lmaoosood wrote:
How incredible is it that the person who denied this man is likely a non athletic obese American who has no idea how unfair it is what they have done .
I'm sure you're trolling, but just in case...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Torres_(athlete)exchange wrote:
lmaoosood wrote:
How incredible is it that the person who denied this man is likely a non athletic obese American who has no idea how unfair it is what they have done .
I'm sure you're trolling, but just in case...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Torres_(athlete)
Ed Torres is the Torres brother on the committee.
Have we established every women’s chip time was 2:44.59.xx?
If that’s the case I think a lot of people would understand him being kept out and a lot still would understand him being put in.
A chip time doesn’t mean anything officially so is there a standard practice to round them up? I have no idea with the chip times. Gun times get rounded up (except in case of the kipchoge 1:59 ha)
semi_pro wrote:
Co-Flounder wrote:
The antenna transponder tag is on the bib.
Hardly any big races use chips on shoes anymore.
So is there any rule against holding your bib and sticking out your hand? Probably, but might be a loophole.
If you are Kofuzi, you could put it on your selfie-stick.
So this guy had previously ran around 2:24 and dropped his time to 2:19+. That's wearing controversial shoes that may or may not be banned in the near future. What are his realistic chances of actually making the top three and qualifying for the Olympics? Probably not going to happen. On the other hand, since they already admitted him once just leave it at that and he can have a place on the very back row of the starting line.
runguru wrote:
I served on the WLDR Executive Committee for 13 years. Took a hard stand against petitioning athletes, denying every single instance, usually the only negative vote but was proud of keeping consistent. One second becomes two seconds becomes three and so on. My position was approving misses opens a giant can of worms.. A gal collapsed and crawled across the finish line at CIM 2019, missing the mark by :07. Her appeal was approved, leaving me shaking my head. That's just me. But regarding this fractional miss, are you freaking kidding me?
I Know you want this one kept out because it doesn’t fit your agenda but seeing that there are several cases that other have been let in with worse qualifying times don’t you think he should get in?
Isn't this pretty cut and dried? He missed the standard. If it were me, I would understand that and appreciate it. Imagine a silver medalist beat out by a hundredth of a second. Should he petition for gold? The idea is ludicrous.
What happened to the dignity of accepting a race well run, a standard barely missed? That's the beauty of our sport -- failure is clear, and so is success.
wejo wrote:
A chip time doesn’t mean anything officially so is there a standard practice to round them up? I have no idea with the chip times. Gun times get rounded up (except in case of the kipchoge 1:59 ha)
All major athletic governing rulebooks specify that all times are rounded up whether its Chip, Gun, or a FAT time from a camera system.
https://www.usatf.org/governance/rule-booksUSATF Rule 165.11 c wrote:
The times for races conducted partly or entirely outside the stadium (off the track) shall be read in 0.01 of a second and shall be converted to the next longer whole second, i.e., for the Marathon, 2:09:44.32 shall be recorded as 2:09:45.
In track races the times are rounded to the nearest hundredth of the second. The camera system raw time is something like 5:00.0134 and the scoring software rounds it to 5:00.02. Field marks are rounded up too.
The reason for rounding is so times are never overstated. Rounding has been happening for ages and is completely standard and normal. I'm surprised all the experts here are not more aware of it.
The athletes mark should be accepted as qualifying not because of the rounding, but because the MyLaps timing system margin for error is greater than 0.144 second. It's generally accepted to be 0.2 seconds. In most cases it's more accurate than 0.2 second, but 0.2 is the margin.
Race Timing Expert wrote:
In track races the times are rounded to the nearest hundredth of the second..
I meant to write in track times are rounded to the next hundredth of the second, not the nearest hundredth of a second
What place would a 2:19 get you at Dubai last night?
And reminder: 11 guys ran under 2:07, 10 Ethiopians and 1 Kenyan. US marathoners are the JV squad, and this entire thread is an "everyone must win" defeatist attitude.
I wouldn't, but you could certainly consider 6'0.99" to be 6 feet, rather than 6'1"
Quoted for emphasis:
Race Timing Expert wrote:
The athletes mark should be accepted as qualifying not because of the rounding, but because the MyLaps timing system margin for error is greater than 0.144 second. It's generally accepted to be 0.2 seconds. In most cases it's more accurate than 0.2 second, but 0.2 is the margin.
Agreed that the acceptable average margin of error is larger than the time missed by...and should be sufficient evidence for entry. Has there been any movement on this issue from USATF? With only a few weeks to the trials and Krolick’s role as a collegiate coach where the potential exists for a conference or last chance meet conflict with the trials I would hope some final resolution comes soon for all parties.
big HONKING birds wrote:
runningchick wrote:
The obsession of American hobby runners with the OLYMPIC Trials is just a never ending hunt for bizarre Amateur glory. Can't even look at any running related things anymore without OTQ being in your face everywhere. Its just boring and quite frankly, people are so damn vain and the only reason they try so hard to qualify is then they can mention something that says olympic and their name in the same sentence. Its nauseating.
