Shag carpet wrote:
Those that are saying to suck it up and just get the standard are missing the point. USATF is not honoring the ranking system. That’s the problem.
The problem is the assumption that USATF is not honoring the ranking system which is something that has not been stated. It's an interpretation by a couple of board boobs who not only run the joint but haven't been all that great in interpreting situations in the past.
rojo wrote:
smd wrote:
Good job by Gault getting a statement from USATF on this.
Before publishing, it would have been good to follow up and ask her to clarify exactly what she meant by "qualifying standard."
Phone calls rather than email interviews are usually better at removing ambiguities like this.
Look, she wouldn't have added in the 2nd paragraph about US athletes rising to the occasion if it wasn't what we think it is, but he has followed back up for 100% confirmation.
I'm glad Gault is following up. You and I both have experience with people coming to different conclusions than our intended meaning, even when we think we're being absolutely clear. That's why in cases like this it's always good to confirm your interpretation with the source.
Does anyone have Hightowers phone number.?
We could just call her and ask what her instructions to the USATF was on this whole entry standards issue.
She is still the puppet master over there isn't she?
They did same thing in 2004 for men’s 1500. Our supermilers will have 13 months to get the standard. No real time to chase anyways.
Boo hoo wrote:
They did same thing in 2004 for men’s 1500.
No they didn't.
rojo wrote:
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.
Only if you retrospectively apply the new rules but not the changed athlete strategies for qualifying. So, it means nothing of the sort.
rojo wrote:
smd wrote:
Good job by Gault getting a statement from USATF on this.
Before publishing, it would have been good to follow up and ask her to clarify exactly what she meant by "qualifying standard."
Phone calls rather than email interviews are usually better at removing ambiguities like this.
Look, she wouldn't have added in the 2nd paragraph about US athletes rising to the occasion if it wasn't what we think it is, but he has followed back up for 100% confirmation.
Plus I just got off the phone with a very prominent person in our sport who said they thought they saw this coming months ago. They said they were irate about it at the time as it guts what the Olympic Trials is all about even though it this new system won't hurt them personally, probably will help them.
formerbosox9yo wrote:
stop with the hyperbole. the rule changes are better and barely effect US runners. dont make a mountain out of an ant hill
It's not hyperbole.
My anonymous source, "The fact that USATF is not protecting our top 3 is a crime. Its a travesty."
Are you guys idiots? or you intentionally stir up crap.
How is this different from the past? How?
I always thought the top 3 had to have the standard. There used to some business with the A and B standard, but I think they went to one standard. There were years that the USA didn't send full distance squad because not every athlete had the standard.
To suggest that the US always sent full distance squads is just a lie. The article lacked SERIOUS context. You and Gault want to play journalist, but don't want to do the work. You don't want to follow up. You rely in single sources. You get agenda driven opinions.
asdffdfadsdfs wrote:
Are you guys idiots? or you intentionally stir up crap.
How is this different from the past? How?
I always thought the top 3 had to have the standard. There used to some business with the A and B standard, but I think they went to one standard. There were years that the USA didn't send full distance squad because not every athlete had the standard.
To suggest that the US always sent full distance squads is just a lie. The article lacked SERIOUS context. You and Gault want to play journalist, but don't want to do the work. You don't want to follow up. You rely in single sources. You get agenda driven opinions.
Stop being lazy. The article clearly explains how things are different from the past. You're either too dumb or too lazy to figure it out, either way you should not be commenting.
There has been way too much nationalism in the Olympics of late (including nation jumping). I think it is great that the best athletes (irregardless of nation) compete in the Olympics.
Also, haven't TRACK athletes had to have an Olympic standard to compete in the last 5 Olympics?
messi wrote:
There has been way too much nationalism in the Olympics of late (including nation jumping). I think it is great that the best athletes (irregardless of nation) compete in the Olympics.
Also, haven't TRACK athletes had to have an Olympic standard to compete in the last 5 Olympics?
Yeah, that's like one of the biggest reasons why the Olympics is so big . . . Basically political war without the violence. If you want to see the best of the best go at each other, go watch the diamond league or a big city marathon.
Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:
The writing is on the wall. The IOC and IAAF want competitions that feature the world's best athletes in exciting races. I would not be surprised to see a games (as early as 2024?) where the top 50 marathon runners in the world, regardless of country, are invited. Think about it, why should we exclude dozens of 2:04-2:05 African runners from a chance at glory just so some slow Westerners (or worse, the random 50 year old "Olympian" from a small country with a 3:05 PB) can live out a fantasy.
...
Only if you want to see distance running to become totally irrelevant. You have it backwards. Swimming is the prime example. At the Olympics countries can now only send their top 2 in an event because the US was so dominate that they would easily sweep the medals in many events. After a while other countries just stop sending teams or caring about the sport at all.
We are already on the verge of that in running. The IAAF has already decided that the 5k and 10k don't matter anymore because they are dominated by two counties. What you "would not be suprised" by would be the collapse of any interest in the sport at the Olympics. No one (maybe except you) wants to see 15 Kenyans running at the front of the Olympics, pacing each other, all in the same kit, all with same shaved head, all with same thin gold chain ... until that amazing moment when one of the clones finishes in front of the others.
The beauty of our sport is supposed to be in it's simplicity. The first one across the line wins. No convoluted rules, it's not judged by a panel of experts.. now we have this.
How as a fan of the sport are we supposed to tell a novice the "simple" process of how one become an Olympic T&F star?
