Still think the marathon trials standards should be this easy?

Let's Talk wrote:

Its not just about the speed of the athletes, its about the health of the sport.

Nobody predicted the results of the trails. If the results could be predicted by PR's there wouldn't be a trials at all. They would just put the people with the fastest recent PR's on the team.

The more rigorous the standard, the fewer the opportunities for captivating stories where a runner rises to the occasion and does something incredible.

The more runners in the field, the more democratic and American then process.

How many runners would simply end their careers if they didn't even get a chance?

The men who qualified were the #1, #5 and #12 seeds. The women who qualified were the #7, #10 and #139 seeds but the #139 is deceiving because that was Seidel, who qualified with no marathon (just a 1:10 marathon, which clearly was better than #139). Cutting out the 100s of women in the 2:40s would not have had any impact on the qualifiers and would not have had any impact on the race as all of them were summarily dropped within the first 10 minutes (including the guy in the race).

The time standards were a non-to-positive factor in the race. I don’t know why anyone except Atlanta Track Club’s treasurer thinks they absolutely should be tightened.

Jamin'sHSClassmate wrote:

After today's race had a bad fall and trampled women in the race, do people still think the entry standards should be this easy? Are women with broken ankles and black eyes "good for the sport?"

Standard needs to be stopped to limit it to 150 to 200 at the most. That is a manageable number, while keeping it as large as practical.

Thank you for your post. I am glad I am not the only one who is thinking rationally about this.

It is not good for the sport. It is not good for the runners. It is just plain not good. The "let everyone in" ethos is ridiculous. The "sub-elites need something to shoot for" attitude is absurd. This is not a fun run. It's not for hobby joggers. It's not for sub-sub-elites. And it's not for sub-elites. It's the frickin Olympic Trials. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS RACE IS TO PICK OUR OLYMPIC TEAM. Even 150 runners is too many. If you aren't in the top 100, you have no realistic shot at making the team and you shouldn't be getting in the way of the elite runners.

"But, herr de derr a big field is good for building crowds. herr derr" I doubt this is true, but even if it is true, I don't care. I'd rather that not a single spectator show up than see another fiasco like the one that happened yesterday.

Also, whoever picks the venue should choose a city with smooth, well-maintained roads. Not roads that have potholes everywhere.

RunRaider wrote:

The time standards were a non-to-positive factor in the race. I don’t know why anyone except Atlanta Track Club’s treasurer thinks they absolutely should be tightened.

I don't know what "non-to-positive" means but if you think the massive size of these fields didn't increase the probability of a fall, you must be smoking something.

Molly was the #1 seed among those who qualified based on a half marathon time.

Have an “elite start” for those with the Olympic A standard.

dangstraight wrote:

Have an “elite start” for those with the Olympic A standard.

Molly Seidel didn't have the Olympic A standard. Not such a good idea to exclude her from the elite race.

I had read somewhere that the LRC division of USATF is discussing tightening the women's standard to 2:42. That will still leave a good number of runners eligible and I am sure those just on the cusp (2:43's and 2:44's) can rise to the occasion - similar to what has happened now that Boston is making its times harder.

I think the numbers need to shrink a tiny amount - but seeing that crowd of runners and the spectators was awesome yesterday. Congrats to all who ran!

I'm fine with the field size, but having a front row seat on Peachtree Stret yesterday, there were people running hurt, out-of-shape, and otherwise goofing around on a long run. Establishing mid-race checkpoints would tighten up the seriousness of the OT prestige.

There was a woman running 12 minute miles and they finally yanked her because nobody had time to keep the streets closed while she slogged a 5 hour marathon.

I'm also fine with tightening the standards with women getting no more than 40 sec/mile to keep parity with the men.

colorunner123 wrote:

dangstraight wrote:

Have an “elite start” for those with the Olympic A standard.

Molly Seidel didn't have the Olympic A standard. Not such a good idea to exclude her from the elite race.

That's because there now is a backdoor entry with just a HM. If you couldn't qualify with a HM, do you have any doubt that she would have just run a full marathon in a qualifying time? It's not like she was some chump runner with pick up running later in life.

