Mr. Obvious wrote:
I believe you article is factually incorrect in this statement:
"The US Trials standard is often faster than the Olympic one for sprint events but there are no lane constraints in the marathon."
According to a tweet by camille Herron, discussing trials standards: I know USATF has a policy that they won't set standards faster than IAAF
Although Camille has it as a USATF policy, I believe USATF lost a case before an Arbitration panel or a court interpreting the Ted Stevens amateur Sports Act which prohibited them from having more stringent standards. I have been unable to locate the original decision (poor google skills).
I wrote that because I looked up the 2012 standards and noticed the US 'B' standard was faster than the 'B' standard for the Olympics.
You can see the standards here.
The 1st link is important. You are correct. It states this,
"Due to recent arbitration, USATF may have no â€œAutomaticâ€ standard that is superior to the Olympic â€œAâ€ standard. Thus, â€œAutomaticâ€ standards were adjusted in the 100m, 200m, 400m, 110mH and 400mH. The number of rounds have also changed from 4 to 3 in the 100m, 200m and 110mH to coincide with the Olympic Games program, where those who achieve the â€œAâ€ standard will advance directly to the quarter-final round."
So is it possible that athletes could sue to get into the Trials? It sounds like an arbitrator in 2011 or 2012 thought it was unfair for someone with the 'Olympic A' to be kept out of the 'A' qualifying for the US trials. The Only Olympic standards this year are all 'A' standards. There is no B standard. They just fill the fields with a descending order list.