Establishing the best US Olympic marathon team?

I have a very different view. I reject the premise that the overwhelming goal of the process should be to select the three best (or best three) marathoners in the US, or the three who are most likely to perform best at the Olympic Games. Rather, I believe that the most important features of the selection process should be fairness, transparency, objectivity, adherence to a clear set of rules, lack of favoritism or undue influence -- the kinds of things that I believe should generally characterize selection processes in the U.S. I believe that the current system does a pretty good job of selecting a team in a manner that is consistent with those values, even if it does not always select the team that might seem most likely to perform best at the Games. Other countries may have different values and priorities that could justify a different type of selection process.

But isn’t that pretty subjective? I just think no one in a million years could have guessed yesterday’s results. It’s just the women with the fastest marathon times and that have been consistent over the past 3-4 years are not on the team. Same with the men besides maybe Rupp. With some sort of point system the work/results the runners have produced would count for something. It would not come down to one race. Is that one race really that indicative of who the best US marathoners are and who will be the most competitive at the Olympics?

Zee wrote:

Is that one race really that indicative of who the best US marathoners are and who will be the most competitive at the Olympics?

I don't know. But I also don't think it's particularly important. The trials races selected six of the fittest marathoners in the country, without regard to public relations hype, personal popularity, corporate affiliations, times in vastly different race and course conditions, places in vastly different competitive fields, or relatively old performances that don't reflect current fitness. If those same six runners aren't the six fittest a few months from now, I really don't have a problem with that.

i also think its quite possible that rupp, riley, and kipyego really are three of our best, and three with the best chance of doing well at the olympics. maybe a bit less likely for the other three.

Rupp- US DISTANCE GOAT (NUFF SAID)

Riley- Newcomer, Ran a smart race

Abdi- 5x Olympian, Experience

Tuli- 10x National Champ

Seidel- Newcomer, Great Debut

Kipyego- Experience, 10k Silver

That’s a great team. Probably the BEST US THON TEAM we’ve sent to the Olympics.

Zee wrote:

I just think no one in a million years could have guessed yesterday’s results.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a certain U.S. Olympic marathoner many years ago. Out of hundreds who had publicly predicted who would make the team, I don't know that a single person had picked this guy. But he knew he was ready, and he wasn't surprised that he made the team.

Ward was fit to run. Didn’t he just PR in the half at Houston? Seidel hit a grand slam for her first marathon...her first marathon time debut was not nearly as good as Hasay’s or Sisson’s and who knows how her body will recover. Runners like Hall and Linden have just been so consistent over the past few years building up to this Olympic year. I just think opening the mind up to how other endurance sports like the FIS (that keep track of points) do things will take into account the work AND results racers have produced leading up to the Olympics. So it does not all come down to one flippin race.

I’m not saying get rid of the trials but just structure how the team is determined. That will also entice US runners to try hard to compete and do well in marathons leading up to the trials. If someone is having a complete off day they may still have a chance if they’ve competed and produced consistent results in marathons leading up to the Olympics.

Zee wrote:

Ward was fit to run. Didn’t he just PR in the half at Houston? Seidel hit a grand slam for her first marathon...her first marathon time debut was not nearly as good as Hasay’s or Sisson’s and who knows how her body will recover. Runners like Hall and Linden have just been so consistent over the past few years building up to this Olympic year. I just think opening the mind up to how other endurance sports like the FIS (that keep track of points) do things will take into account the work AND results racers have produced leading up to the Olympics. So it does not all come down to one flippin race.

Who cares if we didn’t pick our best team? The races were entertaining, and the build up to them even more so. On the men’s side our only medal hopeful made the team. Maybe Riley will keep improving but his performance yesterday alone was better than any American men’s performance other than Rupp’s since Meb won Boston. Abdi has consistently been one of our best distance runners for 20 years.

On the women’s side, Hasay is the only woman who has been a consistent threat to podium in major marathons but her recent injuries show that if we did just put her on the team that she might not show up ready to compete. It’s 50/50 at this point.

So why not have a fun race with all our best marathoners that gets everyone excited about running? In my city the running club had 50+ people come together to watch the race. That doesn’t happen for any other race including the Olympic marathon. For Americans running fans this is the biggest race of the 4 year cycle.

Disagree with the OP.

The Olympics don’t take into consideration your results over the 2-3 years leading up, so why should the qualifying process?

The runners who are best at preparing and executing for the best race possible on a particular day are the runners I want representing us.

I agree that the process should be such that there is no question as to who will qualify on a given day. Everybody knows what the deal is and can live with the results. Injury and illness are just the most unfortunate part of sport for those that honestly and fairly prepared themselves.

What I don't like is athletes chasing times after the fact while others wait because they already have the Olympic Standard but had a bad day. It should be a done deal on race day.

That being said, I have always been intrigued by what GB did in the 84 Games with their team. Not sure if they still use this process but if it weren't for the top 2 finishers being auto qualifiers and reserving the third spot to be appointed if necessary, Seb Coe would not have made history or proven he was clearly the best in the world at that time.

I still agree with another poster more though about the purity of what we should value in the process that we currently have as it should reflect the ideal of what we should value as a country. We can see how that's going though in daily news reports on the political and social scene. It's nice to know we still have some forms of a value system in places though.

We’ll have to see how the Olympics go. I would think the US want the best marathoners representing and I don’t think one race determines that with much accuracy.

Let’s say Mary Keitany was American and had the flu a couple wks out or something went wrong and her leg cramped etc even though she’s consistently one of the worlds top marathoners she would not run at the Olympics due to a poor trials performance?

The Trials system is fine. Track has had similar issues.

So the question becomes: "Do I want someone who competes or do I want someone with a fast time?".

You take the best competitors. Its been that way for decades.

Its not like we had a bunch of 2:07 guys who just choked. You had guys who ran 2:09 with a tailwind on a point to point downhill course (Boston) and a lot of guys in that 2:10-2:12 range.

Its not like 2d and 3d were rolling in at 2:12-14....2:10 it what it took.

Like it or not, these guys and gals rose to the top in this COMPETITION.

Alan

The Olympics itself is not a series, but one single race for all the marbles.

Train how you fight.

Consistent quality running over a longer period of time is one skill. Full -baller one-off race is another. There are mental aspects to this as well as physical.

Personally, I’m more of a consistent-over-time kind of guy so if I were a pro racer I would want what you suggested. But I don’t believe that’s actually the best way to find the best racer for a winner take all single race. Who can bring their very best when the bright lights are shining? Its a race. It’s a competition on the day. It’s a thing.

Riley is not a newcomer. The guy was a 15x All-American and the fastest American at Chicago...

We don't really want John Capriotti picking the olympic team.

Ok but because JRiley was the fastest American at a major plus second in the trials with a point system used he may have made the team anyway...

Ok but because JRiley was the fastest American at a major plus second in the trials with a point system used he may have made the team anyway...

Disagree completely. A points system would introduce complexity and controversy about how points get assigned to performance and in different events. It would also eliminate a lot of the interest and drama with the current system. If a runner comes in with a big lead in points they would know they don't have to perform that well at the trials to make the team.

And if we use a points system for the marathon, why not for other track events? I think that would kill the trials. The current system is transparent and simple. And it creates the most interest in the trials. Don't change it.