Is it time to change the Olympic Trials Qualifying procedures?

I'm generally in favor of a third spot being decided by something other than placement at the Olympic Trials. I'm not convinced that time is the best way to judge that final spot, however. Times indicate potential, but they don't say anything about your ability to handle the rigors of a championship setting--multiple rounds, physical races, tactics, and the like--which is what the current system, however flawed, rewards.

There is obviously no perfect system, but I would propose that third spot go to the third place finisher at the Trials *unless* there is a collision (women's 800m) or an injury (like with Felix in the U.S. and Bolt in Jamaica) to athletes who have "proven themselves" at the Championship level in the past.

What counts as "proving yourself" at the Championship level would be up for some debate, but what I would propose would be this: if you have medaled in the event at the Championship level (Worlds and Olympics--not sure about World Indoors) in the last 4 years. So only a select few athletes could make it into this pool to begin with. And if you are one of them, then you are "insured" in the event of an injury or a fall. Getting this insurance, however, should be contingent upon a compelling demonstration of fitness, much like what Bolt has to do for Jamaica.

What do you guys think of this system?

The longer this conversation goes on, the clearer it is that the current system is best.

Just Take the Fastest wrote:

I stopped believing in the validity of the USATF Olympic Trials in 1988 when Jim Spivey was left off the 1500 team after finishing 4th behind the illustrious Jeff Atkinson and Mark Deady. Seriously?

Someone should have gone to Atkinson and Deady and said, "Congrats on going 1 - 3 in a stupid tactical race, but you both know that Spivey would kick your a$$ nine out of ten times. He's going."

Is it really that hard to choose the best runners in each event?

That made Spivey's win in the 1992 Trials that much sweeter.

Although, Spivey probably would have gotten a medal or maybe even won the 1988 Olympics since he set his lifetime PR that summer and all the good milers sucked in Seoul.

But you know what?

They gave Peter Rono the Gold for winning the race instead of giving it to a faster runner.

I love Spivey but he should have beaten Deady when it mattered, at the Trials.

is OP retarded? wrote:

Fantastic idea!!!! Let's do the same with the Olympics. Bronze goes to the athlete with the fastest time.

Exactly. The Olympic Trials mirrors the self selection process that is The Olympic Games. You either do it on game day or you don't. Past history means squat.

Agree. How does a set up time trial or perfect wind conditions for disc or jav equate to head to head competition at trials.

Just Take the Fastest wrote:

I stopped believing in the validity of the USATF Olympic Trials in 1988 when Jim Spivey was left off the 1500 team after finishing 4th behind the illustrious Jeff Atkinson and Mark Deady. Seriously?

Someone should have gone to Atkinson and Deady and said, "Congrats on going 1 - 3 in a stupid tactical race, but you both know that Spivey would kick your a$$ nine out of ten times. He's going."

Is it really that hard to choose the best runners in each event?

Valid point

You run fast once 2 months before the trials. Cool.

Olympics aren't about fastest times it's about place. You want to send runners who clearly can't race, let alone handle slow qualifying rounds?

The current system is Best.

- Eligibility Criteria (The US Army WCAP Rule): you have to be an American citizen for at least 2 years prior to the OTs. This prevents folks like Maj Dan Browne from manipulating USG incentives to enlist by recruiting Kenyan's under false pretenses --- that they serve WCAP versus the US Army. Thanks to these unintended loopholes, Maj Browne skewed this year's OT results in the distance events. These were targeted recruits from the NCAA elites w/the primary purpose of racing in the OT vs serving our country.

The Ghost of Caesar wrote:

There is obviously no perfect system, but I would propose that third spot go to the third place finisher at the Trials *unless* there is a collision (women's 800m) or an injury (like with Felix in the U.S. and Bolt in Jamaica) to athletes who have "proven themselves" at the Championship level in the past.

What do you guys think of this system?

I'm in favor of keeping it the way it is--top 3 at the Trials go to the Olympics.

