Should there be a new Olympic trials for 2021?

HRE wrote:

I believe you send athletes who have the best chance of placing well to the Olympics.

So you are for a rerun or at least a show of fitness?

Being an 'observer' I agree that USATF has tried to field the best team in the past. However, I believe there have been sentimental/potential tvratings exceptions in the 4 X 100 and 4 X 400 relays and now this mixed 4 X 400 will be all about anything but the best available. Just my 'observation'.

HRE wrote:

observer II wrote:

I think the varying answers given show that it depends upon how you view the Olympic team. Is it an individual honor that you earn or a chance to represent and strengthen a team so only the best should be included?

If you believe it is an earned honor then you stick with the 2020 top three. If you think it is sending the best at the time you rerun the trials, require a fitness show, or some other direction to assure the best at the time go if it is not those from 18 months prior.

I think you're correct here. I believe you send athletes who have the best chance of placing well to the Olympics.

Rupp is the only one with a chance to place well and there's no reason to make him win the trials twice.

HRE wrote:

observer II wrote:

I think the varying answers given show that it depends upon how you view the Olympic team. Is it an individual honor that you earn or a chance to represent and strengthen a team so only the best should be included?

If you believe it is an earned honor then you stick with the 2020 top three. If you think it is sending the best at the time you rerun the trials, require a fitness show, or some other direction to assure the best at the time go if it is not those from 18 months prior.

I think you're correct here. I believe you send athletes who have the best chance of placing well to the Olympics.

No.

Since when do they keep TEAM score?

We have our marathon Olympians unless injury/illness prevent them from competing. Otherwise, look at the remaining top finishers and current race results to appoint a new athlete.

RichardRider wrote:

HRE wrote:

I think you're correct here. I believe you send athletes who have the best chance of placing well to the Olympics.

No.

Since when do they keep TEAM score?

We have our marathon Olympians unless injury/illness prevent them from competing. Otherwise, look at the remaining top finishers and current race results to appoint a new athlete.

Maybe the top 21 will be sick or injured and won't be able to run in Tokyo.

1968 was an example of how no to do it. You don't change rules mid-year.

But this is very different, bumping it out a whole year.

How about they hold another race next to show fitness and recast alternates?

The three on the current team do not have to finish top 3 again, but would have to finish top 10 or something. Or somewhere during the year demonstrate fitness some way, maybe hit the standard again.

I'd even say run well in a major within one year of the new Olympic date.

But if someone on the team currently can't put up any good performance between September this year and February next year, I'd say replace them.

Even Rupp.

I can 100% guarantee all of you that the current marathon team will stand and they will be competing in 2021.

There will not be a re-run of the trials, nor any other half-cocked idea around making them hit standard or certain times again to keep their spot.

End of thread.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

HRE wrote:

I think you're correct here. I believe you send athletes who have the best chance of placing well to the Olympics.

Rupp is the only one with a chance to place well and there's no reason to make him win the trials twice.

If you require the current team members to demonstrate fitness you are not making any of them run another trial. There are all kinds of ways you could go with this and you'd need to think it through. But there'd not be another trial if they go this way.

I also disagree very much that only Rupp has a chance of placing well at the Olympics. If you look at times that have been in the top ten at previous Olympics you see that the times from Atlanta are very much in that range and they were run in tough conditions. Yes, the toughness was a different kind than you'll get in a summer marathon, but still, those were very creditable performances. But regardless of where any of them might finish, 1st or 101st, I would send the athletes that seem like they'd place highest.

Insider USATF wrote:

I can 100% guarantee

How do you guarantee that.

You can't even post with a registered name.

RichardRider wrote:

Since when do they keep TEAM score?

Since TV got involved.

By team score I mean the constant medal count NBC jams down our throat not just in track and field but every other sport and overall-all sports combined. By constant I mean pretty much every TV segment of every sport. They try to make it seem it is nation v nation in a medal count competition.

Most casual viewers and especially USATF and TV want only the people who have a chance to medal involved unless there is a sappy story to try to draw viewers.

I think the American marathon broadcasters make the TV coverage boring. I enjoy cycling's Tour De France every year, because commentators make it interesting for the viewers. The daily Tour De France shows can be five or more hours. It seems like the American marathon coverage is dumbed down too much, and they are always explaining stupid running concepts. They have to explain bonking every race two or three times. Sometimes the race analysis isn't even accurate, which ruins the broadcast for me. Another annoying part of the coverage is they get locked in one or two leaders and completely ignore the other runners. They talk endlessly about Mo or Des when they are not even near the lead. I can see talking about them, because they are great. However, maybe someone else is having a better race that day. They also get locked into one subject, the shoes, water tables, or heat. Maybe running is boring and it can't be made interesting, but watching cycling or bicycle on TV can be made interesting by the right commentators. Why can't running. IMHO

Star wrote:

Insider USATF wrote:

I can 100% guarantee

How do you guarantee that.