"Well, you can run the Trials and come in top 3, but you have to have run it in a certain time, or be ranked by the IAAF, or maybe if you placed X at certain races.... "
That's a mess. That is not marketable and it is not athlete friendly.
Also regarding people upset at the US Oly Trials Marathon for letting in guys that run 2:20.. why do you care? This isn't a track meet where you have 8 lanes and heats. You don't want to watch a road marathon with 6 people in it. I think 2:20 is a tough enough standard to get a field of runners. It's a great goal for people to strive for that aren't named Galen or Meb.
Are people upset because USATF has decreed that the fastest runners, that meet the qualifying time, not necessarily the ones that finish 1,2,3 in the olympic trials marathon, will go to the olympics?
The best runners go to the olympics. What's wrong with that? It means that the trials marathon may be useless, but isn't it better that the fastest runners go rather than the ones that happen to run well on that one day?
Flounder wrote:
Are people upset because USATF has decreed that the fastest runners, that meet the qualifying time, not necessarily the ones that finish 1,2,3 in the olympic trials marathon, will go to the olympics?
The best runners go to the olympics. What's wrong with that? It means that the trials marathon may be useless, but isn't it better that the fastest runners go rather than the ones that happen to run well on that one day?
Define fastest runner.
Flounder wrote:
Are people upset because USATF has decreed that the fastest runners, that meet the qualifying time, not necessarily the ones that finish 1,2,3 in the olympic trials marathon, will go to the olympics?
The best runners go to the olympics. What's wrong with that? It means that the trials marathon may be useless, but isn't it better that the fastest runners go rather than the ones that happen to run well on that one day?
The Olympics aren't about being able to run a fast time. They are about being able to race well when it counts. There is a big difference.
Not an absolute travesty, not even a relative travesty. Nobody is worried if a Robert Johnson or a Weldon Johnson wins the Olympic Trials and never gets the standard and won't go to the Games. Similarly for Paul Chelimo, any knowledgeable fan accepts that he could run the standard if necessary. Long time fans of the sport have been wanting real standards to push athletes to level up more and separate the wheat from the chaffe. Any travesty involves sh!t-stirring tabloid so-called journalists who freak out over minor changes while saying and doing nothing to really help develop US runners, such as organizing or even just strongly promoting grass-roots meets or, even better, advocating for and working to decouple the pro level of the sport from limiting, power-grabbing bodies like the IAAF, IOC, and USATF. So desperate for clicks on what passes for content on this site's front page that resorting to hyping it in the message board with alarmist chicken little tone has become the adopted strategy. Pathetic.
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.
another runner wrote:
Flounder wrote:
Are people upset because USATF has decreed that the fastest runners, that meet the qualifying time, not necessarily the ones that finish 1,2,3 in the olympic trials marathon, will go to the olympics?
The best runners go to the olympics. What's wrong with that? It means that the trials marathon may be useless, but isn't it better that the fastest runners go rather than the ones that happen to run well on that one day?
The Olympics aren't about being able to run a fast time. They are about being able to race well when it counts. There is a big difference.
"When it counts" is MAKING the Olympic team. A US Olympian has to make it count TWICE.
rojo wrote:
Why the IAAF won't let us send any three that we want if we are already sending three is beyond me.
Why USATF wouldn't at least make the best of a difficult situation by honoring the world rankings is embarrassing and should result in people losing their jobs in my opinion if it's not reversed as it shows to me that highers up at USATF - at least one of them who makes more than a million a year have no idea what is so special about the US Olympic Trials.
USATF honchos, read the following.
LRC 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.
How USATF doesn’t understand that is beyond us. We think firings should happen if this travesty of a decision stands.
Now the Trials are about what you did last year or last month and not what you did in that moment. One of the reasons why the college admissions scandal that broke this week is garnering so much attention right now is because it goes totally against the American Dream. People are outraged that people with inferior accomplishments were falsely being elevated. That’s what’s going to happen in the 2020 Olympic Trials if the rules aren’t changed.
"
as it shows to me that highers up at USATF - at least one of them who makes more than a million a year have no idea what is so special about the US Olympic Trials."
Rojo, why do these losers make a million a year? Not to diss our own sport, but I know that distance running isnt as popular as football/basketball and doesnt attract a large audience ($$$), and therefore cant command a high salary.
I understand if someone is an engineer. Or a doctor. Or a CEO. Those jobs solve hard problems and deserve a high salary.
But some bureaucrat working in a joke of an organization, in a sport that we all know is not a mainstream sport? Give me a break.
I agree with you this is a dark day for distsance running. Screw those guys at the top. Let us know what we can do.
messi wrote:
another runner wrote:
The Olympics aren't about being able to run a fast time. They are about being able to race well when it counts. There is a big difference.
"When it counts" is MAKING the Olympic team. A US Olympian has to make it count TWICE.
No they don't. They just need to meet the time standard one time and hope that only 2 other Americans meet it. Then they can finish last in the trials and still go to the Olympics. They will have made it on being a good time trialer, not for being a good racer.
Does the US have a choice? I thought the rule is you have to have the standard to run in the Olympics. If one of the top 3 doesn't have the standard they can't go regardless, correct? Hasn't it always been the rule that if the winner didn't have the standard only one could go?
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Rest in Peace Adrian Lehmann - 2:11 Swiss marathoner. Dies of heart attack.
I think Letesenbet Gidey might be trying to break 14 this Saturday
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing