Breaking: An Absolute Travesty! USATF WILL NOT honor top 3 finish at US Olympic Trials unless you have the standard!!!

ck3237 wrote:

In 2000 the USA sent only one marathoner to the Olympic Games because only one qualified.

By Letsrun logic, that's impossible. Because according to Gault et al, the top three finishers at the trials ALWAYS have been admitted to the Olympics.

reely? wrote:

an honest assessment wrote:

In the past the US sent the 4th place person because they didn't have a choice. The 3rd place person wasn't qualified.

This year the 3rd place person could be qualified via IAAF ranking but USATF will send the 4th place person because they have the auto standard even though they could have sent 3rd place. That is absolutely different from the past.

Can you point out where this is said?

It is not said anywhere except in the imaginations of certain Letsrun authors.

Star wrote:

I guess the nightmare scenario is this:

Two American men put up a 2:10 time and finish first and second.

Another American man manages to get ranked through a series of races but his fastest time is 2:15.

Rupp runs one race, a 2:05 but finishes fourth at the Trials.

This system puts Rupp on the team but the travesty is that the 2:15 runner isn’t selected.

But if you flipped it, some would say the travesty would be leaving Rupp off the team.

Going to the Olympics isn't a right…

zzzz wrote:

A lot of up and comers will be relatively new to the marathon. I don't think Ward would have acted differently in 2016 if the rules are like they are now. He wasn't a favorite, and he had no foreknowledge that he'd be 6th the Olympics. He was a just 2:12:56 guy going into Trials, and had only run 3 marathons total. He had only run one in each of the 3 years before the trials.

Then those too slow to ever hit the 10K standard need to get after the marathon more seriously if they want to have a shot there. Rodgers, Shorter, Durden, and so many others would race 2-3 marathons per year. Yet today people laud someone like Parker Stinson for his silly, unprofessional tack. I don't mean to single him out, there are many who have adopted similar approaches and that's why nobody other than Rupp will break 2:10. What happened in the wake of Hall, Ritz, Abdi, Men, and co.?

In 2000, the US had two marathoners with the A standard and they finished 2nd and 3rd, I believe. But they didn’t have an A standard winner.

Rod DeHaven won the race but he only had the B standard.

The Olympic rules stated that sending a B standard athlete meant that you only send that one athlete from that event.

The US could either send 2 or 3 A standard athletes or just the winner.

They sent the winner so they sent only one person in the men’s marathon.

colorunner123 wrote:

ck3237 wrote:

In 2000 the USA sent only one marathoner to the Olympic Games because only one qualified.

By Letsrun logic, that's impossible. Because according to Gault et al, the top three finishers at the trials ALWAYS have been admitted to the Olympics.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? That's obviously not what we're saying.

In past Olympic cycles (prior to 2016, I believe), there was a hard Olympic standard. If you didn't have it, the IAAF wouldn't let you in. So sometimes USATF only sent one athlete in an event, or sometimes they sent 1st, 3rd, and 4th because those were the three athletes with the standard.

This time around, the IAAF is telling countries "if you want to send someone who doesn't have the Olympic standard, we have a way to make it happen -- if they're ranked highly enough." USATF is choosing to ignore that unless it has fewer than three athletes with the Olympic standard in an event.

Jonathan Gault wrote:

This time around, the IAAF is telling countries "if you want to send someone who doesn't have the Olympic standard, we have a way to make it happen -- if they're ranked highly enough." USATF is choosing to ignore that unless it has fewer than three athletes with the Olympic standard in an event.

Jonathan: Thanks for your work on this. Have you gotten confirmation from USATF that this reading of Hazzard's initial (and ambiguous) statement is correct?

I know elsewhere you've explained why you think this is what her statement means. I'm asking if she has responded to your follow-up: Does USATF policy not include IAAF ranking in "Olympic standard"?

Seems like conversation should be on hold until that's certain. Sorry if I missed that you got an answer to your follow-up.

smd wrote:

Jonathan Gault wrote:

This time around, the IAAF is telling countries "if you want to send someone who doesn't have the Olympic standard, we have a way to make it happen -- if they're ranked highly enough." USATF is choosing to ignore that unless it has fewer than three athletes with the Olympic standard in an event.

Jonathan: Thanks for your work on this. Have you gotten confirmation from USATF that this reading of Hazzard's initial (and ambiguous) statement is correct?

I know elsewhere you've explained why you think this is what her statement means. I'm asking if she has responded to your follow-up: Does USATF policy not include IAAF ranking in "Olympic standard"?

Seems like conversation should be on hold until that's certain. Sorry if I missed that you got an answer to your follow-up.

No. I called and emailed her yesterday. No response yet. I don't imagine I will hear back from her until Monday. As soon as I hear back, I will let you guys know.

