Final touches on Olympic Marathon Trials

Your biological statistics of 30 seconds per mile is spot on but the reason is the goal of 150-200 runners of each gender. While women these days are running marathons as much or more than men, there are more serious, world class male runners still then women. So the 2:40 is designed to garner as many women marathoners as men.

Where will the trails be held? Phoenix?

A lot of discussion here for something that I'm pretty sure isn't close to being decided unless OP was in a meeting over the last week. That being said, I think 2:18/2:38 would be reasonable with them also tightening the half standards significantly. I also agree that all courses must be legal, unless it is a major. Legal does not mean IAAF certified as that label means nothing. The current IAAF list is far from accurate on the US side of the house.

The World Athletics list is based on whether a race’s course has been certified with World Athletics. Until the recent advent of the world rankings, this didn’t matter, and a USATF certification was good for all purposes.

Most US marathons of substance are already measured by people whose measurements will also be accepted by World Athletics, and if the race isn’t on World Athletics’ list already it can be added by having that measurer submit a bit of additional paperwork. (Worth noting, though, is that World Athletics requires that a course be remeasured every five years, whereas USATF only requires it be done every 10, so some races may have to decertify unexpectedly.) That being said, a race must still meet the necessary specs to be record- or time qualifier-eligible. If it doesn’t meet those specs, being on the World Athletics list means a race counts for world rankings (and qualification by world rankings), but is not eligible for an athlete to qualify by time, even if it’s on World Athletics’ list.

All of this being said, it seems like the right solution is for USATF to set an automatic standard that is at or just slower than World Athletics’ time qualifying standard and then accept the next xxx fastest up to the desired field size, with qualification opening synched with when times start counting for Olympic qualifying (that’ll mean a shorter window) and closing 45-60 days in advance of the Trials.

I’m in favor of a large Trials, and believe that USATF and/or the USOPC should foot a portion of the bill in order to facilitate that, but am not holding my breath. I also hope that USATF has already been having discussions with World Athletics about assuring its Trials are again Gold label, so that the simple “finish top 3 and you go” message can be used.

Also, I assume we won’t get official confirmation of what the qualifying process is until after this year’s annual meeting, at the earliest. What kind of bidders USATF can get based on a bid document (that I hope will be distributed soon) may inform how the standards are set, too—field size will matter a lot to potential LOCs.

Three more things worth noting:

-USATF could absolutely have a stringent auto standard in the half (1:02:00 and 1:11:00, or something like that) and not start the descending order list qualifiers until after that.

-Depending on your interpretation of the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act, if an athlete is somehow ranked in the top XX in the world (XX being equal to the number of spots designated for the marathon) without otherwise being qualified, they would likely have to be allowed in before the descending order list as well.

-If USATF sets a standard that eliminates some major traditional qualifying races (CIM being the main one that comes to mind), that feels like it would be short-sighted. Those races have been part of what has grown marathoning in the past decade-plus in America. Cutting them out as qualifying races would incentivize them to invest in other aspects of their race than the domestic US pro field, which would be bad for athletes (and this marathoning in this country on the whole) in the long term.

Basic Course Certification Information:

First some basics:

1. Terminology:

Course Accuracy - Certification. This refers to the course being measured according to the USATF & World Athletics Rules and "certified" by either USATF or World Athletics.

For USATF Certification, anyone can measure and have the course certified.

For World Athletic Certification, the measurement must be done by either an "A" or "B" grade World Athletics approved measurer.

2. Separation. This refers to the straight line distance from start to finish. Indicated by a percentage.

3. Drop. This refers to the over drop from the starting line to the finish line. Indicated by meters/km

Requirements:

World Records

1. Course must be measured by either an A or B measurer

2. The course distance must be verified (additional measurement) by a different A measurer. Courses may be pre-verified if measured by two A measurers or by a B, then checked by an A.

3. The separation may not exceed 50%.

4. The drop may not exceed 1 meter/km

Qualifying for the Olympic Games or World Championships. This is what has been required in the past but most likely will not change going forward for 2024 Olympic Games.

1. Course must be measured by either an A or B measurer & Certified by World Athletics. Once done, the course will be listed on the World Athletics website

2. The drop may not exceed 1 meter/km

3. ANY separation is acceptable.

4. In the past, runners were permitted to qualify for the WC or OG by finishing in the top 10 of a Platinum level marathon or top 5 Gold Label Marathon. There is no assurance that this will be the case moving forward. FYI Qualification standards for the Marathon in Eugene is only from Platinum Level marathons and not gold.

World Rankings

1. Course must be measured by either an A or B measurer & Certified by World Athletics. Once done, the course will be listed on the World Athletics website

2. ANY separation is acceptable

3. The drop MAY exceed 1 m/km BUT points are deducted depending on the drop.

https://www.worldathletics.org/world-ranking-rules/road-running

Courses for Qualifying for the Olympic Trials

I have no idea what will be decided other then the courses will need to be certified by USATF and most likely by World Athletics as well.

Olympic Trials Course

The course will need to meet the standards for Qualifying for the Olympic Games (see above) and should also for American/World Records

i dont expect marathons this fall to count wrote:

-USATF could absolutely have a stringent auto standard in the half (1:02:00 and 1:11:00, or something like that) and not start the descending order list qualifiers until after that.

I like the idea of pegging the standards to the number of athletes, as it takes away the somewhat distasteful process of deciding who is "good enough," when obviously there are no space constraints and we've always allowed a majority of entrants who have no shot of making the team. Heck, historically there were no qualifying standards; if you wanted to line up against Buddy Edelen in Yonkers, all you had to do was sign up.

