard in the US should be 2:25.
25 Americans now have the Olympic standard in marathon but won't be at the Trials. Should USATF let them in?
Pro News/Info/Results
Marathons
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
Only if they're Nike sponsored. All others should have to go to the trials, wait there like they have a chance, then be denied by USATF just because.
Eff off, USATF! -
Too bad this didn't happen before the USATF annual meeting.
-
Precious Roy wrote:
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.
QFE.
Yes, this. Would she have even continued running if her 2:45 debut wasn't a qualifier? The USA would have lost a great talent. -
Soooo....where does that potentially leave us with the half-marathon standards? IF the USATF standards are changed to fit with these updates, could we see an even bigger influx of athletes who were in the 1:05:00-1:06:00 range?
-
slo-twitch wrote:
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
We weren't saying he was a new qualifier for the OT. We were saying he's a new qualifier for the Olympics (he did not have the Olympic standard before but now he does).
TheGarbageDisposal wrote:
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
You are right. I updated the article. -
Jonathan Gault wrote:
slo-twitch wrote:
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
We weren't saying he was a new qualifier for the OT. We were saying he's a new qualifier for the Olympics (he did not have the Olympic standard before but now he does).
TheGarbageDisposal wrote:
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
You are right. I updated the article.
Why didn't you correct the factual error I pointed out and state USATF policy? -
It leaves the half standards no where different. It's generous for usatf to even allow those with only the Half standard into the race. Its intent was to bring the top guys up to the marathon from shorter distances. Think Rupp. Now it is abused. 57% of qualifiers for the OTM have NEVER run a marathon. What does that tell you? I think they should keep a half standard but tighten it to 1:03:30.
-
Let them run!
-
Be Faster wrote:
What's the point of letting them in?
You could use that argument with the Olympics, but it's a stupid one. It's like saying we should cancel school for everyone but the potential valedictorian. Or cancel the NFL season for the Browns. Or cancel the Olympic marathon.
The Olympic marathon is special. So are the Trials. I'm shocked from a PR standpoing they wouldn't want more people. All of the participants have a story to tell to the local paper. -
Because in the past, the US Olympic Trials standard has been tougher than the Olympic standard (for instance, in the days when there was an Olympic B standard, some sprinters would be left out of the Trials even if they had the Olympic B standard).
That's in line with what we wrote. It's not factually wrong.
If it is indeed USATF policy that they won't set standards faster than the IAAF (which, as you noted, Camille Herron said in this tweet: https://twitter.com/runcamille/status/554666653200314368) then USATF should amend the Marathon Trials standards accordingly.
But I was not aware that this is a policy. If you have a link to something on the USATF website stating that this is the policy (or that arbitration case you mentioned) then I'd amend the article to clarify the situation. But unlike with the McCandless/MacPherson error (which was clearly wrong and easily updated), I didn't think what we wrote needed to be fixed. -
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?
LOL ... one of them might set a PR and run faster than the chosen few. Let the outies run. -
Mr. Obvious wrote:
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).
I wrote that because I looked up the 2012 standards and noticed the US 'B' standard was faster than the 'B' standard for the Olympics.
You can see the standards here.
http://www.usatf.org/events/2012/OlympicTrials-TF/entry/qualifyingStandards.asp
and
http://www.iaaf.org/download/download?filename=ba4597b4-a3dd-49f6-920f-ec906d635ba0.pdf&urlSlug=entry-standards-games-of-the-xxx-olympiad-1
The 1st link is important. You are correct. It states this,
USATF wrote:
"Due to recent arbitration, USATF may have no “Automatic†standard that is superior to the Olympic “A†standard. Thus, “Automatic†standards were adjusted in the 100m, 200m, 400m, 110mH and 400mH. The number of rounds have also changed from 4 to 3 in the 100m, 200m and 110mH to coincide with the Olympic Games program, where those who achieve the “A†standard will advance directly to the quarter-final round."
So is it possible that athletes could sue to get into the Trials? It sounds like an arbitrator in 2011 or 2012 thought it was unfair for someone with the 'Olympic A' to be kept out of the 'A' qualifying for the US trials. The Only Olympic standards this year are all 'A' standards. There is no B standard. They just fill the fields with a descending order list. -
rojo wrote:
So is it possible that athletes could sue to get into the Trials? It sounds like an arbitrator in 2011 or 2012 thought it was unfair for someone with the 'Olympic A' to be kept out of the 'A' qualifying for the US trials. The Only Olympic standards this year are all 'A' standards. There is no B standard. They just fill the fields with a descending order list.
