STANDARDS TIGHTENED FOR USA MEN'S 2012 OLYMPIC TRA

[burgrunner]

STANDARDS TIGHTENED FOR USA MEN'S 2012 OLYMPIC TRAILS MARATHON
By David Monti
(c) 2007 Race Results Weekly, all rights reserved

HONOLULU (30-Nov) -- On the heels of a very successful USA Olympic Team Trials - Men's Marathon in New York City on Nov. 3, the USATF Men's Long Distance Running (LDR) Committee voted today to tighten significantly the qualifying standards for the 2012 Trials.

Under the new scheme approved by delegates today, there will no longer be separate "A" and "B" qualifying standards where "A" qualifiers have their travel, lodging and meal expenses paid by the event, and "B" qualifiers do not. Instead, athletes achieving any of the following performances in the marathon, half-marathon or 10,000m in a still to be determined qualifying period will simply be labeled "qualifiers," all of whom will have their expenses paid:

Marathon: 2:19:00
Half-Marathon: 1:05:00
10,000m: 28:30

USATF LDR Chairman, Glenn Latimer, said that there was broad support amongst his committee members for the change, designed to reduce significantly the number of qualifiers, making the race more manageable for potential organizers (the venue for the 2012 Trials has not yet been set). The Trials race held this year had 179 qualifiers (130 starters), 64 of which had met the "A" standard. Latimer said that that under the new scheme the number would likely be between 65 and 85.

"They voted for, and unanimously supported, the new standards for the 2012 Olympic Trials," Latimer said of his committee.

Under the previous qualifying system, men who had achieved at least a 2:20:00 marathon within the stated qualifying period were designated as "A" qualifiers. Athletes running 2:20:01 to 2:22:00 in the marathon, or 28:43 for 10,000m, or 13:40 for 5000m, were designated "B" qualifiers. Under the new program, 5000m times will not be counted towards qualifying for the Trials.

Moreover, a more subtle change to the standards, Latimer said, was the unacceptability of marathon and half-marathon marks achieved on excessively aided courses. Under the previous scheme, as long as a performance was achieved on a certified course, an athlete's mark was acceptable for qualifying for the Trials. Latimer said that an approved list of marathon courses was under consideration by his committee. Most of the courses on that list will be USA record-standard (start-finish separation of 30% of the race distance or less, and an elevation loss of no more than 1 meter per kilometer of race distance). However, some marathon courses which do not meet the strict terms for records, like Boston or New York City, are likely to be included because they generally do not produce excessively fast times.

"I think it's pretty close now," Latimer said of the state of completion of the list.

Qualifying for the Trials has long been a point of pride amongst USA distance runners, and with the bar raised for 2012, qualifying will become an even greater badge of honor. Given the resurgance of men's distance running in the USA, many experts felt that it was time to tighten up the Trials qualifying standards.

"I think they lowered the standard to keep Deena out of the Trials," joked Bob Larsen, the Team Running USA California coach referring to American women's marathon record holder, Deena Kastor. Kastor met the "A" standard for the men's Trials with her 2:19:36 performance at London in 2006.

The Women's LDR Chair, Elizabeth Phillips, said earier in the day that her committee had not yet decided if they should change to a single qualifying standard for 2012, of if they should tighten their current standards of 2:39:00 for "A" qualifiers and 2:47:00 for "B" qualifiers. Women can also earn a "B" qualifier with a 10,000m performance of 33:00.

[frojoe23]

Well, you guys all know how upset I am about this - I thought that after Marine Corps, I was so close, but it's like the proverbial carrot on the fishing pole in front of the donkey that he can never chase down.

I am hopeful that there will be enough of an uproar that the standards will change back to what they were. I find it interesting to note that they are doing this to make race management easier; there are only 150-200 guys in the race. Also, I like that they say that only 64 met the A Standard this time of 2:20, but they expect 65-85 to hit the 2:19 standard.