In regards to your suggestion, the only issue I see with it is if a "proven athlete" falls or is injured during the final. So athletes are duking it out down the homestretch trying to get in the top 3 only to later be told, "Sorry, but Allyson Felix pulled up lame with 80m to go. Since she's proven herself, you're not going to Rio."

Even making it uncertain if Olympic qualifying is for the top 2 or 3 is unfair to athletes. Do you make a move in attempts to hang with the top 2 in the 10k or sit in third to ensure that you hold onto that spot? Shooting for top 2 is different than top 3 in the heat of the moment.

CWRP wrote:

Olympics aren't about fastest times it's about place.

That's why they're a joke. Nils Schumann was not better than Wilson Kipketer. People can go on about how he was better on that day, but who is remembered as an 800 great? In the long run the olympics don't mean shit. Being fast is what matters.

Both the olympics and track in general would be VASTLY improved if every single final pitted the top 8 on the world list by a certain deadline, say 2 weeks before. Every performance all season would be a big deal, because someone might qualify for the final! And they might get knocked off later on so they'd want to qualify near the front, and keep racing afterward too. Everyone trying to go fast, fast, fast. Maybe they'd get tired by the games but so what - the whole season would be great in any case and more than make up for that.

Right now the only way they can get anyone to go fast is offer money at big DL meets, and half the time they don't even go for it.

If your country can't get anyone into the top 8, then you're SOL. Why should a country with crappy athletes get to compete? That's like letting a minor-league baseball team into the world series.

No it gets rid of people who are likely to fall over or run tacticly poorly in the Olympics

Youi've got enough strength in depth to makie the system work better than the alternative

It also makes the trials much more popular. Imangin the crowd at Birmingham is Mo, Ennis etc had been forced to compete there.

UK does not have stength in depth to make it workable

Keep 1st 3 but tighten up USA qulaification times to get rid of people who get lucky but are not up to standard

Don't underestimate how appealing your top-3-to-the-Games procedure is. I've been a hardcore t&f fan for over 30 years and would probably stop watching your Trials if the cutthroat nature of them was revised. Take the incomprehensible, committee & appeals-heavy selection process in my country. I cheer our athletes at the OGs, but the nature of our selection process makes our Trials unwatchable.

optional, unless registered wrote:

**Top 2 at the Olympic Trials go to the Olympics, with the condition that they have the Olympic Standard.

***the athlete with the next best time/mark obtained during the calendar year would fill the 3rd spot.

I would say run the trials, top 2 go to Olympics, 3rd spot chosen by committee based on which athlete outside top 2 at trials has best chance to medal at Olympics.

Japan can do whatever they want because they do exactly SQUAT in track in the OG.

My suggestion would be a blend of the two previous suggestions.

For the 10k, top 3 at the trials make the olympic team. For all other events, the top 2 at the trials make the olympic team. One week later, a run-off meet is held - 3rd placers in the trials compete 1 on 1 vs. the athlete with the best performance to date in the calendar year, if that athlete wasn't in the top 3 at the trials and wishes to compete in the 1-on-1 run-off. In 2 weeks we'd have Brazier vs. Jock 1-on-1 in the 800m as an example.

I think this would be fair enough for the athletes, would likely make for a better US olympic team, and give the fans one more interesting meet to watch.

It could save a lot of money: on a given day just have everyone run a distance and report their times. No one would need to travel, no huge venue would need to be built.

Or at the Games, just have everyone run a time trial like in cycling. Start them 1 min apart (or whatever). Fastest time wins. How exciting would that be!

malmo wrote:

The Olympic Trials mirrors the self selection process that is The Olympic Games.

This. A cool-weather race with rabbits that produces a fast time is so different from hot-weather Olympics with rounds that it is practically a different sport.

optional, unless registered wrote:

Olympic Selection Procedure

**Top 2 at the Olympic Trials go to the Olympics, with the condition that they have the Olympic Standard.

***the athlete with the next best time/mark obtained during the calendar year would fill the 3rd spot.

What if the "next best" is injured at the time of the Olympic Trials? If they are still injured a month later when the Olympics start, they would be taking away a spot from a more qualified athlete

How about top 2 and next fastest Nike athlete?