That said, I'd prefer to use a descending list to set a time for the subsequent window. That way you have your target time, and you aren't going to get bumped at the last minute. If the 200th fastest marathoner on a record eligible course in the prior 4 years was 2:17, then the standard becomes 2:17, and if 350 people hit it, that's the field size, and the time will obviously be faster for the next cycle.

800 dude wrote:

That said, I'd prefer to use a descending list to set a time for the subsequent window. That way you have your target time, and you aren't going to get bumped at the last minute. If the 200th fastest marathoner on a record eligible course in the prior 4 years was 2:17, then the standard becomes 2:17, and if 350 people hit it, that's the field size, and the time will obviously be faster for the next cycle.

That doesn't solve the problem that using descending order list is designed to solve--namely, establishing a field maximum for LOC cost certainty (assume approx. $1000 of expenses per additional athlete between travel, hospitality, and race logistics; if the race doesn't cover those costs, you end up back in an LA situation where athletes who qualified by the B standard--or in this case, descending order list--have a crappy experience and that becomes the story of the Trials).

The target time to assure you won't get bumped under this system is the (substantially more-stringent) auto standard.

Hit that and you don't need to worry. If you're ranked within a few-dozen spots of the end of the descending order list, well, I wouldn't make your travel plans until after the window closes. (That's also why I'm proposing that the window close at least six and possibly as many as nine weeks before the Trials--for both participant travel purposes, for family/friends travel purposes, for media purposes to have a longer runway where the field is known, and for event logistics purposes for things like coordinating athlete fluids and other pre-race communication.)

Also, does anyone else think it's the best thing that happens on these boards these days when David Katz hops in a thread and we all learn how little we all know in comparison?

i dont expect marathons this fall to count wrote:

-If USATF sets a standard that eliminates some major traditional qualifying races (CIM being the main one that comes to mind), that feels like it would be short-sighted. Those races have been part of what has grown marathoning in the past decade-plus in America. Cutting them out as qualifying races would incentivize them to invest in other aspects of their race than the domestic US pro field, which would be bad for athletes (and this marathoning in this country on the whole) in the long term.

V good point.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

committee will be disliked wrote:

They are still finalizing a couple things.

Early Report

2:40 women

2:18 men

All courses must be record eligible

Hoping for 150-200 for each gender

1. Super shoes changed things

2. Non record courses are a joke

Possibly allowing Boston

Women are generally 30 seconds per mile slower than men over a marathon or 13 minutes. Why is there a 22 minute gap between the qualifying times? 2:40 is equivalent to a 2:27 male runner qualifying.

73% of statistics are fictional

D.Katz wrote:

3. The separation may not exceed 50%.

Does anyone know the original rationale for this requirement on WR-eligible courses? Like is there a publication or something somewhere that explains its adoption? I assume it has something to do with promoting courses that have turns in them, but you could just as easily take a mostly straight flat point-to-point and halve it with a single turnaround and get it a separation of 0 while having fewer turns than a "normal" course with a separation of 50%.

ThrowMeSomeNumbers wrote:

D.Katz wrote:

3. The separation may not exceed 50%.

Does anyone know the original rationale for this requirement on WR-eligible courses? Like is there a publication or something somewhere that explains its adoption? I assume it has something to do with promoting courses that have turns in them, but you could just as easily take a mostly straight flat point-to-point and halve it with a single turnaround and get it a separation of 0 while having fewer turns than a "normal" course with a separation of 50%.

Tailwind

ThrowMeSomeNumbers wrote:

D.Katz wrote:

3. The separation may not exceed 50%.

Does anyone know the original rationale for this requirement on WR-eligible courses? Like is there a publication or something somewhere that explains its adoption? I assume it has something to do with promoting courses that have turns in them, but you could just as easily take a mostly straight flat point-to-point and halve it with a single turnaround and get it a separation of 0 while having fewer turns than a "normal" course with a separation of 50%.

Boston --> tailwind

Nothing to do with the amount of turns.

It's to minimize the effect of wind.

Originally the separation could not exceed 30% but that changed several years ago to include some additional races.

Does anyone remember the RRCA Marathon Championships that ran across Lake Pontchartrain? I was there the first year (and helped measure it)....story for another day!

committee will be disliked wrote:

They are still finalizing a couple things.

Early Report

2:40 women

2:18 men

All courses must be record eligible

Hoping for 150-200 for each gender

1. Super shoes changed things

2. Non record courses are a joke

Possibly allowing Boston

As someone hoping to qualify in 2024 this sounds like good news. I was worried about them moving the marathon time to 2:17 or 2:16.

Having only record-eligible courses is very reasonable. Tough for CIM and Grandma's, though there are plenty of other opportunities to run fast. Chicago and Houston will see a lot of qualifiers; will a group like Trials of Miles or The Marathon Project step up to host a race on a lightning-fast course? Wouldn't be surprised to see them set up a race specifically for OTQ's, make it perfectly flat, have great rabbits, etc.

Any reports on the half times? Maybe 63:00 or 63:30 for men?

This may be semantic, but I don’t think anyone is proposing only record-eligible courses only be allowed. As noted above there is a difference between record-eligible and being eligible for qualifying times—which mostly comes down to a slight difference in start/finish separation. Some seem to say that they want only courses which are eligible for international championship qualifying times to be allowed (with exceptions for certain races, like Boston).

I’m with the few other posters who think this is a bad idea, as it could hurt the depth of American marathoning by giving fewer races reason to support domestic pros.

CIM is aided and not a qualifier for World Championships or the Olympics. If you’re going to qualify for the Trials, do it on a non-aided course. No more cheater courses. Boston isn’t a cheater course because the top 10 finishers are deemed to have hit the Olympic standard. This change won’t hurt American development one bit.

Yes I meant in terms of qualifying for the trials. This will impact the number of people who want to run those races and perhaps the overall perception

Which Olympian got their qualifier at CIM? NONE