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

Star wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

For the sake of argument assume the situation does play out the way it did in 2016. Would you prefer to select 1st, 2nd, and 3rd from the trials or 2nd, 4th, and 5th?

The argument that the Letsrun crew is having is that USATF is not considering the World Rankings entry.

If it plays out the way it did in 2016, Chelimo would not have ranking points and still wouldn't qualify for the Olympics.

Wrong, Chelimo almost certainly had a high enough ranking to be qualified for the Olympics in 2016 had they been calculated

What did Chelimo do in the year leading up to the 2016 Trials that makes you think he would have been world ranked?

His best time in 2015 was 13:37.

I don't think he was running and placing in DL meets.

The problem is this whole ranking thing is a bit fuzzy.

It would be nice to retroactively see where runners would be ranked over the last 4-8 years to see how the ranking system plays out and how it works.

Hardloper wrote:

Dirk J. wrote:

Are the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd from the trials our best 3 runners at that event?

Doesn't matter, you have to select them somehow. In scenarios like this, which would you select for the Olympic team, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd or 2nd, 4th, and 5th?

So times don't matter....you just want to blindly pick people to represent the country? Let me close my eyes...I choose this guy, this guy, and this guy. Oh looks like I randomly chose Robby Andrews, Aj Acosta, and Soren Knudsen to represent us in the 10k for 2020.

Star wrote:

What did Chelimo do in the year leading up to the 2016 Trials that makes you think he would have been world ranked?

His best time in 2015 was 13:37.

I don't think he was running and placing in DL meets.

The problem is this whole ranking thing is a bit fuzzy.

It would be nice to retroactively see where runners would be ranked over the last 4-8 years to see how the ranking system plays out and how it works.

A decent SB and a high finish at the trials would be enough to give him a sufficient world ranking. But that doesn't event matter, it's a hypothetical. Assume for the sake of argument that all the top 5 had a sufficient world rank.

Having the choice of running in a meet for a big payday or running in a meet because a time of equal excellence will gain you more points what should a professional runner.

Star wrote:

What did Chelimo do in the year leading up to the 2016 Trials that makes you think he would have been world ranked?

His best time in 2015 was 13:37.

I don't think he was running and placing in DL meets.

The problem is this whole ranking thing is a bit fuzzy.

It would be nice to retroactively see where runners would be ranked over the last 4-8 years to see how the ranking system plays out and how it works.

covered in here they did the maths

Rojo, calm down. USATF is just making a knee jerk reaction to the new standards. The Olympic Trials are more than a year away. When it gets closer to the Trials USATF might very well change their minds when they realize top 3 isn't necessarily the best way to choose an Olympic team. (It never has been. It's just been the easiest.) Talking up the Olympic Trials as an event is putting the cart before the horse. It's a qualifying meet, nothing else.

"Since publishing this article, we’ve done the math and Chelimo would have easily qualified for the Olympics under the world ranking system. Based on his 3rd place showing at the US Olympic Trials in the 5000, his 2nd in the US indoors in a quick 7:39.00 and his 7th place showing at World Indoors, he would have 1176.67 ranking points as explained here which would mean in 2020 he’d be the 25th ranked 5000 man in the world (45 make it to the Olympics and that’s after limiting it to 3 for Kenya, Ethiopia, etc.)."

Interesting.

So the main thing that would qualify him for the outdoor 5000m world ranking would be his indoor 3000m performances and the 3rd place 5000m US trials performance where there is no international competition.

Interestingly enough, many top foreign runners don't compete indoors and none of them compete at the US trials.

stop being lazy wrote:

gregmacd wrote:

How is this different than 2008 when Amy Yoder Begley needed to finish top 3 AND run the "A" standard?:

The difference has been explained 5,000 times now. Do some reading.

Have a magical day!

general comment

The Olympic Marathon Trial Race has provisions unique to it's conduct and should be a standalone conversation split from the multi day meet the T&F OG Trials

and take all the if suchnsuch meet was run under the rules of today comments with it

Lol this is so true

Still waiting on confirmation that what Rojo and Gault are think is true is actually true...i imagine we'll be waiting for a while.

Jonathan Gault wrote:

Rojo is right.

In the statement USATF sent us, they used the phrase "Olympic Games qualifying standard." That means the Olympic standard. If they had meant "in position to be selected based on world ranking" that's what they would have said.

Also, the statement said that the selection procedure would be the same as it is for World Championships. And the current World Championship selection procedure is the top three finishers at the Trials with the standard.

Add by rojo: You CANNOT chase after the Trials. The only reason why USATF would do this is they want finality at the Trials but it kills of the excitement and understanding of the Trials to see Kyle Merber celebrating in 9th or 10th.

The pertinent language of Susan's statement:

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. For World Championships, the U.S. selection process is the same but with the IAAF marks.

If you're going to assume that Susan's language was intended to set out, quite precisely, what the USATF selection process will be, then you should hold yourself to some level of precision in interpreting her language. In the IAAF's directive regarding the new process, the IAAF uses the term "entry standard" to refer exclusively to time standards in running events, except in the the marathon, where an individual is also deemed to have met the entry standard if he or she has finished among the specified number of top finishers in any of the specificed races. In contrast, when the IAAF refers to "qualification" and "qualified" athletes, it includes both qualification by entry standard and qualification by world ranking. In addition, there is a third group of athletes who may be permitted to compete in an event even without having qualified by entry standard or world ranking. That group is referred to as "unqualified" athletes. Since "qualification," "qualify," and "qualified" are used by the IAAF to encompass athletes who have either run the "entry standard" ((of time or place in specified races) or had a sufficiently high world ranking to be offered a spot in the event, I don't see any solid basis for asserting that the term "2020 Olympic Games qualifying standard" clearly excludes those who have qualified for the 2020 Olympic Games by virtue of their world ranking. Nor does it seem, to me, that your interpretation is strongly supported by the statement that, "For World Championships, the U.S. selection process is the same but with the IAAF marks," which does not imply that the U.S. selection process for the Olympic Games looks only to something called "the IAAF marks."

