Jake Krolick runs 2:19:00.14 at Houston this weekend. USATF grants him entry into the trials. Hours later he’s denied.

Interesting, on the event site they have the last official qualifier at 2:19:01

As of 1/6/2020

The following lists show the athletes who have met the qualifying standards. These athletes are eligible to enter the Olympic Trials.

Joseph Elsakr 2:19:01 B CNO Financial Indianapolis Monumental Marathon Indianapolis, IN

Far Out West wrote:

Interesting, on the event site they have the last official qualifier at 2:19:01

As of 1/6/2020

The following lists show the athletes who have met the qualifying standards. These athletes are eligible to enter the Olympic Trials.

Joseph Elsakr 2:19:01 B CNO Financial Indianapolis Monumental Marathon Indianapolis, IN

I've gone through all the close times. I've seen no one in that has a chip time over 2:19:00 or 2:45:00. El Sakr's gun time was 2:19:01 but his chip time was 2:18:57.

So Jacob did get an email from the Atlanta Track Club congratulating him on qualifying - not sure how that happened - as his appeal to USATF was denied. There email to him stated, "As you know, per the Qualifying Guidelines, “Gun” time is the only acceptable method of timing. Chip/net times cannot be used for qualifying. Consideration may be given to “chip/tag” times for competitors with “gun” times extremely close to the above qualifying standards."

The reality is chip times have been used and granted for everyone at 2:19:00 or 2:45:00 or faster on the chip time. Jacob however ran 2:19:01 chip (and 2:19:06 for gun).

So they are being consistent and letting in everyone with chip times that met the standard.

Elizabeth Wasserman even got in with a 2:45:45 gun time from Boston this year as her chip time was 2:45:00.

You can see a full list of qualifiers here:

http://www.marathonguide.com/news/exclusives/2020USAOlympicTeamTrialsMarathon/QualifierLists/CreateReports.cfm?Order=IndividualRank&Sex=F

Man this is sad...just let him in it’s a marathon there’s plenty of room

Back off.

The women have a much better system, and the women have nothing to do with how the men's team is decided.[/quote]

UH OH HOMIE, YOU JUST BEEN CAUGHT SIMPIN

The women accepted had chip times UNDER 2:45:00. This guy has a chip time OVER 2:19:00. Men’s LDR made the right decision.

There is a line somewhere. People would wail about the person 1 second off whatever new cutoff they make if they change it.

Anyone comfortably capable would qualify via the half or not cut it so close.

When is the next Standards review? Take a competitive time in women's, 2:30 which is 15minutes under the standard. How many on the men's side down we have at 2:03? I'm trying to be objective here and these standards of 2:19/2:45 how did they arrive and decide on?

Baltsu wrote:

OTQ criteria is also at completely different level for men. Women have much easier minnie mouse standards because they want to make jogging more popular among females and realize that women are not willing to train hard. As a result, however, much more women qualified than men. If I was Jake, I wouldn't give up. This sexual discrimination should be taken seriously. Same happens in other races with qualification system like in Boston. Just lock the organizers up.

Oh look- it's another one of those threads where anonymous trolls get on here to bash women. You are wrong buddy. The Ted Stevens Act legally prevents the committees from setting standards that are tougher than World Athletics (which were determine by the 2016 standards). Then WA decided to change their standards last year to reduce the field size from 100 to 80.

There was no sexual descrimination. He ran a chip time OVER 2:19:00, so it's his fault. Looking at video he was racing in a t-shirt- what an idiot.

adivector wrote:

When is the next Standards review? Take a competitive time in women's, 2:30 which is 15minutes under the standard. How many on the men's side down we have at 2:03? I'm trying to be objective here and these standards of 2:19/2:45 how did they arrive and decide on?

The Ted Stevens Act legally prevents setting standards that are tougher than the World Athletics standards, which were 2:19/2:45 in 2016. The committees determined the 2020 standards in fall 2016 (window opened in fall 2017). Last year the IAAF (now World Athletics) tightened their standards exceptionally to reduce the field size at the Olympics from 100 to 80. If World Athletics had loosened their standards, USATF would have been legally obligated to loosen their standards too (as they did for 2016 when World Athletics changed from 2:18/2:43 to 2:19/2:45). A fairer way to determine the 2024 standards is to determine the field size (say 100-200), and see what that correlates to for men's and women's current rank order lists.

This is messed up. Can the timing company really be so sure of the reliability of times down to the .141 of a second? If it’s less than half a second they shouldn’t round up.

In the qualifying criteria it just says 2:19:00, not 2:19:00.00. He ran 2:19.00.14. If it said 2:19:00.00 then this would be a different situation. He ran 2:19:00 and change. Let him in. Our sport is pretty inconsistent when it comes to timing. Why are we using electronic chip timing and then still rounding up or using gun times? A .14 of a second in a marathon isn't hardly even measurable, one less turn or a gust of wind or new pothole on the road, etc. Or even a chip mat moved a foot one way or another from year to the next on the same course. With the imperfectness of a road race you have to acknowledge it's not like he ran a 2:19:30.

A bit unrelated, but why don't they just simplify the whole trials process and make the US Trials standards 2:20:00 for men and 2:40:00 for women? Those are fairly equal and pretty straight forward standards that would also yield competitive fields on both sides. You have to be a pretty dang good runner and train hard as well to run under either 2:40 or 2:20. Those times are universally recognized barriers in competitive marathoning for both genders.

