bleu wrote:
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?
Is this a joke? How many times does someone have to tell you.
Whether the USATF will put someone with a top-ten at a WMM into the Olympics notwithstanding, when does that window open? How many qualifiers would we have to choose from at the trials if that does exist.
another runner wrote:
bleu wrote:
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?
Is this a joke? How many times does someone have to tell you.
you are over reacting .
I think it is a nice step; now, if we can get the USATF to ALSO not honor races where an athlete gets a time through the use of a RABBIT, we could be on to something special and perhaps inaugurate a Golden Age of running.
remind me again? wrote:
another runner wrote:
Is this a joke? How many times does someone have to tell you.
you are over reacting .
No he's not. It's amazing how many people don't read.
I think the author of the Let's Run article misunderstood the qualification criteria and led you inadvertedly astray, There's really Nothing to suggest that the USTAF won't honor the rankings. The new qualification system is basically the same as the old one, except that the World Rankings instead of the fastet times are counted for the Rankings. If they honored the Rankings last time, why shouldn't they know?
I think it's not about reading the article but believing that the article's author got the facts wrong. Not everything you read on the internet, even on Let's Run, it's automatically true.
an honest assessment wrote:
remind me again? wrote:
you are over reacting .
No he's not. It's amazing how many people don't read.
Too many pages to read. just do a recap .
Exactly, I read the original document and the only way you could go without the time is if you have a "qualification" from the points list provided by the IAAF. I don't see how anyone could manage enough points without running 2:11. If the top 3 in the trials all have no time or enough points to rank in the world but 4-6 do then 4-6 go. Is this correct?
Summarize the basics for us. wrote:
an honest assessment wrote:
No he's not. It's amazing how many people don't read.
Too many pages to read. just do a recap .
If it's too many pages for you, then stop commenting on it.
The summary is if the 3rd place finisher at the Olympic trials doesn't have the auto standard and the 4th place finisher does, the 4th gets to go instead of the 3rd, even though the 3rd placer has a high enough rank to qualify for the Olympics, and this type of scenario is likely to happen in most of the distance events which will diminsh the trials races.
bleu wrote:
I don't see how anyone could manage enough points without running 2:11.
Completely wrong. Most of the top marathoners in the US will have a high enough rank to go.
TryingTooHard wrote:
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.
You are the lazy one. The selection criteria is NOT different. The only difference is the standards.
You must be a kid because you don’t Know track history There were a lot of events that are US did not send three people because all three people did not have the standard. Or they sent the fourth place person from the US trials because the Ford place person had the standard.
The article does not explain how to do it different from the old criteria. Because it is not.
Now go drink the letsrun Kool-Aid and cry in your pillow.
Vfhfngg wrote:
TryingTooHard wrote:
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.
You are the lazy one. The selection criteria is NOT different. The only difference is the standards.
You must be a kid because you don’t Know track history There were a lot of events that are US did not send three people because all three people did not have the standard. Or they sent the fourth place person from the US trials because the Ford place person had the standard.
The article does not explain how to do it different from the old criteria. Because it is not.
Now go drink the letsrun Kool-Aid and cry in your pillow.
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.
an honest assessment wrote:
Vfhfngg wrote:
You are the lazy one. The selection criteria is NOT different. The only difference is the standards.
You must be a kid because you don’t Know track history There were a lot of events that are US did not send three people because all three people did not have the standard. Or they sent the fourth place person from the US trials because the Ford place person had the standard.
The article does not explain how to do it different from the old criteria. Because it is not.
Now go drink the letsrun Kool-Aid and cry in your pillow.
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.
no it isn't .
differ @ 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.
no it isn't .
Like I said, if you're not going to read, stop commenting please. People like you make the internet a tedious place with all your spam.
This is why track is a joke sport in the US. Even the fan boys don’t know the rules because the rules don’t make sense.
It should be a simple qualification process. Forget times. Top 3 go. That’s it.
Really they need to disband the USATF and just pay no attention to the IAAF.
Someone with a lot of money needs to create a track league with teams spread out across the country. Make it an indoor league because fans will be closer to the action.
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
This is why track is a joke sport in the US. Even the fan boys don’t know the rules because the rules don’t make sense.
It should be a simple qualification process. Forget times. Top 3 go. That’s it.
Really they need to disband the USATF and just pay no attention to the IAAF.
Someone with a lot of money needs to create a track league with teams spread out across the country. Make it an indoor league because fans will be closer to the action.
Alan
Perhaps a good job for The Donald after his 8 years in the White House
I'm inclined to believe that the people running the USATF are just plain stupid. That's the only explanation at this point.
sub sub elite local hobby jogger wrote:
I'm inclined to believe that the people running the USATF are just plain stupid. That's the only explanation at this point.
They should replace them with letsrun founders and their employees and the top 100 most active letsrun users.
an honest assessment wrote:
differ @ wrote:
no it isn't .
Like I said, if you're not going to read, stop commenting please. People like you make the internet a tedious place with all your spam.
Please clarify - can the IAAF ranking be tougher than the Olympic standard? Because of IAAF ranking and depth can Ethiopia now send 15 'thonners to the Olympic 'thon? You are really sending out a smoke screen with your vague responses.
Thank you.
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!