New 2020 Olympic Standards Posted - They Are WAY Tougher - Will US Olympic Trials take a hit?

rojo wrote:

I think a lot of people are overreacting here. What people fail to understand is that roughly 50% of the spots will come from world rankings.

Are world rankings any assurance of an athlete's current state of fitness?

What if a woman was injured all of 2018 and fell off the rankings and then podium'd at Atlanta in February, but "only" ran a 2:30 because of the Atlanta hills?

Do they get to go to Tokyo? I think not by the way this is written?

multiple people say faster qualifying times lead to doping. why? the number of athletes that can go is still 3 from each country, and even if you don't make it by time, you can still qualify other ways (like the World Rankings).

based on the times this guy used, the US is slow in 7 running events for men and 2 running events for women. maybe we can focus on getting faster in these sports using legal ways. like training or recruiting better.

this guy

34 American women have ever run 2:29:30 or faster regardless of downhill or date

if you change the end date to January 1st 2016 (pre-vaporfly prototype) the number drops to 27

if you change the start date to January 1st 2000 (for better doping tests, etc.) number drops to 16

https://www.iaaf.org/records/all-time-toplists/road-running/marathon/outdoor/women/senior?regionType=countries&region=usa&drop=regular&fiftyPercentRule=regular&page=1&bestResultsOnly=true&firstDay=2000-01-01&lastDay=2015-12-31

Typical Americans. Acting like they are the only people who matter in the world.

The IAAF is concerned about the presence of athletics across the globe. I doubt they care about some B-tier runner getting lucky for 3rd with a slow standard at the USA Olympic Trials. If anything, the harder standards should encourage American runners to get off their asses and run some more impressive times. How many 1500 runners run slightly under 3:36 and say, "Yup this is fine. I won't bother trying to go faster the rest of the season. I'll just hope the trials are slow and tactical"? It is why the overall times of American distance runners from 1500-marathon have been a joke the last 5 yrs. No incentive to go for really fast times.

The harder standards aren't going to ruin the USA OT. In the big ticket sprint/field events, a person never had a chance of making the team being outside top 15 in the world anyways. Stop being dramatic that the world is ending cause your mediocre distance runners now have to try a little bit harder.

rojo wrote:

On our weekly conference call this morning, Jonathan Gault posed a great hypothetical. In 2016, Galen Rupp made his marathon debut at the US Trials. He ran 2:11:13. Let's say the course was in Atlanta which is hillier and he runs 2:11:33 - just off the standard. Would that one race have been enough to put him into the Olympics where he medalled?

Very likely it would have. I think too many keep forgetting that there is still a limit per country.....which is an IOC rule which is only enforced by the IAAF. So there can be 75 Kenyans and 50 Ethiopians ahead of the best american and those two countries still only take up 6 entries and we basically eliminate every other Kenyan and Ethiopian athlete from the rankings. As long as Rupp ends up qualified by ranking, he'd be eligible to compete as an athlete chosen by the US via whatever system they wish.

What will this mean for people who are trying to hit the OTQ or hope to run in the OT-Marathon in the future?

For several years now, the slowest OTQ time standard was based on the B Standard for the IAAF. USATF could not require entrants to be faster than that standard (as we learned in Los Angeles this past 2016 when the organizers had to accept female runners who ran sub 2:45 and not 2:43).

Are there B standards or is there only one standard - 2:29:30 for women and 2:11:30 for men?

What will that mean for OTQ time standards if there is only one standard?

If there is only one standard - wouldn't USATF have to create a new time limit that is softer than the IAAF time standard because some runners will have qualified via the rankings system? If so, what will that be now? Perhaps sub 2:37 for women and sub 2:15 for men?

Or does USATF say - only those who have a realistic chance to participate in the Olympics based on time or their position in the IAAF rankings may enter?

USATF has a lot of hard decisions to make for 2024 about how it will conduct its olympic trials marathon (if it will even do it at all ... what happens if only 3 runners are eligible?)

The US style of having trials for everything seems so odd when you come for a country which simply has sent the three fastest athletes that beat the minimum qualifying standard. It puts so much additional strain on runners having to squeeze in an extra marathon. It seems entirely useless. Rank them after time and send the best ones.

Can someone explain me the American obsession with Olympic trials?

US picks a standard and runs the race. First three who have the auto standard or have a ranking eligible for the Olympics go. I don't think much has changed.

I took a quick scan through national records. 160 countries have national records slower than 2:11:30, only 59 countries have ever had a citizen that have ever run faster than the qualifying standard

Time for more countries to start importing East African talent

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_records_in_the_marathon

rankings wrote:

The way I am reading it, an athlete's performance ranking is the average of all their race rankings in the time period.

This doesn't encourage racing to me. It encourages people to only go out and run when they are in top shape and conditions are good. Hit your minimum events and then don't risk a bad race.

How are DNFs handled? I don't see that. Should a runner quit any time they have a bad race?

Why aren't the rankings capped to your best handful of races in the period?

No. You are incorrect. It's an average of your best performances. Your 3 best performances in a distance help.

We did the math this morning. Paul Chelimo says he wouldn't have made it in 2016 but that's not true. He would have been ranked 25th in the world and easily gotten into the 5000. Here are his top points from 2016.

USA Indoors - 7:39.00 . 2nd place. 1183 points for time + 35 bonus points for 2nd = 1218 points

World Indoors - 8:00.76 in final and 7th place. So 1051 points + 110 bonus = 1161

Pre Classic - 13:21.61 - 13th place SB - 1132 points. (Not included)

US Trials - 1335.92 3rd... 1081 points + 70 bonus points= 1151.

