Lagat has verbally committed to doing the 10000m at Oly Trials - top two spots are now gone to Rupp + Lagat.

Again, Bernard Lagat has NO CHANCE to make the U.S. Olympic Track Team. EVER. AGAIN. Yes, Lagat ran 7:41. That is NOT impressive. Yes, it is stunning for a 41 year old, but Lagat is now a 13:20 runner at best, which renders him incapable of making the team. Lagat probably cannot run faster than 28 flat now and he is declining. Every month he is getting a tad slower.

He'll fail like Meb did.

Criminy, wait until the trials!!!

No predictions about whether Lagat will make the team, but to rule him out because he probably can't run 27-low fails to consider what it usually takes to finish 3rd in this event. Looking at the entire history of the USA championship 10k -- whether it is the OT or the championship in a non-OG year, and including those pre-1992 OG years when there was both an OT and US championship race -- i.e., a lot of championship 10k races -- there have been only 3 years when the 3rd place finisher was sub-28:00:

2012 3rd Ritz 27:36.09 (1st Rupp 27:25, 2nd Teg 27:33)

2008 3rd J. Torres 27:46.33 (1st Abdi 27:41, 2nd Rupp 27:43)

2002 3rd Culpepper 27:48.09 (1st Meb 27:41.68, 2nd Abdi 27:42.83)

The history of the event tells us, first, that the race is not likely to be run in 27-low, and second, that an athlete who can run around 28:00 in the event on that day will likely be in contention for 3rd place. And of course in plenty of years the times are significantly slower than this.

Of course -- as with anyone else in the race -- it is advantageous to have the OG qualifier going into the OT. But if Lagat has that and is healthy and runs the 10k, he as as much chance of being top 3 as any of the others mentioned in this thread. He of course is not as fast as he used to be, but he is probably fast enough, given how this event usually plays out.

Wu Ming wrote:

He of course is not as fast as he used to be, but he is probably fast enough, given how this event usually plays out.

He hasn't been as fast as he used to be for well over a decade. But then again, nobody in current competition, anywhere in the world, is as fast as Lagat used to be.

cl wrote:

No Olympic Trials race will be run in 27:15. There is no one fit enough at the moment to take it out in sub-13:10, nor will the conditions be conducive to that sort've pace.

You are right, there is no reason to take it out in 13:09 only to bring it back in 14:10 ... that would make no sense. But I don't see where anybody suggested that.

Also, I don't know what kind of conditions they will face but it won't be a "sort have pace" but a "sort of pace".

Also, well, there is this ...

Mush wrote:

cl wrote:

No Olympic Trials race will be run in 27:15. There is no one fit enough at the moment to take it out in sub-13:10, nor will the conditions be conducive to that sort've pace.

Seriously. No way it is even close to 27:15 unless Rupp decides for some reason that he wants it to be, which he won't.

Yeah, why would they run close to 27:15 ... I mean ... wait, how close do you consider "close"?

Other options wrote:

Oh sub 13:10 is world record pace? By a fair bit? Really? 13:09 is world record pace?

Uhh ... yeah, that is how most would attack it. Go through 5k in 13:09, finish in 13:07 = 26:16.

That is the WR. Even if you would do it another way, "sub-13:10" is definitely WR-pace.

Another way of looking at your data: The last 2 Olympic trials for 10000 have required at least a 27:46 to make the team.

That is right about the limit where I'd guess Lagat could still use what kick he has left.

I still think he can get 3rd in that sort of race.

On the flip side, maybe it won't be as fast. This is the first time that Rupp doesn't really "need" to make the team, so I'm not sure that it's in his interest to run 27:30 or faster.

If it's not faster than 28, then it wouldn't matter whether Lagat was first or last.

The Overexplainer wrote:

Other options wrote:

Oh sub 13:10 is world record pace? By a fair bit? Really? 13:09 is world record pace?

Uhh ... yeah, that is how most would attack it. Go through 5k in 13:09, finish in 13:07 = 26:16.

That is the WR. Even if you would do it another way, "sub-13:10" is definitely WR-pace.

No. "Sub 13:10" is not world record pace. If someone ran 13:09 back to back did they get the world record? No. Is it sub 13:10? Yes. Of course if you phrase it like you did with an explanation of a negative split it makes sense. But for the original poster who already said I was right saying sub 13:10 pace is obviously wrong. Don't know why you had to give an explanation.

On topic. People forget that just because lagat is older than last year doesn't mean he can't have a better year than last year. He ran faster at Carlsbad 5000 this weekend than last year. If even by a couple seconds. Meaning he could potentially run faster over 10k than last year on the roads and certainly faster on the track. As long as he doesn't get sick like last year he will be a factor to make the team. Not a lock, but a factor for sure.

People who point to slow championship times as reflecting the "possibility that a 28:00 guy can still make the team" don't understand that it isn't the *time* in the OT final, it is the *fitness* on the day. If a race goes 28:10, but there are three guys with sub-27:30 fitness, a 28:00 guy has NO chance, unless he is also a 3:35 guy, and even then unlikely.

Other options wrote:

The Overexplainer wrote:

Uhh ... yeah, that is how most would attack it. Go through 5k in 13:09, finish in 13:07 = 26:16.

That is the WR. Even if you would do it another way, "sub-13:10" is definitely WR-pace.

No. "Sub 13:10" is not world record pace. If someone ran 13:09 back to back did they get the world record? No. Is it sub 13:10? Yes. Of course if you phrase it like you did with an explanation of a negative split it makes sense. But for the original poster who already said I was right saying sub 13:10 pace is obviously wrong. Don't know why you had to give an explanation.

You must be a blast at parties...

Hello...hello...

HonestThief wrote:

Other options wrote:

No. "Sub 13:10" is not world record pace. If someone ran 13:09 back to back did they get the world record? No. Is it sub 13:10? Yes. Of course if you phrase it like you did with an explanation of a negative split it makes sense. But for the original poster who already said I was right saying sub 13:10 pace is obviously wrong. Don't know why you had to give an explanation.

You must be a blast at parties...

He must be...