It's pretty simple really. Orlando probably had a better package of luxury hotel suites, comped meals, and gift baskets for Max and his pals. Athlete considerations are second.
As someone who has lived in both Orlando & Chattanooga, Orlando makes the most sense here. While Chattanooga's weather might have a slight edge (40s vs 60s in Orlando), they don't have the same infrastructure when it comes to the airport/hotels. Orlando's course will be lightning fast while Chattanooga has steep hills all around town. Orlando will be able to attract more spectators given the time of year/other things to do in town before or after the race. Jon & Betsy Hughes at Track Shack are the finest people you will ever meet & having run in many of the races they put on I can assure you the experience will be first class.
That's not exactly the issue. The issue is that despite the advantages you claim that Orlando has over Chattanooga the vote was unanimous for Chattanooga. Why have a vote if it's going to be ignored? And at the very least if you're going to overrule that vote you need to explain your reasons very promptly.
If you are going to say they violated bylaws you should know the bylaws.
The bylaws clearly states that site selection is a decision of the National office and no where are the board of directors even mentioned. The fact they they even voted on it is bizzare since they have zero authority to make that decision and that is the way they wanted it.
Too bad. As other have said, transparency would be nice if going against a board vote. Maybe there is something else going on in the background that caused the Chattanooga bid to be dropped from consideration.
Chattanooga itself is a fantastic running town. Great outdoors city in general. I havent run the roads there but have done Stumpjump and Lookout Mountain which are both about as good of trail races you can get. I have a friend that lives there and his road runs on Strava regularly have 100 ft of gain per mile so it would have probably been a hilly race similar to Atlanta.
The only consideration should be selecting the best team for the games on a course as close as possible to the Olympic course. Not money or hotels or anything else. Chattanooga has to be closer to Paris, right?
Orlando, from a tourism standpoint, couldn't care less about these trials. There may be other reasons but Orlando already has all the tourist dollars they need. Compared to Disney, Universal, and people chasing the sun for a vacation the trials money will be a rounding error, likely in the red direction actually.
It's pretty simple really. Orlando probably had a better package of luxury hotel suites, comped meals, and gift baskets for Max and his pals. Athlete considerations are second.
Reminds me of the time they chose to hold the race at 1pm in LA on an 80 degree day
Honest question: Why bribe someone for the trials? Outside of USATF who actually benefits from hosting the trials?
Host city. People come there to compete, watch, and plenty of free advertising of how great their city is. They bring in revenue from hotels, travel expenses, etc.
Any minor conference will bring in more revenue than the trials in terms of hotels etc. I doubt that is the answer. Probably more the advertisement it gets you for free.
But late in the selection process, after the board vote, Chattanooga’s bid was disqualified.
Neither USATF nor Conley would confirm that Chattanooga was disqualified nor explain why.
A board member, Jim Estes, had been involved as an advisor on Chattanooga’s bid. Estes had disclosed the relationship from the beginning—board members and other volunteers with USATF are required to file conflict of interest forms and keep them up to date—and Estes recused himself from voting on anything related to the Olympic Marathon Trials. His recusal is noted in the meeting minutes.
Does Sarah have her facts straight on who “DQed” Chattanooga? The USOPC gives the final approval, right? Sounds like there was a major conflict of interest having a board member (Jim Estes) as part of Chattanooga’s bid.
But late in the selection process, after the board vote, Chattanooga’s bid was disqualified.
Neither USATF nor Conley would confirm that Chattanooga was disqualified nor explain why.
A board member, Jim Estes, had been involved as an advisor on Chattanooga’s bid. Estes had disclosed the relationship from the beginning—board members and other volunteers with USATF are required to file conflict of interest forms and keep them up to date—and Estes recused himself from voting on anything related to the Olympic Marathon Trials. His recusal is noted in the meeting minutes.
Does Sarah have her facts straight on who “DQed” Chattanooga? The USOPC gives the final approval, right? Sounds like there was a major conflict of interest having a board member (Jim Estes) as part of Chattanooga’s bid.
From the article, he disclosed that early in the process and recused himself from the voting matters.
The real question is where did Nike want the Trials held?
Whether there was a good reason or not, the fact that the top organization of the sport can't provide a clear and timely comment or explanation proves how incompetent the leadership is.