And the question now is, does this policy still apply that there are no more A/B standards -- just the single standard? We'll look into it and try to get an answer.
Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Mr. Obvious. -
rojo wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:
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).
I wrote that because I looked up the 2012 standards and noticed the US 'B' standard was faster than the 'B' standard for the Olympics.
You can see the standards here.
http://www.usatf.org/events/2012/OlympicTrials-TF/entry/qualifyingStandards.asp
and
http://www.iaaf.org/download/download?filename=ba4597b4-a3dd-49f6-920f-ec906d635ba0.pdf&urlSlug=entry-standards-games-of-the-xxx-olympiad-1
The 1st link is important. You are correct. It states this,
USATF wrote:
"Due to recent arbitration, USATF may have no “Automatic†standard that is superior to the Olympic “A†standard. Thus, “Automatic†standards were adjusted in the 100m, 200m, 400m, 110mH and 400mH. The number of rounds have also changed from 4 to 3 in the 100m, 200m and 110mH to coincide with the Olympic Games program, where those who achieve the “A†standard will advance directly to the quarter-final round."
So is it possible that athletes could sue to get into the Trials? It sounds like an arbitrator in 2011 or 2012 thought it was unfair for someone with the 'Olympic A' to be kept out of the 'A' qualifying for the US trials. The Only Olympic standards this year are all 'A' standards. There is no B standard. They just fill the fields with a descending order list.
Right, what happened in 2012 is that when the IAAF updated the standards for the Olympic Games with relaxed qualifying times for some events, then USATF automatically updated their qualification standards to match the new IAAF standards. They felt compelled to do so by the arbitration decision.
As you note, a careful reading of the USATF language is that it only applies to A standards (automatic qualification). -
Jonathan Gault wrote:
slo-twitch wrote:
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
We weren't saying he was a new qualifier for the OT. We were saying he's a new qualifier for the Olympics (he did not have the Olympic standard before but now he does).
TheGarbageDisposal wrote:
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
You are right. I updated the article.
Also the article didn't mention the guys between 2:17 and 2:18 who are qualified for the trials but now also have the olympic standard.
I personally am opposed to letting 2:19 into the trials at this point. Guys had the current standards in mind and raced that way. One minute doesn't seem like a lot but if guys knew 2:19 was the standard the would have gone out for that pace whereas they went out for sub 2:18 pace, ended up dying and coming in over 2:19. I think the marathon standard for the trials was faster than it should have been but its to late in the game to change it, the qualifying window has been open for a couple of years and the trials are just 2 months away. -
no where wrote:
It leaves the half standards no where different. It's generous for usatf to even allow those with only the Half standard into the race. Its intent was to bring the top guys up to the marathon from shorter distances. Think Rupp. Now it is abused. 57% of qualifiers for the OTM have NEVER run a marathon. What does that tell you? I think they should keep a half standard but tighten it to 1:03:30.
My position:
Adjust the standard for the Trials marathon to reflect the OG standard and leave the existing standard as is for entry via a 1/2 marathon time.
a tangent thought:
That 57% of the field will be testing themselves to find out if they can actually run a competitive marathon seems a bit high for a race that primarily is designed to select our OG Marathon Team. -
Of course they should be allowed to participate, and are entitled to a participants medal at the finish as a token of encouragement.
-
Jonathan Gault wrote:
rojo wrote:
So is it possible that athletes could sue to get into the Trials? It sounds like an arbitrator in 2011 or 2012 thought it was unfair for someone with the 'Olympic A' to be kept out of the 'A' qualifying for the US trials. The Only Olympic standards this year are all 'A' standards. There is no B standard. They just fill the fields with a descending order list.
And the question now is, does this policy still apply that there are no more A/B standards -- just the single standard? We'll look into it and try to get an answer.
Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Mr. Obvious.
Based on the precedent set in 2012, it looks as though USATF would need to update the qualification standards to match the IAAF ones. It does not appear that anybody should need to sue. Although who knows for sure that USATF would follow precedent, so it is really a question to ask them.
It only applied to A qualifiers, so the there really isn't any way that the elimination of a B standard should affect the implementation. Again, its USATF, so that doesn't mean it won't.
I am still trying to find the original decision. I've discussed it on here before, and I may have read it once, but it has been quite a few years ago and I can't find it. -
I don't have a problem with letting more people run the marathon trials, but it's a little late to be changing the standard. I know a number of women that would very likely have been able to run the 2:45, but instead chased the 2:43, blew up in the last few miles and came in between 2:45 and 2:47. That's a rough break for them.
