USATF Announces 2020 Olympic Trials Marathon qualifying standards

Jon (& ROJO)

I feel that having a HM standard is some kind of a joke...seriously. What does LRC think?

We need to create incentives for elites to run FULL Marathons..There were so many debuts at the trials who pretty much just crashed.

I will go on to say that getting rid of the HM standard would actually be the best choice. It will clearly create a deeper marathon list at the end of the year for US.

People say that the 70''s and 80's people ran much faster etc etc... reason being people didn't run as many half marathons as they do today. People actually ran marathons and went for them more seriously rather than just prize money, win etc.... How about we just get rid of the HM standard?

Noah Droddy didn't have sub-1:04 last time, yet look what a good runner he turned out to be. The encouragement of a trials qualifier that is manageable for many good post-collegiate runners helps the sport nationally and keeps a lot of runners in the sport that might make major future contributions. It makes a lot more races competitive and helps all the runners who rely on training with these guys better as well. By cutting the half qualifying time to 1:04, and the women's to 1:13, you really cut down on the # that can aspire to do this. It would be great if more people turned to the marathon as an easier way of qualifying now, so that our marathons became more competitive, but it definitely hurts the sport. There are literally thousands out there every cycle trying to make the qualifier. Among the men who can run 1:04, some will work harder, while many will give up. There are a lot of 1:14/1:15/1:16 women who will give up.

unregistered123456 wrote:

Jon (& ROJO)

I feel that having a HM standard is some kind of a joke...seriously. What does LRC think?

We need to create incentives for elites to run FULL Marathons..There were so many debuts at the trials who pretty much just crashed.

I will go on to say that getting rid of the HM standard would actually be the best choice. It will clearly create a deeper marathon list at the end of the year for US.

People say that the 70''s and 80's people ran much faster etc etc... reason being people didn't run as many half marathons as they do today. People actually ran marathons and went for them more seriously rather than just prize money, win etc.... How about we just get rid of the HM standard?

I like that there is a HM standard. Look at Rupp last year. Would he have tried the 10k/marathon double in Rio if he had to run a full marathon just to qualify for the Trials?

And yes, there were some guys who bombed at the Trials in their debuts, but I also think the Trials are more interesting with high-upside guys like Diego Estrada and Sam Chelanga in them.

With that said, I like that USATF lowered the standard, and wouldn't be opposed if they lowered it further, to, say 63:30. I know that qualifying for the Olympic Trials is a big deal for semi-elite runners, but the point of the Olympic Trials is to make the Olympic team. If you're running 64:xx in the half marathon, you're not making the team that year.

I also agree that the incentive should be to get guys to run full marathons. A super elite like Rupp can come into the marathon and be a stud right away, but that is rare. Look at Jared Ward. He debuted while he was still in college (granted, he was 25) but improved steadily and got 6th at the Olympics last year.

unregistered123456 wrote:

We need to create incentives for elites to run FULL Marathons..There were so many debuts at the trials who pretty much just crashed.

Doesn't that have more to do with the hot temps rather than no experience at the distance? Plenty of seasoned marathon vets had bad races.

Hot temps not an excuse.

USATF will mimic Olympic races, which will be run in Summer Games, which will mostly be pretty warm or Hot!

There were about 100 DNF's at the Trials. OK, maybe some for the heat but majority was inexperience.

In fact, because of the Heat, is another reason why they shouldn't allow HM. Runner's body's never get to experience the true marathon feeling when racing a half.

generalquestion wrote:

whats the harm in making the trials 2:25? roads are already closed, the streets are massive, they basically have the course blocked off for 3 hours anyway. never made much sense to me why they wouldnt allow the top 500 US marathoners into the trials

There is no harm! If you used the 2016 list of marathon qualifying times you had about 30 male athletes give or take a couple.

USATF and the long distance chair are backwards thinking. We should look at the bigger picture give a broader range of athletes experience and yes take it out to 2:25. There are not heats,there is no additional course management,no real added expense.

It would be easy to estimate the number of athletes that may qualify and put into the sponsorship package requirements for room and board for "x" number of athletes. Travel dollars could be tiered.

It is always debatable when getting in is based off time, and technically (but never will) 1,000 people could make it. If they make the time 2:25, someone will be asking for 2:27 etc... But on the other side, if people think "slower" runners don't deserve to be there, have USATF pick the 10 guys who have the best realistic chance at winning, and let them duke it out. As for the HM and guys getting waxed argument, who cares! Are you really that upset someone qual with a shorter race and didn't have a good trials race? Probably the same people who had issues with Symmonds getting to run the WTT in Sac.

unregistered123456 wrote:

Hot temps not an excuse.

