Update: USATF WILL honor the order of finish at Trials for those who have broken 2:11:30

I loke knowing the top 3 are going but I've always wished we had some provision where someone like Connor Mantz can be named to the team if he sick that day or something.

But. it is what it is and I also don't think we should take something away from someone who's earned it.

Have you been paying attention?

I believe that Zach Panning finishing 12th at the WC that were statistically a better field than any Olympics thus far (39 sub 2:08s in the field) is ahead of Mantz.

Galen Rupp is starting to trend in the right direction and runs well in the heat is probably ahead of Mantz.

Clayton Young closed better than Mantz at Chicago and beat him at New Haven 20k and is just figuring out that he may be better.

Fauble beat him in Chicago.

Mantz has run a fast time on a fast course in 45 degrees and may win the Trials but why would we automatically grant him a spot?

What's crazy is that such a huge country like the US with so many runners in universities training in ideal conditions has to worry about getting 3 runners at the Olympics...when France where training conditions are nowhere as good got 5 guys under 2h08 this Sunday in Valencia !

And a lot more drugs too. Amazing how that works.

LRC has really muddied the waters on this. They jumped the gun on the initial story -- sure Rojo, you don't HAVE to wait for USATF comment to publish, but your readers would have been better off. Look what has happened: you reversed your own reporting, and the latest article is still extremely confusing. I know part of that is on USATF, but it's YOUR JOB to make it LESS confusing, not MORE.

This on top of the Sha'Carri contract article that includes no mention of any attempt to reach her new agent...

This is poor journalism (and this criticism is coming from an actual journalist).

In this scenario Fauble doesn’t deserve to go. Whoever unlocked the spots has nothing to do with who gets top 3 in the trials with a standard of 2:11:30. Isn’t this what you have called for in the past? For a country to have their picks after spots have been unlocked? And for the US picks to be decided by the trials. But every trial has always had an individual standard. If you start muddying the waters with talk of Fauble having been the one to open up a spot then it starts sliding into committee mode and politicking. Just let the numbers decide.

Agree. Setting a standard 11 minutes slower than the WR is not unreasonable.

Olympic qualifying is convoluted on the World Athletics level, which trickles down.

The simple solution is obvious: athletes should run faster BEFORE the Trials and meet the standard. There is never any confusion about who is making the team in the 100, the hurdles, men's shot put, etc.

In short: Run faster. Scratching and clawing to figure out how slow people can make the Olympic team and be no factor in the race is a first-world problem.

FYI I spoke with Amy Begley this morning, who is the director of long distance running programs at USATF. She said that USATF has temporarily removed their selection policy from its website because the initial version was not clear enough.

She reiterated that the top 3 finishers at the Trials will be selected to the team as long as they have run 2:11:30 by the conclusion of the Trials. If the US does not unlock a third Olympic spot until May 5, that third spot will still go to the 3rd placer at the Trials -- as long as that athlete has run under 2:11:30 by February 3. This policy was USATF's intention all along but it was not conveyed clearly by the initial policy, which is why it is being revised.

As for the Fauble scenario we mentioned in our article -- he wins the Trials in 2:11:31 and is the top-ranked American in the Road to Paris list on May 5 -- she was not able to give an answer on that yet.

If USATF intends to award the spots to the top 3 at trials, they should have written something simple like this:

Athletes must have run 2:11:30 or better at or before Trials to be eligible for the team (add note about time frame, eligible courses etc.). Available Olympic team spots, and any additional spots that become available on May 8th, will be awarded based on order of finish at the Trials.

Instead we have this long, convoluted document that contradicts what they now say. The only way I can explain it is people at USATF may be confused about what a "Qualified Athlete" is and are using two different definitions interchangeably. Even though it very clearly and explicitly defines it in the document (top 64/sub 2:08:10, same as the World Athletics definition). The document even goes on to say that merely sub 2:11:30 is an "unqualified athlete".

Further muddying the waters, they say you can't chase the time standard after Trials. But which time standard? 2:08:10 or 2:11:30? Imagine some 2:12 runner finishes third at Trials, but goes on to run a 2:08 flat at London and also gets themselves into a Top 80 world ranking. They finished third, they unlocked the third spot, but they don't get to go?

