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

Jonathan Gault wrote:

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.

So basically you overreacted with the hysterical click bait thread, didn't get an answer from USATF which made any sense as your first response to the email should have been to question how the rankings fit in and now you're going to the mat to defend your click bait thread.

There is no Hard standard prior to 2016 wrote:

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

THIS.

This is the answer to debate on this thread. A 16-second 100 guy in the Olympics. But guess what? A 16-second 100 meter is still better, comparative to the WR (best in the world) than a 2:11 marathoner is, compared to the WR (best in the world).

Think about it.

A long time ago every nation would allow one representative in an event and people would cheer a 32 minute 10K runner finishing.

reely? wrote:

Jonathan Gault wrote:

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.

So basically you overreacted with the hysterical click bait thread, didn't get an answer from USATF which made any sense as your first response to the email should have been to question how the rankings fit in and now you're going to the mat to defend your click bait thread.

1. I don't think we overreacted because if we are interpreting USATF's response correctly, it will have a major impact on the Trials. Multiple elite US coaches have already contacted us worried about the new system and its implications. They think it's a big deal and so do we.

2. We got an answer from USATF, and it made sense to me. I asked a ton of questions in my initial email to Susan, including how the world rankings fit in. She did not answer any of my questions directly and instead provided a statement on behalf of USATF. And again, I didn't feel it was necessary to follow up to the email immediately because it seemed obvious to me how the world rankings fit in -- and that was that they would not fit into USATF's selection process at all unless there's an event in which fewer than three athletes have the Olympic standard.

3. This isn't a click-bait thread, it's a serious discussion about a potentially massive decision that impacts the most important track & field meet in the country. And yes, I'm going to defend my position because I believe I'm correct.

Dude is still coming on here to respond on a Sunday night. We win!

In 2000 America sent only one male and female marathoner to the games, Rod DeHaven and Christian Clark.

Jonathan Gault wrote:

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).

God I love LetsRun... They never fail to impress.

Every time I read our crap, I'm reminded that you have no business being a running journalist. Calling people names? really? You dabble in conspiracy theories or did forget the old "Was Torrance Murdered?" junk you wrote to exploit a runner's death for hits.

I can't believe you wrote a that article without making sure what you were writing was correct. You had a single source and didn't do any follow up until after the article was written in an attempt stir it up. That's lazy. And you and rojo have references a bunch of anonymous sources in the post. I bet you didn't eve ask them to go on the record.

It's embarrassing.

Do you ever pick up the phone? Do you call people for clarification?

Except for the marathon where’s there is prize money. The good runners will always run to win money so they’ll be ranked. With no more Diamond League 5k/10k’s

it will be a little more interesting, but the best guys have to still race sometime.

ck3237 wrote:

In 2000 America sent only one male and female marathoner to the games, Rod DeHaven and Christian Clark.

And nothing against DeHaven, but he ran like 2:30 something. It's just insane on this thread how everyone justifies and glorifies how US distance running is, when the world is passing us by.

Check out this spreadsheet which links the rankings to the IAAF event limits for the Olympics. Once the quali times are banked, the IAAF has to set the bar on the rankings at a point at which it is most likely it will have sufficient particpants to meet the entry limit. If you take that as a hard and fast rule you get the following, based on current rankings (though it will update as the IAAF changes it's rankings page).

31 US women would qualify for potential selection for the 200m!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pJibTTMaEFsprhg93JgYe4Ou1vxbQowc6v2Ro9qsf6U/edit?usp=sharing

Jonathan Gault wrote:

colorunner123 wrote:

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, here is what you wrote:

"The reason the US Olympic Trials are so great is that the drama is so, so high and it basically represents the American Dream. America is known as the land of opportunity and that’s what the Trials are supposed to represent. It doesn’t matter if you are the reigning world champ or an unsponsored collegian — show up at the Trials, finish in top three and you are going to the Olympics. (emphasis added)."

You accuse me of being intentionally obtuse, but I am simply reading what you wrote.

Here is a link to the article in which the above paragraph appeared:

What she said:-

"For the U.S., the three highest-placing finishers at the 2020 U.S. Olympic Trials, and who have the 2020 Olympic Games qualifying standard, will select themselves for the U.S. Team. "

What she didn't say:-

"For the U.S., ONLY the three highest-placing finishers at the 2020 U.S. Olympic Trials, and who have the 2020 Olympic Games qualifying standard, will BE selectED for the U.S. Team. "

So she says - get the standard, finish top 3, you're in.

What she doesn't say is "and that's the only way to make the team". She says take control of your own destiny and we won't ignore that. That seems fairly self explanatory and perfectly logical.

It wouldn't surprise me one little bit if they clarified it with something along the lines of "and we are working on a policy wording which will take account of the additional qualification places created by the IAAF rankings".

Until they've ruled that out, there's no story here.

rojo wrote:

Talk about the biggest Friday evening news dump ever.

We have some huge breaking news to report. In my mind this is the most depressing development for US distance fans since we started the website.

http://www.letsrun.com/splash-page/dark-day-olympic-trials/

and

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/03/our-worst-fears-realized-usatf-will-not-honor-top-three-finish-at-the-us-olympic-trials-unless-you-have-the-standard/

This is one of the darkest days in history for US distance fans. We emailed USATF to make sure they would be honoring the IAAF world rankings so those top 3 at the Olympic Trials could go to the Olympics – they told us they would not. That means Olympic silver medallist Paul Chelimo wouldn’t have made the 2016 team, nor would Jared Ward and five others including Bernard Lagat who won the most thrilling race was the Trials. Some US Olympic Trials races may now be totally meaningless.

While this is a bad move. I do not find it DEVASTATING. Because I am a fan of faster all out efforts rather than kickers races. This should encourage our pro athletes to work together to run fast. In a few years this very well could make our our runners even more competitive collectively.

You could also say that this is the result of Mo/Centro winning very slow olympic/world finals in recent years

I am curious for all the running history people here - how many of the people who made our US men's marathon team from '84 forward - would NOT make the team based on the current 2:11.30 or top ten world major going in. My reading is

'84 (Pfitzinger) 2:11.43 was his winning time (Tuttle and Salazar had the standard)

'88 (Conover would be out, unsure about Eyestone's mark going in, Pfitz was 3rd at NYC '87)

'92 (Kempainen)

'96 (Brantly, Coogan) I don't think either broke 2:11.30 prior to Trials

'2000 (Dehaven)

'16 (Ward)

Dan Browne also would have missed. 2:11.35 PR

I would guess every one of these guys would have/did hit the standard via the gold label race system.

trials 9th guy wrote:

I am curious for all the running history people here - how many of the people who made our US men's marathon team from '84 forward - would NOT make the team based on the current 2:11.30 or top ten world major going in. My reading is

'84 (Pfitzinger) 2:11.43 was his winning time (Tuttle and Salazar had the standard)

'88 (Conover would be out, unsure about Eyestone's mark going in, Pfitz was 3rd at NYC '87)

'92 (Kempainen)

'96 (Brantly, Coogan) I don't think either broke 2:11.30 prior to Trials

'2000 (Dehaven)

'16 (Ward)

Why are we looking at Paul Chelimo's 2016 and acting like he wouldn't have qualified? You can't use hindsight. Are you saying that if these new rules applied in 2016, he could not have hit the qualifying standard?

If you don't hit the standard, you should not be in the olympics. It's not "the darkest day in track history" or "absolute travesty" stop being a drama queen. This is good for the sport. We need higher quality races where times actually matter.