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

Lol. There are only 30-40 countries in the world who have any males capable of running 13:13 for 5k or 27:28 for 10k. Probably even fewer for the female standards.

This is a great point and I think the bigger issue is income disparities. Some people can afford to fly around the world on their own dime and get iaaf points at C-level meets for no pay. Other people can't. These income disparities vary from country to country and also within countries. Under the old system there were athletes who could just show up to their nation's trials race and run a B qualifier.

rojo wrote:

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.

You have a cite for that? I didn't see it any of the rules, could have missed it.

When I check the rankings page for men's 1500:

CHERUIYOT is given a score of 1441; they list off 5 scores ranging from 1481 to 1404. 1441 is the average of all 5, not just the top 3.

The rules just say "The Ranking Score is the average of Performance Scores." (Rule 2.10.b); nothing says they drop results. The only reference I see to "3 performances" is the in the required number of performances for the 5k and steeple.

The net effect will be that sub elites will hang up their careers much earlier as post collegiates since zero motivation to continue grinding away at the sport to see how good they can get

My opinion bro wrote:

The net effect will be that sub elites will hang up their careers much earlier as post collegiates since zero motivation to continue grinding away at the sport to see how good they can get

Yes. No need for a 2:28 male marathoner to keep running to have a shot at sub 2:19 or for a 3hr marathoner woman to keep running to have a shot at sub 2:45. Might as welll quit this crap entirely at age 23 and go find a career

El Keniano wrote:

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.

The 3 athlete limit is an IOC rule not an IAAF rule. If anything, it will go to 2 rather than more than three.

Sesamoiditis wrote:

popcorn and pepsi wrote:

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

Hypothetically, what if the Olympic Trials Marathon rolls around and we only have 2 runners who have run under 2:12:30 or who have the top placings at the IAAF Gold marathon or Marathon Major? The 3rd guy might not get a time out of the trials but someone could get the time or a top placing in London or Boston.

If someone skips the marathon trials they are not eligible to run at the Olympics under the USATF's current selection process regardless of what time they run elsewhere, period.

What people have to realize is that the IOC forces the IAAF to curb the number of participants in track and field. Because there are already entered relatively more than in most other sports. While I think that the IAAF should be offensive about this because T&F still is the core of the Olympics, apparently there have to be some compromises.

So there are certainly not going to be more athletes from one country. And they needed to reduce the fields. This was also one reason for the ranking. Because than you can say top 40 or so (with the 3 per country rule).

But the current mixture seems to be worst of both qualifying procedures.

30-40? no way.more like 8 or 9.

Just a couple of random thoughts--not the expert here but a big fan--

1) In 2000, there were A and B standards for the marathon when the United States sent just one athlete per gender. The winner of the trials race (s) DeHaven (m) and Clark (w) who both did not have the A standard, but were selected to run in Sydney based on their win. There were others who had achieved the A standard, but did not go. This a mute point though as it sounds like this time around, athletes need to have hit the standard or qualified via the added potential criteria of either a) top ten in Doha , b) top five at a gold label race, or c) top 10 at a world major.

2) I suspect there may be more Americans achieving the marathon standard via the six majors (Tokyo, Boston, Berlin, New York, Chicago and London) or by venturing into Canada to run either Toronto or Ottawa---both gold label races.

3) Question still unanswered---Can an athlete get a marathon standard after the Atlanta trials? The timeframe for qualifying is January 1, 2019 to May 31, 2020? Again, I saw the question --for instance----if a male runner runs 2:13 at the Atlanta trials (and three runners who already have the standard finish after the winner)---can the winner achieve a qualifying time or place in a major or gold label race after Atlanta (up till May 31)?

4} Will a marathon major run this spring and in 2020 (both within the window)---count for both 2019 and 2020 (i.e. Tokyo, Boston and London)?

4) Athletes need to do their homework when looking for that "perfect" race set-up. IAAF certified courses only. No courses such as CIM or 11th place and after finish in Boston. As noted by someone on an earlier post, notable fast, flat and certified course in the U.S. (or for those not willing to venture overseas) should attract a large grouping of athletes trying to achieve an Olympic qualifying standard.

While the Japanese will have a marathon qualifying race in September, their standards to get into that race are tougher than the Olympic marathon standard. As of today there are 16 Japanese women and 17 men with Olympic qualifying times in races held since January 1(basically from just three separate races per gender--all in Japan). Can a race (time trial) such as the one held in Jacksonville in January '16 to secure trials qualifying times be set up? noting that a 2:11:30 or 2:29:30 is going to be a very tough task.

I have read a lot of comments on the board about fairness and the IAAF should have done this or that. It will not change so I think our administrators, coaches and athletes need to plan accordingly (in many different aspects) to make sure the U.S. can send a full complement of marathoners to Tokyo. Sorry if there is any redundancy, but just wanted to add to the discussion.

Jo72 wrote:

..... While I think that the IAAF should be offensive about this because T&F still is the core of the Olympics, apparently there have to be some compromises....

I’ve said it before, IAAF should be much more aggressive, the Olympic medals given out in athletics have already been devalued way to much by also giving them in made up sports like synchro-diving.

Personally I think if IAAF could get there stuff together they should jump ship entirely from the Olympics, without running events the Olympics would be perceived as just another X games.

Lol If I’m right Cim was our national championship race this year and even on a downhill course I don’t think the winner even ran sub 2:11? Pretty much we’re jhst sending Rupp who is injured, great.