Furthermore, I don't understand the basis for the assertion that "you CANNOT chase after the Trials." In fact, if only two individuals in the Olympic trials marathon have satisfied the IAAF "entry standaard," why wouldn't you permit others to attempt to qualify by achieving the entry standard or obtaining a sufficiently high world ranking by the end of June 2020. In many cases, that could be achieved with a decent half-marathon performance in addition to a solid trials race. I don't see anything in Susan's statement that would preclude such post-trials "chasing."

Finally, it's not entirely clear to me how you and rojo would select the team members while complying with the IAAF qualification standards. Keep in mind that, when the IAAF releases the rankings of June 30, 2020, it may not yet be clear who will qualify on the basis of rankings, because that qualification process is dynamic, with each additional spot opening up for a specified individual only upon declination of a spot offered to a higher-ranking individual. There are some tricky issues to deal with, and I suggest that criticism of the selection process that USATF eventually decides upon be attended by some alternative proposal that deals with the various difficulties.

Hardloper wrote:

A decent SB and a high finish at the trials would be enough to give him a sufficient world ranking. But that doesn't event matter, it's a hypothetical. Assume for the sake of argument that all the top 5 had a sufficient world rank.

His SB was 13:21 and he came in 13th in that race. Simply beating Rupp and the rest of the sub-13:10 performers in a 13:37 crawl would not vault him above them in any non-crack-smoking world ranking.

Sending him to Rio if he hadn't qualified would have been a brain-dead long shot. They couldn't see into the future.

Avocado's Number wrote:

Keep in mind that, when the IAAF releases the rankings of June 30, 2020, it may not yet be clear who will qualify on the basis of rankings, because that qualification process is dynamic, with each additional spot opening up for a specified individual only upon declination of a spot offered to a higher-ranking individual. There are some tricky issues to deal with, and I suggest that criticism of the selection process that USATF eventually decides upon be attended by some alternative proposal that deals with the various difficulties.

I'm not sure how the IAAF will approach this, but I strongly suspect that when the declare what ranking position is the minimum required to attend the Games they will allow for some slack in the system just like when airlines double book seats. If they make it possible for 60 athletes to be selected for the 56 places in the 100m for example, they might be able to be reasonably confident that 4 athletes in that pool won't make it, and won't be able to be replaced from a squad of athletes where there is strength in numbers. e.g. if a US athlete has to withdraw through injury, USATF might (up to them!) be able to substitute a 100m runner. But if the only Polish athlete has to withdraw there isn't another Pole ranked high enough to be swapped in.

I don't think they'll start iterating down the list as athletes drop out, and therefore call up someone else. I suppose the alternative (though it's not in the qualification document) is that they say "Top 70, guaranteed a place, next 5 athletes form a reserve pool which will be sequentially allocated if the IAAF is notified by XX/XX/XXXX of a withdrawal by a higher placed athlete".

If they have 56 places allocated for the 100m and 60 make the qualifications, then they run 60.

If 54 qualify, they run 54.

Either add a heat or use 9 lanes in some heats in the first round like they did last time.

In 2016 the 5000 had 51 entrants split into two prelim heats.

A lot countries seemed to have entered their one allowed track athlete in the 5000.

2012 had 43 entrants in the 5000

2018 had 40 in a 3 heat semifinal

I think the 51 entrants in 2016 lead to this 13:13 standard, though that doesn't affect the one allowance entries.

You're right of course, they could do that.

But because they won't disclose the ranking cut off until after the quali time window has closed, they are in absolute control over the numbers in a way that they haven't been before. Previously, barring the 3 per nation rule, they had an unlimited number of potential places if all of sudden a whole load of new nations starting throwing up runners within the old qualification standards.

Now by using the rankings they can attempt to engineer it so that it is 56 eligible athletes, and no more. Or they can accept that they risk having a couple of spare entrants and accommodate them in the heats as you suggest (or hope for some late withdrawals).

They really need to cut down the fields to 24. Countries get one spot per person they have in the top 24, up to 3, at some set date at the end of the qualifying window. That way, at the trials you know exactly how many in each event from the USA you have to take.

Here's what the IAAF says:

"If an allocated individual quota place is declined by an NOC, the quota place will be reallocated to the next

best ranked athlete in the same event according to the IAAF World Rankings of 1 July 2020, respecting the

maximum quota by NOC per event.If an allocated individual quota place is declined by an NOC, the quota place will be reallocated to the next."

It's important to understand that an "individual quota place" is allocated to a specific individual based on that individual's world rank. Although that individual's national Olympic committee (NOC) may decline that quota place, thereby depriving that individual of a spot in the competition, the NOC does not have the option of substituting in a different, lower-ranking individual from its own country; rather, the next-ranking individual (from whatever country) is offered the slot. Moreover, the rankings are not announced until July 1, 2020, and the team submissions are due by July 6, 2020, so a national Olympic committee can't just sit back and watch how everything plays out in every other country's selection process before it decides whether to decline one individual's quota place in order to get another, lower-ranking athlete into the competition. I don't see any indication that rojo or Gault (or anyone else on this thread) has seriously worked through the difficulties in trying to impose an NOC's own preferences on the IAAF's process for selecting athletes from the world rankings.