You can't even post with a registered name.

Yeah, registered anonymous names imply so much integrity. ???

observer II wrote:

RichardRider wrote:

Since when do they keep TEAM score?

Since TV got involved.

By team score I mean the constant medal count NBC jams down our throat not just in track and field but every other sport and overall-all sports combined. By constant I mean pretty much every TV segment of every sport. They try to make it seem it is nation v nation in a medal count competition.

Most casual viewers and especially USATF and TV want only the people who have a chance to medal involved unless there is a sappy story to try to draw viewers.

While your observations are correct, unfortunately, they are not new. I contend that by the original spirit of the Games, a medal count is not a team score. There is no team prize/trophy for individual sports in the Olympics.

The medal count by our media is a carry over but I get why they do it. Still seems petty to me and an additional rub in the nose after the conclusion and awarding of medals/ceremonies. Of course it looks great to have USA at the top of the list against China and Russia but it drops off pretty fast after that. And why shouldn't we expect to be at the top anyway since we have the most resources and recreational culture in the world?

Who cares how many more medals we have than Kenya to Taiwan. Heck, I cheered on Eddie the Eagle and the Jamaican bobsledders for their efforts too. I wouldn't rather hear their national anthem though.

The medal count is a result of the cold war response when USSR joined the Olympic Family in 1952 and before tv broadcasts. The Reds demanded their own separate athlete village as not to be "contaminated" by athletes from the West. Astonishingly, the IOC agreed to their demands. Amazingly, two days after the Helsinki Games began, they let the press and other authorized visitors, including American athletes, into their fenced and barb wired compound they shared with fellow East bloc countries.

The Olympic medal count/points was really a dual meet between USA and USSR and nothing more than propaganda that still lives today. It was the Russians that built a scoreboard and displayed it in their dining room at their village including results of all nation's. They were feeding off their success to inspire more great results for their comaraddes and the motherland. They were up 120 points going into the last day. However, USA came storming back winning several events. The Russians new they would be overtaken and began dismantling their scoreboard but not before an American press reporter saw what they were doing and sent out the story headlined "Russians Caught With Their Points Down". Pravda reported that they tied each with 494 points.

My point....the original intent was not to keep score but to better humanity through friendly gathering, sharing ideas and competition. The meaning of competition:. Together, we shall see how good we can be. As a community of people, not a country flag vs flag.

The people that earned their spot on the team under the same circumstances should be allowed to compete to the best of their ability unless they relenquish their spot due to injury or illness. Another can be appointed based on current results/fitness but those that finished 4th, 5th etc...should also be considered. No need for expense, organization etc... for another race.

I have to be honest. My attention span only got to the middle of the second paragraph.

All your semantics aside, I was not trying to make any kind of statement beyond I think the governing body of t & f buys into the TV driven medal count and might require another marathon Olympic trial. Or at least a show of fitness whether these options are the best choice or fair/unfair to athletes.

Dude, it was originally meant to be a country club competition among elitist male aristocracy. That's all. Now it's a commercial plunder and bureaucratic brothel that cripples local economies.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot wrote:

Dude, Now it's a commercial plunder and bureaucratic brothel that cripples local economies.

Brotha, ya think?

HRE wrote:

observer II wrote:

I think the varying answers given show that it depends upon how you view the Olympic team. Is it an individual honor that you earn or a chance to represent and strengthen a team so only the best should be included?

If you believe it is an earned honor then you stick with the 2020 top three. If you think it is sending the best at the time you rerun the trials, require a fitness show, or some other direction to assure the best at the time go if it is not those from 18 months prior.

I think you're correct here. I believe you send athletes who have the best chance of placing well to the Olympics.

This is not true. If that were the case the U.S. team would be selected. The only reason US has a Trials is because it is a cash cow. Ask yourself how long is the U.S. Trials = 2 weeks, VS a national championship = 3 days.

They even had a 1980 Trials over 2 weeks.

I'll add that USATF was selling 1980 retro team gear at the US championship meet in Des Moines a few years ago. "To honor the team" my butt. I have a personal friend that made the team that didn't think that was what it was about. He missed his one chance because of politics. Then USATF tries to make money off of their misery.

No! Then Bernard Lagat would try to make the team again instead of running the old man 45 year old sub 4 mile.

knotfromhere wrote:

I think you're correct here. I believe you send athletes who have the best chance of placing well to the Olympics.

This is not true. If that were the case the U.S. team would be selected. The only reason US has a Trials is because it is a cash cow. Ask yourself how long is the U.S. Trials = 2 weeks, VS a national championship = 3 days.

They even had a 1980 Trials over 2 weeks.[/quote]

It is absolutely true that I believe you should send athletes to the Olympics who have the best chance of placing well. Whether there is a selection process that does a better job of that than our current one does is another matter.