I do understand why there is some confusion on the boards, but the way I read it, "Olympic standard" means time standard. That's why there was that second paragraph about how the time standards have always gotten harder and athletes have risen to the challenge. I just don't get why you would use the word "standard" if you didn't mean the time as it would be intentionally confusing, but I suppose it is possible that it is just a poorly-worded statement.

I also think that's why USATF waited until Friday at 5 p.m. ET to issue their statement because they knew it would not be well-received and they can claim they don't have to answer questions over the weekend (even though it would take two seconds to answer "yes" or "no").

A country can enter anyone who doesn't have the standard , and this rule still exist. Don't you remember the banana Island guy that ran the 16 sec 100m.

https://www.sbnation.com/2016/8/19/12467438/rio-olympics-2016-athletes-small-nations-richson-simeon

How long is the qualifying window? Are we in it yet?

all these are subject to the overall OG rule no more than 3 per nation

A=if you finish top 5/10 in various IAAF everts you are credited with an automatic OG standard on that day and published by the IAAF the next wednesday

B= standard you are credited with an automatic OG standard on the day it was achieved and published by the IAAF next wednesday

subtract the auto Qs from the desired field size portion of the OG entry standard and you get the number of

entry standard spots in that event that will be filled by the ranking system.

my understanding of ranking system is that the IAAF will publish a finalized ranking list on the Wednesday after the last day of the OG qualifying window ends. If on the last day of the US Olympic trials an athlete whose point total on that day is high enough to be on the finalize list they will have indeed had an OG qualifying standard on the last day of the trials .

If the USATF is mixing up day of achievement with day of IAAF publication they are eliminating any performance on the last Monday to Sunday portion of the USAOG Trials from being added to the list of Olympic Standard achievers. And I doubt the USATF wants to rule that way just to allow a TV announcer to proclaim The Team Is Finalized!

EDIT

Scott: are you still writing original work or is there nothing much beyond being Meb's ghostwriter?

Also, how do you score on the Autistic specty?

Enough mediocrity wrote:

So funny everyone bitching about raising the standard for US running. The Olympic Trials mentality just perpetuates a culture of mediocrity in our country and that's the reason why our distance running is shot now.

The worst of the worst is Olympic Trials for the marathon, a pathetic manifestation of mediocrity happening every 4 years. Guys that go 2:20 on a downhill course think they're elite athletes, get sponsorship contracts! W in T actual F?!?!?!?!

Don't have the Olympic standard? I guess you're not an elite athlete, go get a haircut and a real job!

The irony and ignorance in comments like these is amazing. To your first point - how on earth is someone cherry picking the fastest courses with the best weather and not caring if they finish 15th as long at the go 2:11:29 and taking essentially as few risks as possible perpetuating a culture of mediocrity while someone that bets it all on one race and has to beat out everyone else in the country looking for one of those three spots the "pathetic manifestation of mediocrity". By the way, no one who runs sub 2:20 on a downhill course gets any kind of sponsorship contract - they "might" get some shoes and clothing and they sure as heck don't get enough to live on.

And to your last comment - let's apply that to every sport! Playing minor league baseball - waste of time, CBA - same thing, etc etc - I assume you actually like this sport, since you are on this site - why in the world would dismiss someone working their tail off to maybe some day have that qualifying time or breakthrough. One of the main reasons we don't have as many marathoners clustered around 2:08 - 2:12 like Japan - we should we have the depth in College - but before they get there they are told by people like you their efforts are worthless - your 10 mins away from being relevant, why try. So a lot of them don't. Therefore no depth, fewer 2:15 guys means fewer 2:14 guys which means fewer 2:13 etc etc etc.

So, with the admitted lack of clarity, why did you boobs put up the typical click bait thread without answers to the questions you admittedly know everyone would have including yourself?

Short answer: Citius exists.

Well said.

Because when I read the statement, I did not see any ambiguity. I saw the use of the term "Olympic standard" and I saw the extra paragraph about the standards getting harder and I thought it was clear what USATF meant. So did Robert and Weldon. That's why we wrote the article ripping their decision.

It was only once people started wondering on the messageboard that I even considered we could have misinterpreted the statement. To me, the statement is fairly clear, and the prevailing sentiment among people who think we misinterpreted seems to be: "USATF can't possibly be this stupid, they must have meant something other than what they actually wrote." I am taking them at their word. Being in position to earn an invite from the IAAF based on world ranking is not having the "standard." There is only one "Olympic standard", and it's the time standard (or a top-10 WMM finish/top-5 Gold Label marathon finish for marathoners).

So yes, I'm confident our interpretation is correct. But enough people have pointed out a way that we could be wrong -- one that I did not anticipate before we published the article, because to me it would be purposefully misconstruing the USATF statement -- that we felt it was necessary to follow up with USATF to ensure we are 100% correct.

Klown Tabloid Journos