I have it on good authority that the selection committee was bribed with $60 Darden Restaurants, Inc., gift cards. (They are valid at Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, Bahama Breeze, Seasons 52, Yard House and Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen.) Just a disgusting example of Orlando-style corruption.
Honest question: Why bribe someone for the trials? Outside of USATF who actually benefits from hosting the trials?
Host city. People come there to compete, watch, and plenty of free advertising of how great their city is. They bring in revenue from hotels, travel expenses, etc.
I mean.. is it really that big of a deal? There is TV coverage, but I doubt it'll bring in many more people than an Ironman event or a Rock and Roll Marathon, of which there is one every weekend it seems.
If you are going to say they violated bylaws you should know the bylaws.
The bylaws clearly states that site selection is a decision of the National office and no where are the board of directors even mentioned. The fact they they even voted on it is bizzare since they have zero authority to make that decision and that is the way they wanted it.
It's awfully rare that I will stand up for USATF, but this is a good point. The fact that the board decided to have this vote at all is pretty fishy. I realize Estes recused himself from this process, but it's hard not to wonder whether there was some kind of loyalty to his project going on.
Also, I think people are making too much out of the "unanimity" of the vote. Unanimity is the norm when boards vote. The disagreement happens in the lead up, and when a consensus emerges, the people who may not have been in complete agreement will still vote with the majority unless they are vehemently opposed.
If you are going to say they violated bylaws you should know the bylaws.
The bylaws clearly states that site selection is a decision of the National office and no where are the board of directors even mentioned. The fact they they even voted on it is bizzare since they have zero authority to make that decision and that is the way they wanted it.
I never said that the selection of Orlando over Chattanooga was against the bylaws. I said "usatf regularly not abiding by its own bylaws". Is that not a correct statement?
The selection of Orlando over Chattanooga is just another example of the cronies at the home office completely disregarding the wants and needs of membership. They have given themselves the authority to override all decisions, make backdoor deals, have zero transparency, disregard their own bylaws, and are unchallengeable. Our sport is small and in a vulnerable position as it is. Having these people in charge is the worst possible scenario.
Yes, but that’s a major conflict of interest to be part of the bid packet and also on the board of directors- even if you recuse yourself. Sarah needs to fact check who’s decision it was to DQ Chattanooga. USATF doesn’t have the final say.
It's pretty simple really. Orlando probably had a better package of luxury hotel suites, comped meals, and gift baskets for Max and his pals. Athlete considerations are second.
Reminds me of the time they chose to hold the race at 1pm in LA on an 80 degree day
Came here to post exactly this. The reasons behind the selection are transparent enough if you’ve actually been watching. USATF and USOPC officials must be pampered wherever they go in an official capacity. Sorry athletes, your reps inside the machine are powerless to change this.
As an athlete who will be racing I'm happy it's in Orlando. Hopefully the weather isn't too crazy hot. I wish it would more consistently be put somewhere fast that also typically has good weather. Atlanta was crazy hilly, not really any flat stretches, just a bunch of really long hills going up or down. LA was hot, although I'll give them the benefit of the doubt as it was abnormally hot that day. Go back to when the trials were last at Houston. Blazing fast. With the depth today it would be an insane race to have the trials at Houston in January. Recently we've seen a ton of the top half marathon runners going there and having a bunch of 61:00-63:00 people. Have everyone race the marathon that day and we'd have a dozen sub 2:10's, people qualifying would likely be running 2:07/2:08. It would be way more exciting than people running 2:09/2:10 on a hilly Atlanta course, or 2:10 on a potentially hot and humid Orlando day.
Yes, but that’s a major conflict of interest to be part of the bid packet and also on the board of directors- even if you recuse yourself. Sarah needs to fact check who’s decision it was to DQ Chattanooga. USATF doesn’t have the final say.
Right, but that was disclosed prior and updated according to the article. Also, the board unanimously voted for Chattanooga based on the recommendations of the men's and women's long distance committees. I guess it's possible that Estes had so much influence over the committees and also the board, but that seems unlikely, and it wouldn't explain 2016.
Again, the fact that nobody can explain or comment on it doesn't look great for anyone making the decision.