.

LOLOLOLOL 4/10 because you got me to bite on the first one but this one it too obvious.

Poor USATF hydration setup, bottle storage and support contributed to many DNFs. Soapy sponges, warm bottles and minimal water availability. No question inexperience of some runners was an issue but the USATF setup didn't help.

As dysfunctional as USATF can be I wouldn't put that on them. The LOC deserves most the blame for the operational issues. USATF had oversight but it doesn't mean the LOC listened to them.

[quote]Jonathan Gault wrote:

Standards for men

64:00 half marathon/2:19:00 marathon

Standards for women

73:00 half marathon/2:45:00 marathon

Why is the women's marathon standard so much softer than the men's? The men's is roughly 13% slower than the world record. If the women's were similarly tough ithe Trials qualifying time would be 2:34. Or, if the men's time were as soft as the women's men would qualify with 2:30. With the huge increase in women's participation in marathons, it no longer seems justified to provide them easier standards.

Well the 2016 standard was 2:45:00 because that was the Olympic standard. And per USOC rules, the Olympic Trials standard cannot be faster than the Olympic standard. I'm guessing USATF kept it the same as they expect the 2020 Olympic standard to be similar.

D.Katz wrote:

Gene Newman retired from the Chair of the Road Running Technical Council.

I now serve in that role.

Fill free to email me any questions in regards to road course certification/ requirements.

David Katz

katz@flrrt.com

Im not sure of what role is but the last trials from an athletes perspective was a mess.

- Race time, starts at 10am due to TV coverage, we know its impact on the athletes with 1/4 of the field dropping out. TV more important than health of athletes?

- Lack of medical attention on course

- Lack of water on course

- Sponges with soap in them!

- Horrible running surface

USATF throws blame back to race committee? ( Max pulls plug on original site selected to give it to a tally unprepared unprofessional LA group)

USATF has zero accountability to have a technical blueprint for athlete support the committee has to guarantee in order to be able to put race on.

I cannot comprehend how dumb this decision is to lower the standards for elite running and sub elite running. Back when the standards were 2:22, there was so much interest in the local guy that worked his butt off & held a full time job while training. Those people became local heroes & inspired younger runners to also chase that goal. It grew the sport and made these elite runners much more locally in small communities throughout the country.

If you look at the depth of elite & sub elite distance running - in the midwest there are not nearly as many guys that are training hard post collegiately like there were in 2008 when the standards were 2:22. We are wondering why we don't have as many fast guys out there- it is due to the asinine policymaking by USATF.

The USATF is completely incompetent at trying to improve our sport. Instead of increasing attention to the sport they are decreasing it & discouraging people that are very good runners from training hard & improving. If the US wants to be able to compete they should foster an environment that encourages a culture of competitive training & racing. By tightening these standards, the US has basically said we want people who taking running seriously after college to either be world caliber or a Saturday morning hobby jogger. For a sub elite out of college, this causes a lot of negative stigma and does nothing to help encourage late bloomers to make American distance running depth reduced. I feel like I am taking crazy pills?! This is stupid. This isn't a track meet. This isn't about making someone pay $1k to race. Hit the A standard, which could be 2:18 & 2:45 and have your entry & travel & costs paid for and then set a 2:22 or 2:25 or a 1:05 or 2:52 & 1:15 and you can pay your way if you want to go.

Jonathan Gault wrote:

[P]er USOC rules, the Olympic Trials standard cannot be faster than the Olympic standard.

What USOC rules are you citing?

I'm familiar with the provision of the Ted Stevens Act that some have relied on to make the argument that "the Olympic Trials standard cannot be faster than the Olympic standard," and I believe that the substance of that provision was codified in either USOC or USATF rules. I don't bellieve that the argument is a particularly good one, but I understand that USATF may be concerned about having to deal with it in an arbitration proceeding, and that may be a legitimate reason for its decision to relax the 2016 "A" standard from 2:18:00 to 2:19:00 when IAAF relaxed the Olympic standard late last year. But If there are actually USOC rules that speak specifically about Olympic Trials standards not being faster than Olympic standards, I'd like to see them.

There is a lot of back and forth about the standard and the arbitration decision underlying it in this thread.

Here's the arbitration case in which it was applied:

http://www.teamusa.org/~/media/TeamUSA/Documents/Legal/Arbitration%20-%20Hearing%20Panel%20Cases/Section%209/2008/Nieto%20v%20USA%20Track%20and%20Field%20Inc%202008.pdf

And at some point this was on the USATF website:

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."

Any thoughts on a location? Tokyo is going to be warm and humid. I vote for Florida. Olympic Trials in the Keys would be pretty epic.