Ok. I was slightly off on my Chelimo ranking. In the distance events, you only need three scores, but two of them must be the 5000 so his score would have been a little lower.

The rules are here:

https://www.iaaf.org/world-ranking-rules/track-field-events

One interesting thing about the world rankings.

Winning the Drake Relays mile is the equivalent of winning the US Olympic Trials in terms of bonus points.

Last year, Eric Avila won Drake in 3:58.81. When you factor in the bonus points for the win, that's the equivalent of running 3:33.99 and finishing 13th in Monaco (no bonus points after top 12).

3) Question still unanswered---Can an athlete get a marathon standard after the Atlanta trials? The timeframe for qualifying is January 1, 2019 to May 31, 2020? Again, I saw the question --for instance----if a male runner runs 2:13 at the Atlanta trials (and three runners who already have the standard finish after the winner)---can the winner achieve a qualifying time or place in a major or gold label race after Atlanta (up till May 31)?

Not going to happen. That would mean 3 marathons between feb 29 and July.

douglas burke wrote:

Looks tough, but I think We (USA) will get 3 in each event.

https://twitter.com/yrdbki/status/1104887817908367360

Editor's note. Here is our article on the new system.

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/03/did-the-iaaf-just-kill-off-some-of-the-significance-of-the-olympic-trials-iaaf-announces-new-qualifying-system-entry-standards-for-2020-olympics/

We also changed the title of the thread. It was initially entitled, "Olympic Standards Posted."

Sounds like there will be less racing to win and more time-trialing to work together an hit standards at certain points of the season. Kind of interesting to run races just to hit a time and not worry about who wins....but also somewhat of a bummer as races might be less exciting. We might even get to see Bowerman Track Club athletes race more often....

I'd love to see pros working together, sharing pacing duties, joining races in Europe, and putting themselves out there to achieve the standards. Maybe it'll force U.S. runners to be less conservative and create a tougher racing culture?

or maybe it'll cause more problems than it solves....or more doping.

fun!

1. What do the rankings matter? Does the entry standard not trump world rankings?

2. For the US, the 3 athletes who ran faster than the entry standard will be selected by their performance at the olympic trials. As a hypothetical US marathoner, I'm not gambling that I get the right competition to get a good "world ranking", I'm racing Berlin, Dubai, and London to try to hit the time standard (which ironically prob gets a good world ranking ). If I run 2:11:30, but am ranked 75th in the world and some guy who ran 2:12:00 is ranked 13th in the world, won't I still go to the olympics over him, even if he beats me at the US olympic trials?

3. Time standard always trumps world rankings right?

4. The rankings would only matter if 1-3 athletes didn't hit the time standard (Say the fastest US marathoner was 2:12), then entries would go by overall world rank, not finishing top 3 at the trials? For instance the 4th, 9th, and 23rd fastest American at the trials could go because they had the best world rankings?

4,a. Would the US still send the top 3 if they were world ranked under a certain number?

5. I assume this will lead to an olympic trials where everyone goes out suicidally fast, like 2:11:30 pace, because few have the standard. Maybe a few athletes with good world rank will hold back and gamble the field blows up?

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?

What do you do if you wish to continue competitive running after college? Outside the northeast and California, there are no real team or club competitions that would be worth doing for a guy just finishing 4 years of NCAA running. For most, the answer is to set a goal of qualifying for the olympic trials. An olympic trials standard in the US is a respectable time for someone who doesn't make his living off running, moving one from the competitive runner to sub elite category.

Furthermore, what do you do about athletes who run their pr at the beginning of the qualification period, then slack off or get injured. An Olympic trial, lets us insure we've selected someone who is in shape closer to the trials. It allows us to see who our 3 fastest are then. Every year people argue that Kenya or Ethiopia left off some worth competitor who would have had a better individual result than their world or olympic selectees. No one argues this about the US, because the trials creates a fairer system than tough luck, I'm sorry you chose to run Boston instead of London or too bad you didn't run the Monaco 1500 last year.

Finally, Americans like underdogs. We want to see a car mechanic from Gary Indiana finish third and beat some guys who get paid to run and go to the Olympics.

Big trouble wrote:

Lol If I’m right Cim was our national championship race this year and even on a downhill course I don’t think the winner even ran sub 2:11? Pretty much we’re jhst sending Rupp who is injured, great.

Wrong. Read the rules. Last year there were Americans that finished top ten in Boston and New York. They would be eligible. Running CIM will always be meaningless.

rankings wrote:

You have a cite for that? I didn't see it any of the rules, could have missed it.

When I check the rankings page for men's 1500:

https://www.iaaf.org/world-rankings/1500m/men?regionType=world&page=1

CHERUIYOT is given a score of 1441; they list off 5 scores ranging from 1481 to 1404. 1441 is the average of all 5, not just the top 3.

https://www.iaaf.org/world-ranking-rules/track-field-events

The rules just say "The Ranking Score is the average of Performance Scores." (Rule 2.10.b); nothing says they drop results. The only reference I see to "3 performances" is the in the required number of performances for the 5k and steeple.

It is the average of your best x number of performances (x depends on the event you do), though you are right that this point is not made explicit in the Rules. If you go to Section 2.7 at

then it tells you the "minimum number of performances" needed to get a ranking and then if you cross-check with the actual rankings that is also the number of performances that will be averaged for your ranking (obviously taking your best performances by score).