I do agree with the list of marathon courses where you can qualify out of. It was obvious this time around that Austin 06 was a quick/short course. However, I think with this provision of "certified" courses that there will be way fewer guys hitting 2:10 and even the 2:22. I really think that if they keep the provision of certified courses and keep the standard what it was, that they will cut the number of qualifiers that way.

[frojoe23]

I also wanted to state that I think this really kills the "blue collar" runner who works a full-time job and is trying to reach his dream. I'm not saying that it can't be done - I'm just saying that it is a lot harder. I don't want to quit my job and devote my life to running to hit 2:19. If I was an Olympic hopeful and could make some cash and get shoe deal, then there is no problem. But if I just want to make the Trials, it hurts to know that the percentage of guys that hit the A standard and a professional runners will be very high. As compared to most years where the blue collar athlete is the majority.

This is the last shot the blue collar runner has to dream. There is no runner with a full-time job that is going to hit those track and field standards but the marathon can be done - but now the USATF is moving more towards those track standards.

[flyinghighrunner]

i find it odd that in one split second they decide to relax the standards to allow more competitors (i.e. allowing qualifiable 5k, 10k and 1/2 marathon), and then say "Whoa, we got too many people" I say change it to maraton only qualifying with the classic standards. Either way Jaron, I think you can do the 2:19.

[wvrunner]

I agree with Jaron whole-heartidly. USATF has never acted on the behalf of anyone but the 'elites" or themselves.. This "tightening" of the standards does nothing to help the majority of runners in the US on the elite or grassroots level. Look how close Sell was in 04 to that 2:19 cutoff and look at him now. I know some oldtimers will argue about the number of qualifiers in 84 when the standard was tougher (I can't recall what it was) but this is a different day and age. We need to take care of our own and take advantage of the upswing we have in the US in distance running right now by giving the blue-collar guys a shot. I hope this provides Jaron and many others the motivation to do what is necessary to qualify.

[Justin]

I agree with you guys on not agreeing with the new standards, but we really don't have much control over it. What I would tell anybody that was an aspiring qualifier, no matter how fast they've already run, would be to just train and run as fast as you possibly can. If you hit 2:10 or 2:22 it shouldn't matter, as long as you ran as fast as you were capable of. I don't believe the standard set will have anything to do with how fast you run. It does stink though on trying to reduce the amount of people that qualify.

[dan]

well....seeing as how I plan to run 2:15 to qualify, I guess that standard reduction doesn't really make a difference.....JUST KIDDING- i too find it ridiculous that they are doing this- think how psyched people were for this year's edition of the trials- it was such a good event and synched so nicely together with the big marathon the next day

what is the upside to this? do they think it will make US LD runners better as a whole? or is it really just to make the race easier to manage? if thats it, i say that instead of complaining about how much it costs to put up all those runners in the hotels before the races, maybe take a pay cut or do some more charity races- the money is out there...

also, how much will they really be saving if the only athletes they end up paying for are the ones that will qualify with or without the time standard reduction? i dont quite see that

[flyinghighrunner]

We are biased of course, but I think this year's trials went very well with well deserved hype. I saw lots of runners and nonrunners that were actually interested in this year's trials. I believe one of those reasons is the number of athletes from a great number of areas. If I'm a little kid in, say, Cumberland, MD and one of the local runners makes it to the trials...along with all the press and what not...I'm going to think to myself "Hey. I can do that to." And so I'll run with those hopes and who knows what happens. What's the other option? Ignorance of an obscure sport? Just when I thought we were entering another running boom....sad

[frojoe23]

There have been like a million posts on LetsRun about this and some were saying that this decision would kill distance running. I thought that maybe that was going a little far and was a bit extremist. I just couldn't comprehend how that would kill distance running - nobody could put up a good explanation. But, I must say that Matt brings up a really good point and the more I think about it, the more I have to agree that this is not just a detriment to those struggling to qualify, but it could have some far reaching effects into the next generation.

