As for the rest of the Olympic qualification, USA Track and Field has refused multiple requests to confirm their statement that they made to us one week ago that they will not honor a top 3 finish at the Trials if three other people at the Trials have the standard - a statement that sent shivers through most of the US distance running community. Here is all of they've been willing to say despite repeated requests for confirmation.
"As you can imagine, this is all evolving in real time. We, along with our committee members and coaches, are working together toward a solution that is best for the sport and everyone involved.
"USATF plans to appeal to the IAAF to make the OT Marathon a gold label event and/or lessen the standards."
That third sentence is good news.
As for the track and field trials, we think USATF's refusal to confirm their statement from last week is actually good news as it may mean they misspoke. USA Track and Field's central office honestly may not have the authority to decide how team is selected as Jeff Porter, chair of the USATF Athletes Advisory Committee, explained.
"The selection procedures are decided with the athletes, the [USATF] Long Distance Running community, [among others]," Porter said. "At this point, the selection procedures for 2020 haven’t been finalized. We haven’t really got into that at this point. I’m not going to speak for the communications department at all. When I read what was on LetsRun, I was confused. Because those procedures aren’t done."
Full details and analysis here:
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/03/one-week-later-how-will-usatf-select-the-2020-olympic-team-no-one-really-seems-to-know/
A Little Good News: USATF is appealing to get top 5 at US Olympic Marathon Trials the standard
Report Thread
-
-
DON'T CONCEDE, IAAF!!!
We're being a bunch of cry-babies, whining like the spoiled American brats that we are. This is why parents cheat to get their kids into prestigious schools; this is why we reward bad behavior; this is why corruption continues in the sport.
If IAAF grants the Trials Gold Label, then they need to open the race to all runners, including Africans AND they would need to increase prize money and follow all Gold Label protocol with housing, stipends, etc. -
That sure is a long-winded way to say, “ We were probably wrong and definitely jumped to alarmist, clickbait conclusions. Oops.”
-
Ehso wrote:
That sure is a long-winded way to say, “ We were probably wrong and definitely jumped to alarmist, clickbait conclusions. Oops.”
disagree. all this goes to show the power of journalists holding power to account. as LRC points out in that post, they only freaked out in response to AN OFFICIAL USATF statement. USATF is to blame for the freakout, whether it was due or not. Not LRC. Get your act together and be transparent, USATF. -
Ehso wrote:
That sure is a long-winded way to say, “ We were probably wrong and definitely jumped to alarmist, clickbait conclusions. Oops.”
THIS
Everyone knows that you can call USATF and get 3 different answers depending on who you talk to. Letsrun took ONE response and ran with it. -
Ehso wrote:
That sure is a long-winded way to say, “ We were probably wrong and definitely jumped to alarmist, clickbait conclusions. Oops.”
Darkest day ever in US distance running!!! -
Not good. In a typical year even the #2 or #3 US marathoner is light years behind being competitive on the world level.
Our #5 in a typical year? What are we talking about, some 2:15 guy? Yeah, yeah, let's give that guy the Olympic standard. FFS. -
In response to the IAAF attempt to reduce the number of entrants in the T&F portion of the OG the USATF proposes a path(by appeal) to allow the USA and other nations who run trials marathon races to add the top 5 finishers at their national trials to the auto portion of the OG Q system.
Really!?!
The USATF responds to the mandate to reduce the glut of athletes at the OGs by saying
Here is a great way to make the M&W OG Marathons into a bigger (600+) race
If IAAF grants the appeal be assured all nations will run a "trials race" then 200+ nations will get to have a three men and three women in the OG Marathons. -
Slippery slope...
-
Wine Turtle did you fail third grade math or are you just dense?
200 + nations with FIVE auto qualified entrants to the OG marathon yields over a THOUSAND in each OG Marathon.
USATF expands their "Grassroots Running " program beyond the borders of the USA. -
Making the OT an IAAF Gold label race is ridiculous. Unless like the other poster wrote, it’s open to runners from all countries.
-
Im confused. A week ago you insisted that when USATF said "standard," it could only possibly refer to "time standard."
Please either change this thread or admit you were wrong in your other thread. USATF obviously meant "time or rankings standard" when they said "standard." After people kept pointing that out, you said things like "the spokesman's job is to say things clearly, when she said 'standard,' she clearly meant qualifying by time only." -
sanchobaile wrote:
Ehso wrote:
That sure is a long-winded way to say, “ We were probably wrong and definitely jumped to alarmist, clickbait conclusions. Oops.”
disagree. all this goes to show the power of journalists holding power to account. as LRC points out in that post, they only freaked out in response to AN OFFICIAL USATF statement. USATF is to blame for the freakout, whether it was due or not. Not LRC. Get your act together and be transparent, USATF.
It would pointed out to the brojos that USATF used only the word "standard" in their statement, so probably meant both time and rankings qualifying. Brojos insisted it could only possibly mean "time" qualifying and even explored lots of hypothetical scenarios where a runner had the rankings standard and was top 3 at trials and would fail to advance. -
Sailerman wrote:
Im confused. A week ago you insisted that when USATF said "standard," it could only possibly refer to "time standard."