So Chelimo would have had average of 1176.67, Right now that would rank him 25th in the world. Top 42 make it.

Could an American marathoner now skip the Olympic trials to run sub 2:11 in London and make the team?

Jonathan Gault and I have been spending a lot of time on the rankings today. For the most part, it works pretty well but there are a few glaring errors.

1) The NACAC champs count more than the US Trials/Champs.

2) The US Marathon champs in 2018 or 2019 count just as much as the Olympic Trials in 2020. In my mind, the US Trials need to be considered the equivalent of a IAAF Gold Label marathon or WMM. Problem solved. It's significantly easier to finish top 10 in Berlin (2:13 this year) - than top 3 at the US Trials.

3) It looks like that a non-Diamond League event at a Diamond League meeting counts more than the US Champs or Olympic Trials in terms of bonus points .

So the Pre Classic should just add a bunch of races for Americans only. Let people stuff their world rankings.

Let's say this year at Pre there is a DL women's 3000 but not DL men's 3000. in my mind, Pre should run a men's 3000 and a mens 5000 as Diamond League on Friday night. Limit it only to Americans. Then everyone will get a ton of bonus points.

Also if there is a DL 3000, Pre should run a women's 5000 the night before. Hell run a 10,000 as well to stuff the points. Jonathan Gault and I have been spending a lot of time on the rankings today. For thr most part, it works pretty well but there are a few glaring errors.

1) The NACAC champs count more than the US Trials/Champs.

2) The US Marathon champs in 2018 or 2019 count just as much as the Olympic Trials in 2020. In my mind, the US Trials need to be considered the equivalent of a IAAF Gold Label marathon or WMM. Problem solved. It's significantly easier to finish top 10 in Berlin (2:13 this year) - than top 3 at the US Trials.

3) I'm not 100% positive but it looks like that a non-Diamond League event at a Diamond League meeting counts more than the US Champs or Olympic Trials in terms of bonus points .

So the Pre Classic should just add a bunch of races for Americans only. Let people stuff their world rankings.

Let's say this year at Pre there is a DL women's 3000 but not DL men's 3000. In my mind, Pre should run a men's 3000 and a mens 5000 as n Friday night. Also a women's 5000. Maybe limit it only to Americans. If there is a DL mile, run a non-DL 1500 as well. Then everyone will get a ton of bonus points.

Sesamoiditis wrote:

Could an American marathoner now skip the Olympic trials to run sub 2:11 in London and make the team?

Seriously? No - not unless USATF changes their process for team selection.

If you think this is hard on American athletes, it's worse for most countries in the world. There are still MANY countries in the world where the national record for the marathon has barely reached Boston qualifying standards.

There was something nice for athletes to be able to compete by just getting in for the B standard.

On the plus side, it does mean a lot of people will have to up their game- by a lot. And I think some people can push themselves to make it.

One the other hand it does make it harder for those athletes who have an amazing talent but no sponsorship, so their don't quit their dayjobs, think of the ones like Sarah Sellers, who worked full time as a nurse and still hit the a-standard. In the states that doesn't get her in the olympics, but in other countries, it's the only way to get in. Finland was represented in a olympics by a lady, leena poutaniemi who was a full time swedish teacher, but still qualified for the olympics Finland is a country that's lucky to get 3 women in the games, and they are more advanced than many countries. Not everyone has funding to make it to iaaf races to boost their ranking, but they can qualify in a gold standard race.

I have to read more on the ranking system (not thrilled that it isn't open access, must given my data to get a copy).

Anyone wonder whether it'll increase the chances of doping just to make it? I mean it's quite obvious some countries are doing it which is why the standards are pushed so much to a new level.

Not sure if I'll like the olympics as much. I'm always in awe of the capacity of athletes, but I am even more touched by those who can make it with grit, patience and discipline while still having a day-job.

Especially with the marathon, trying compare runners from different races is impossible. Do you only use record eligible courses? How do you factor weather? Chicago has been really hot until last year. New York is a harder course. By doing it solely based on time run at previous races, you encourage Olympic hopefuls to sign up for races on fast courses where they may not place very highly but will run a fast time. It would mean way more Americans at London, Amsterdam, and Berlin. Even in track events, as has been noted, races can be tactical. You'd be rewarding the runners who participate in rabbited races. Those runners frequently don't do as well in a championship race. By having a trials, you're putting them in an atmosphere most similar to the Olympics and saying if you medal, you go to the games. I could see a system where someone who was top 3 in the world championships in the previous year gets an automatic spot, but otherwise, I think the trials is the most fair way to choose a team

runningchick wrote:

The US style of having trials for everything seems so odd when you come for a country which simply has sent the three fastest athletes that beat the minimum qualifying standard. It puts so much additional strain on runners having to squeeze in an extra marathon. It seems entirely useless. Rank them after time and send the best ones.

Can someone explain me the American obsession with Olympic trials?

Because that encourages slackers, this is good , american athletism is going down and people need to train smarter and harder.

runningchick wrote:

The US style of having trials for everything seems so odd when you come for a country which simply has sent the three fastest athletes that beat the minimum qualifying standard. It puts so much additional strain on runners having to squeeze in an extra marathon. It seems entirely useless. Rank them after time and send the best ones.

Except that if you do it that way, then you end up with runners trying to squeeze in extra marathons when they think they're one of the top 3, only to get bumped out when someone else runs faster.

The logical step would be to open up the events to more than three athletes per country. But that’s just too much logic for the IAAF.