Horrible take. The real American hobby runner obsession is the BQ. There several hundred runners who are on the cusp of making the standard. 2:15 men and 2:35 women don't care what it is. On the other hand, there were 7,000 runners alone who thought they had a BQ but were turned away when they lowered the actual qualifying times last year, and thousands (maybe tens of thousands) more who go for it every year but end up 5-10+ min off the mark.
BQ is actually within reach for couch-to-marathon people after a few years of training. Those people do not care about the trials nor probably even know what they are. Also, a guaranteed followup question when the Average Joe asks about your marathon is "are you going to run Boston?" or "have you run Boston?"
That doesn't make a 2:19 male or 2:45 female any less of a hobby runner - if you don't get paid to do an activity it's a hobby - but the BQ obsession is far more widespread since it's far more attainable.
I'm not sure who you are, but if you are an elite runner, you are one of the most bitter I've ever come across. You sound a bit vain yourself!
Let people enjoy things! :)
Our local HJ club is doing a trip to Atlanta to watch the trials. As it turns out, quite a few of them are interested in the marathon trials because they have run marathons. It probably helps that a local kid qualified.
The marathon trial is probably the best thing USATF has to promote general interest in the sport
This ruling is garbage.
When is the last time USATF did something that made it's members proud?
bobby jogger wrote:
The marathon trial is probably the best thing USATF has to promote general interest in the sport
I agree with this. Look at the social media (and this board's) interest in Seth DeMoor, Sage Canaday, Peter Bromka, etc. -- who didn't make it. Many local papers run stories on local runners that make it.
McGurk wrote: on 01/22/2020 at 8:17pm CST
Krolick is currently listed at the moment. Does this mean that he is in?
https://www.usatf.org/events/2020/2020-u-s-olympic-team-trials-marathon/status-of-entries
Men's Rights wrote: on 01/22/2020 at 9:18pm CST
Looks like Jake is in the Olympic Trials now if the USATF site is up to date since it lists Jacob Krolick with a qualifying time of 2:19:00.00
...
He is still listed on the entries page of the USATF website but he is not "qualified" (interestingly not "not qualified" either). He is still listed with a 2:19:00.00 result for whatever reason.
Based on his social media and the RunnersWorld interview linked below he definitely did not qualify and his appeal was lost. The quotes from the RW interview show that he has a very rational, healthy outlook on the whole situation and I very much look forward to his qualification for the 2024 Olympic Trials and the ensuing relief and congratulations he will deserve at that time.
Runner's world article linked below:
Jake Krolick, 29, will never overestimate the power of a second. The head cross-country coach of West Texas A&M was convinced he had finally sealed an OTQ at the 2020 Houston Marathon, but his final results revealed a heartbreaking 2:19:01.
“In something as long as a marathon, a second is so tiny,” Krolick told Runner’s World. “I could have run a curve a little wide and there’s my second. Really, my time is the same as a 2:18:59, but there’s a line that’s drawn between the OTQ and the non-OTQ.”
Because Krolick was traveling to cross-country meets for most of the fall, he picked Houston rather than CIM to make an OTQ attempt. Before Houston, he had finished four marathons between 2:24 to 2:26, but he hadn’t come close to breaking 2:20. In his previous races, he had flown through his first 23 miles before bonking in the last 5K.
To have a shot at OTQ’ing, he needed to “train like a marathoner,” he said. That meant logging consistent 100-mile weeks and 10 runs of more than 22 miles, which was farther than he’d ever gone in a training session before.
“My legs were stronger than they’d ever been,” he said. “I felt confident I could stand the pace.”
On race day, Krolick sailed through his first 20 miles on his target pace of 5:15. But at mile 24, the OTQ pack—which included Bromka—had slowed to 5:30 pace, leaving Krolick to decide whether to surge ahead alone or remain in the group. “I should have made a move then. There were 11 runners who passed our group, and they all went on to OTQ,” he said.
After losing precious seconds in mile 25, Krolick snapped into focus and dropped a 5:13 in his final mile. “For someone who always bonks at the end of a race, that was amazing,” he said.
He crossed the line in a PR of over five minutes, but still a hair over the standard. Afterward, Krolick petitioned USATF to permit his time into Trials—since he was technically less than a second off—but the organization denied him.
“I’m angry about it,” he said. “But I don’t want to get into Trials on a technicality. I want to be a 2:15 kind of guy, so there’s no question about whether or not I belong there. My biggest win from this experience is that I have renewed motivation to train for 2024.”
Srs question: was this guy wearing Vaporflys???
Valuable_Example wrote:
Srs question: was this guy wearing Vaporflys???
srs question: does it matter?
Yes
Raggedman wrote:
The “they” that told him he was in was ATC, not USATF.
There wouldn’t be this hubbub if ATC didn’t jump the gun and tell him he was in and forcing USATF to step in and correct the error.
This is a point that a lot of people really missed in the original story. Even one of the Johnson brothers was using this argument on the latest podcast. "'They' told him he was in, so 'they' shouldn't take back what 'they' already told him earlier." I've seen this argument repeated multiple times, but the flaw is that the "they" in the argument refers to two different groups. If ATC tells him that he's in, that does not obligate USATF to accept his appeal. If USATF had made a mistake and told him he was in and then changed and told him he was out, then I might have some sympathy for this argument. But that's not what happened here.