Please either change this thread or admit you were wrong in your other thread. USATF obviously meant "time or rankings standard" when they said "standard." After people kept pointing that out, you said things like "the spokesman's job is to say things clearly, when she said 'standard,' she clearly meant qualifying by time only."
This is NOT the issue here.
We asked USATF to clarify that part of the statement because people on the messageboard seem confused (one week later, they still haven't done so), but to us it's always been clear that standard meant time standard.
The problem here is that it's not even clear whether USATF actually has a selection policy in place at all at this time. If you read the article, Jeff Porter, who's chair of the Athletes Advisory Committee at USATF, said that the procedures to finalize the selection policy have not taken place yet. No one at USATF would confirm that the policy they told us about in an official statement is actually in place. That's what we're trying to figure out.
I also find it incredible that you would criticize us for our interpretation of the USATF statement and at the same time state that "USATF obviously meant 'time or rankings standard' when they said 'standard.'" So when we make an interpretation, we are jumping to conclusions, but when you interpret that same sentence, it's "obvious" what USATF meant? That's ridiculous. Even if USATF meant "time or rankings standard," (which I am still sure they did not), there is nothing "obvious" about the way it is written. In fact, the way the statement is written is the opposite of what they would write if they were trying to say what you believe they did. -
You nailed it wrote:
Ehso wrote:
That sure is a long-winded way to say, “ We were probably wrong and definitely jumped to alarmist, clickbait conclusions. Oops.”
THIS
Everyone knows that you can call USATF and get 3 different answers depending on who you talk to. Letsrun took ONE response and ran with it.
that's not how it works. you can't give them a pass for being inept. It's on THEM to say what they mean and mean what they say. -
I think USA wants to appeal to the IAAF to give the top 5 finishers at just the USA marathon an automatic exemption as if their trials were equal in quality to those Gold Label races not make the USA an actual Gold Label races thus permitting them permission to have 5 people to choose from when making up their final mens and womens teams because the USA should always have the right to have 3 marathoners in each of the OG marathons .
OR lessen the time standard to the time of the 5th place finisher at the USAOGTrials marathon to permit USATF to always have the pleasure of picking from 5 the 3 persons on each USA marathon team. -
Why should the USA "always have the right to have 3 marathoners in each of the OG marathons" if we cannot produce enough marathoners to hit the Olympic standard? Sounds pretentious.
-
Poster #718 wrote:
Not good. In a typical year even the #2 or #3 US marathoner is light years behind being competitive on the world level.
Our #5 in a typical year? What are we talking about, some 2:15 guy? Yeah, yeah, let's give that guy the Olympic standard. FFS.
Well up until last week the Olympic standard was 2:19. -
Minus Rupp, Marathon is one of the worse events for US men. Think ahead a few moves. Could this hurt US in other events? You journalists/Marathon advocates at letsrun are doing things which will hurt US in other events. Why cannot you guys see the errors of your actions?
-
We criticize you because you guys were wrong! There's no chance that USATF had even figured out what they are going to do about the trials when you went nuts on them last week.
You're right that their statement wasn't clear - that's kind of the point. What's annoying is that when they eventually announce that the top 3 having met the IAAF requirements will be selected, you guys will celebrate and believe that you had something to do with it.
Bureaucracy is slow. It sucks, but that's how it works. And, by the way, your assumption that "standard" means "time standard" is kind of asinine. Plenty of your readers don't think so, so it's clear that it's open to interpretation.
Jonathan Gault wrote:
Sailerman wrote:
Im confused. A week ago you insisted that when USATF said "standard," it could only possibly refer to "time standard."
Please either change this thread or admit you were wrong in your other thread. USATF obviously meant "time or rankings standard" when they said "standard." After people kept pointing that out, you said things like "the spokesman's job is to say things clearly, when she said 'standard,' she clearly meant qualifying by time only."
This is NOT the issue here.
We asked USATF to clarify that part of the statement because people on the messageboard seem confused (one week later, they still haven't done so), but to us it's always been clear that standard meant time standard.
The problem here is that it's not even clear whether USATF actually has a selection policy in place at all at this time. If you read the article, Jeff Porter, who's chair of the Athletes Advisory Committee at USATF, said that the procedures to finalize the selection policy have not taken place yet. No one at USATF would confirm that the policy they told us about in an official statement is actually in place. That's what we're trying to figure out.
I also find it incredible that you would criticize us for our interpretation of the USATF statement and at the same time state that "USATF obviously meant 'time or rankings standard' when they said 'standard.'" So when we make an interpretation, we are jumping to conclusions, but when you interpret that same sentence, it's "obvious" what USATF meant? That's ridiculous. Even if USATF meant "time or rankings standard," (which I am still sure they did not), there is nothing "obvious" about the way it is written. In fact, the way the statement is written is the opposite of what they would write if they were trying to say what you believe they did.