[burgrunner]

Jaron and I came up with another alternative for the USATF on our snow run last night. Instead of setting a qualifying time, which can be trivial and cause a lot of uproar based on whether is "too fast" or "too slow", they can set a qualifying period, and take the 100 or 150 fastest runners during that time. By doing this, the USATF will know ahead of time, how many runners to expect. This will also eliminate the appeal process for those runners who almost hit the qualifying time. Since it is the marathon trials, a runner must previously complete a marathon and not be able to qualify with a half or a 10k time since they are completely different animals. Jaron also came up with the idea that athletes must be a member of USATF at the time that they qualify. This will raise more money for the organization with a lot of hopefuls sending in their check instead of having runners qualify and then having only those that do make the cut getting their card to run the trials.

[Justin]

I really like that idea, but I'd make the number more like 200-300, that many people in a marathon is not a big field and shouldn't harm the top runners at all. Even do something where only the top 100 get comped and the second 100 get invites. The only problem I can see with this idea is the fact that people run on many different courses and the competition would then be between runners not the clock. So you could have someone be the 201st fastest time but run on a slow course and the 200th fastest guy run on a fast course. For some reason such dilemas aren't as bad when you are racing against a time standard as opposed to direct runner rankings. Does that make any sense? No matter what though someone will always be the 1st guy not to qualify.

[zach]

Man this has been quite an intriguing thread. While I do not agree with the current qualifying method; I think that any method would be challenged by someone. I have a somewhat different idea to throw on the table:

Assuming that the US will send 3 runners to the Olympics-

First off everyone that even wants a sniff at the Olympics must be card carrying USATF members.

Second at any time any of those members must meet a certain time standard in anything 10K and above to be considered elite(this standard would be quite relaxed...say 2:25 marathon).

Third-we establish 3 qualifying races that are already in place within 1.5 years of the Olympics. Say Boston, Chicago, New York for instance.

Fourth-Those three races are our 'trials' with only the card carrying elites eligible to qualify.

Fifth- The top US running in each race will qualify. If the top US runner from race one is also the top for race 2 or 3 then that spot rolls down. In the end we end up with 3 different runners qualifying from three different races.

I don't know if this would be the perfect situation but it is one to think about.

Cons- There is no 'aura' of one big go for broke race to establish the team. The team will take longer to come together. Race strategy would be drastically different with other people (namely the foreigners) in the race.

Pros-America will send the 3 best runners overall. With 3 different races you will get 3 different courses and conditions. If an elite is sick or has an off-race he/she still has the oppurtunity to qualify at another race, thus ensuring our best marathoner is not at home. Race management will be simple since the races are already established, USATF will simply take the top US finisher. More people will have a crack or cracks at it as you only need to be registered elite.


This has been a great thread and I thought I would add my $.02 in.

[frojoe23]

Zach, I think that is a pretty solid idea. The one good that I think has come out of this situation is that list of acceptable courses to qualify on. This takes away very fast point-to-point courses like CIM, St. George. It might even take away other notable fast courses like Houston or Austin. This obviously levels the playing field and those guys who run 2:20 at St. George that are really 2:25 guys don't qualify.

I think that the "list" will help guys hit 2:19. Now that only certain marathons will be deemed acceptable qualifiers, you will see alot more 2:18-2:25 guys at races like Chicago, Boston, New York, even Marine Corps. And with a pack like that to pull you along - who knows what you can run. Guys that are 2:30, might find that they can hang with the 2:25 guys in that pack and just get towed along. While, I still am upset about all of this, it may help a lot of other guys reach their full potential.

Zach, I would say that your idea of 3 races is pretty good. I really suggest that we have 8 races ranging from 10k to the marathon and you earn points based on your overall finish. Like if there were 36,000 in the race and you finished 1st, you get 36000 points and if you were second, you get 35999 and then on down the line. Wait, wait, wait...forget that idea - that means that Tommy Chandler and Dave Mertz would be representing our country! I'm not sure Dave even knows that the United States is a country.

[burgrunner]

I thought that Dave was Canadian?

[frojoe23]

I am not sure exactly if Dave is Canadian or not. He may have dual citizenship. I think he could be bilingual as well.