---

Ehso wrote:

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.”

---

---

Ehso wrote:

That sure is a long-winded way to say, “ We were probably wrong and definitely jumped to alarmist, clickbait conclusions. Oops.”

---

---

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.

---

---

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."

---

---

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.

---

---

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.

---

---

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.

---