For perspective here is the history of the men's qualifying standards. Not really sure why they didn't just leave things as they were in 1988 and 1992.

1968 Open to anyone

1972 2:30:00

1976 2:23:00

1980 2:21:54 (100th best time from the year before?)

1984 2:19:04 (100th best time from the year before?)

1988 2:20:00

1992 2:20:00

1996 2:22:00

2000 2:22:00

2004 2:22:00

2008 2:22:00

2012 2:19:00

2016 2:19:00

2020 2:19:00

And for reference the USA men's places at the Olympics since the marathon trials began in 1968:

1968 - 14, 16, 22

1972 - 1, 4, 9

1976 - 2, 4, 40

1980 - US boycott

1984 - 11, 15, dnf

1988 - 14, 29, dnf

1992 - 12, 13, 17

1996 - 28, 31, 41

2000 - 69 (the US actually had three men qualified, but only took the trials winner on a hot and humid day in May instead, long story. LeMay, Morris and Williams got a raw deal).

2004 - 2, 12, 65

2008 - 9, 10, 22

2012 - 4, dnf, dnf

2016 - 3, 6, 33

I can't believe all the people who are saying that anyone who's close to the cutoff should be let in. Eventually you have to draw a line delineating how close is "close enough." Once you draw the "close enough" line, then what was the point of having the original line? And then the next thing is that people will be clamoring to let in people who are close enough to the new line... Once you set a precedent that there's no firm line then there's no firm line, and everyone who's anywhere remotely close to it will be whining and crying to be let in.

This guy missed the cutoff. He shouldn't be allowed in.

It may seem harsh, but the cutoff is always going to be harsh for whoever is the closest person on the other side of it. If you let this guy in, then the next-closest person is going to feel aggrieved. There's no way to avoid that unless you just do away with the standard altogether and let everyone in and give everyone a participation trophy.

I feel terrible for the guy, but his chip time was 2:19:01. They made the right decision. It's a stretch to say that 2:19:00 really means 2:19:00.99 or faster.

This doesn't detract from the fact that the women's 2:45 standard is a joke. The standards should be 10-11% apart, just like the world and American born records.

Milton Friedman wrote:

It's a stretch to say that 2:19:00 really means 2:19:00.99 or faster.

.

No it isn't, A 2:19:00 includes the full second of any 2:19:00.xx by definition. If they didn't want to include 2:19:00.xx then the wording would have to be SUB 2:19:00

i know a little about krolich, nice enough guy. I doubt he will stick his neck out there to protest the women over the standard being let in.

I could see why he should and shouldn't be let in, and here's why:

On one hand, I don't believe the standard for the trials needs to be any faster than 2:22 as it was in previous years. Sure, no one running 2:22 has a snowball's chance in hades to make the team, but this is the premier amateur event, and i doubt more people at the back are gonna effect the results of the winners at the front.

Additionally, the margin of error is so close that he has effectively run the time, and the unique circumstances- especially having been granted admission and then denied- mean that he should be accepted on good grace at this point.

On the other hand, you have to draw the line somewhere. The standard is the standard, and if you start to push that line backward, you'll get more and more people demanding to be let in.

On top of that, 2:19 is not this ultimate life long achievement. There are plenty of runners who have made it on far less training, and i think we see way too many dudes "chasing the dream" trying to run an ultimately noncompetitive time, posting these super long paragraphs on social media about how they "didn't have it that day" or "how hard they've worked," etc. (I know i'm typing paragraphs right now)

If you look at his splits, he fell off the last 2.2mi. That's on him, he had 26.2mi to make up one second. It's unfortunate that he didn't make it, but USATF has the full right to deny him.

Cuckoldistan wrote:

Milton Friedman wrote:

It's a stretch to say that 2:19:00 really means 2:19:00.99 or faster.

.

No it isn't, A 2:19:00 includes the full second of any 2:19:00.xx by definition. If they didn't want to include 2:19:00.xx then the wording would have to be SUB 2:19:00

Did you even read the OP? "According to the the IAAF/USATF Competition Rules, timing for road races all times not ending in ".00" are rounded up to the nearest second." This is clearly laid out in the rules. It's not like they are just making this up now specifically to exclude this guy.

Honest question on IAAF/USATF competition rules for road races: doesn’t video footage get reviewed at the finish for close calls as all races are officially timed by when the chest breaks the tape as opposed to a chip? Should a 2:19:00.141 be looked at on video to see when the chest crossed the line as opposed to the chip on the shoe? Also to confirm the timing equipment was functioning properly and didn’t read early or late? It would be helpful if a Houston Marathon timer could share video From the review and explain their timing system checks and back ups. This may help or hurt Krolick depending on what foot the chip was on and what the video shows. It may also be irrelevant if they used chest numbers with chips as opposed to chips on shoes.

This guy should get in because they screwed up and told him he was in. Not for any other reason. He had come to terms with not getting in and had some gallows humor about it. Good on him, but then they put him through the grinder and he should be allowed in.

As for the standards, I agree with the poster above that2:20/2:40 is perfect. Easy to follow, big milestones and such. If that will be considered "unfair" to loosen men while tightening up the women's standard (ignoring the number discrepancy), then make it 2:18/2:40, but still women will dwarf men in numbers.