As stated above, tightening the standards A LOT would not have prevented any of the six qualifiers from qualifying because they all would have qualified no matter how much tighter the standards were. People need to get over the fiction that letting in 100s of 2:40+ women somehow "grows the sport" because it doesn't. Those same women can have the same marginal impact when they come in 20th or 25th overall in NY or Chicago.

I agree with the person who recommended limiting the elite field to the Olympic "A" Standard (2:15:00 for the men and 2:37:00 for the women). That would have given us a field of 83 women and 64 men. I would allow a loophole, however, for people who have run a fast half marathon (maybe 1:03:00 for men and 1:11:00 for women).

colorunner123 wrote:

dangstraight wrote:

Have an “elite start” for those with the Olympic A standard.

Molly Seidel didn't have the Olympic A standard. Not such a good idea to exclude her from the elite race.

That could easily be corrected by adding a 1/2 marathon adjusted a standard

I’d go a bit slower (maybe 2:20 & 2:40) but eliminate any qualifying on aided courses

colorunner123 wrote:

I agree with the person who recommended limiting the elite field to the Olympic "A" Standard (2:15:00 for the men and 2:37:00 for the women). That would have given us a field of 83 women and 64 men. I would allow a loophole, however, for people who have run a fast half marathon (maybe 1:03:00 for men and 1:11:00 for women).

Jamin'sHSClassmate wrote:

when you have women running 2:20 to qualify, a woman who qualified with a 2:44 is 4 miles slower. 4 miles! A cutoff around the 2:35 range makes a lot more sense to me. Narrows the field quite a bit while still leaving lots of room for somebody to have a breakout race.

In your scenario, had this been a qualifying race, 2:20 marathoner Jordan Hasay who ran 2:37 would NOT have qualified.

Also, it's crazy that so many men keep trying to find fault with the women's marathon standards, the same that they didn't want women to vote, and didn't want women to run farther than 800 meters. This is the whole crux of this issue.

I've seen a fall happen in the last 200 of a 4x400, and the people who fell were about 30-40 meters ahead of the field. Sh!t happens.

Besides, 2 people falling isn't enough reason to make a smaller field. That's a 0.2% fall rate. I'll take it.

Let's Talk wrote:

Its not just about the speed of the athletes, its about the health of the sport.

Nobody predicted the results of the trails. If the results could be predicted by PR's there wouldn't be a trials at all. They would just put the people with the fastest recent PR's on the team.

The more rigorous the standard, the fewer the opportunities for captivating stories where a runner rises to the occasion and does something incredible.

The more runners in the field, the more democratic and American then process.

How many runners would simply end their careers if they didn't even get a chance?

Yawn! And what the actually F is a pregnant woman doing racing the trails! An absolute joke!

And your point regarding Hasay qualifying is what?

Backwards reasoning wrote:

Jamin'sHSClassmate wrote:

when you have women running 2:20 to qualify, a woman who qualified with a 2:44 is 4 miles slower. 4 miles! A cutoff around the 2:35 range makes a lot more sense to me. Narrows the field quite a bit while still leaving lots of room for somebody to have a breakout race.

In your scenario, had this been a qualifying race, 2:20 marathoner Jordan Hasay who ran 2:37 would NOT have qualified.

Also, it's crazy that so many men keep trying to find fault with the women's marathon standards, the same that they didn't want women to vote, and didn't want women to run farther than 800 meters. This is the whole crux of this issue.

Correct! Because she’s a has been! She didn’t deserve to qualify, just because she’s Jordan? Oh please!

Keyboard quarterback wrote:

I've seen a fall happen in the last 200 of a 4x400, and the people who fell were about 30-40 meters ahead of the field. Sh!t happens.

Besides, 2 people falling isn't enough reason to make a smaller field. That's a 0.2% fall rate. I'll take it.

A guy fell today in the slow heat of the 3,000 at the Patriot League indoor championships. There were about 20 runners in the field. Gravity is a killer sometimes.