Unless I'm missing something, I don't understand the confusion. The US men have two guaranteed spots unlocked by Mantz and Young running sub 2:08:10. There is a third spot that will be unlocked in May by Fauble's world ranking. So top 2 at the trials will be named to the team immediately. The 3rd placer will technically have to wait to be officially named to the team in May, but can be certain he will be on the team immediately after finishing.

Of course, that assumes the top 3 all have the 2:11:30 standard. If someone in the top 3 doesn't have that time, they will go down the trials results list and name the next person with that time to the Olympic team. This is exactly how it works in the track events.

This is the remaining issue as I see it. USATF is saying you can't chase sub-2:11:30 if you don't have it by the conclusion of the Trials. The main reason is they want to be able to name the Olympic team on the day -- something they thought was likely to happen before Fauble dropped out of the top 64.

But since the final spot isn't officially unlocked until May 5 now, I don't think it makes sense not to send the 3rd placer in the scenario you outlined above.

Slower than 2:11:30 isn't going to be top 3 anyway

A little off topic, but for the guys that didn't have the standard, then go run Boston knowing their times won't count even if under 2:11:30, now have to pin their hopes that they run a fast fall marathon? Maybe Boston gave them appearance money? Why don't they do a fast European marathon? If they are 2:10 type runners, don't they have an agent? Shoe company assistance? (Or running CIM in the fall?) I know running Valencia might be expensive, but this is for the Olympic team. Just qualify so you can train and not worry about getting the time.

There are only a few opportunities to run a marathon during the qualifying window, I would try to get that out-of-the-way ASAP, knowing it might take more than one shot, THEN run Boston.

I disagree. This is the ultimate Rojo victory tour.

Jon has a masters in journalism and is old school. I'm part fan, part journalist and just want shi* done.

Did you see the latest update? USATF has now pulled the selection criteria off the website as they admit it doesn't say what it's supposed to say.

So my story got people to notice, they got a ton of calls/complaints, and now they are doing something about it. You're welcome.

What's crazy to me is Jonathan has learned this thing goes through a ton of layers, from USATF to lawyers, to USOPC and ultimately to Max Siegel. All of those people read that thing and signed off on it. Pure incompetence.

Let me write it for them.

USATF intends to select its Paris Olympic marathon team by honoring the order of finish at its US Olympic Marathon Trials. The top 3 finishers at the Trials who end up eligible to run in the Olympic marathon either because they've run under 2:11:30 on a WA certified course eligible for time qualification or because their world ranking on the final Road to Paris list is in the top 80 (or would be top 80 if any and all Americans that they beat at the Trials is/are removed from the list) in May 2024 will be selected the Olympic team. If the US only receives two entrants, then the top two eligible finishers will be selected.

If there aren't enough eligible finishers at the Trials to fill the US's number of Olympic spots, or if for some reason they Trials are never held, then the team will be filled based on Road To Paris Rankings. Additionally, any runners who run a marathon after the Trials will be ineligible for the Olympics even if that runner's race unlocks the US's third spot (But that spot can be given to someone else).

Just to be clear, an athlete can be picked for the team even though they haven't run under 2:11:30 on an eligible course if their final Road to Paris Ranking ends up in the top 80 in May 2024 (or close enough to the top 80 that it would be top 80 if any and all US athletes they beat at the Trials is/are removed from the list). For example, neither Scott Fauble or Jacob Thomson have run under 2:11:30 on a WA eligible course, but either or both could make the team if they end up running well at the Trials and maintain their high Road to Paris rankings. Let's say Thomson beats Fauble at the Trials and finishes third and Fauble ends up ranked #79 and Thomson #81 on the Road to Paris list, USATF will send Thomson as he would be good to go if Fauble is taken out of the rankings.

USATF release could be written better, but you are not reading it correctly.

The USATF statement is breaking this into several consecutive bullets (page #2)
A sub 2:08:10 time run in Boston cannot be used as Qualified by Entry Standard aka Auto Qualifier to unlock a spot for your country since it does exceed the 1m/km drop rule.

Next bullet states Boston CAN be used for the other qual pathway, world rankings. As the case for Fauble. On the RTP webpage click on the "170th - 1179p" text you will see his Boston 2:09:44 Time has an IAAF score of 1146 but a performance score for use in RTP ranking of 1211. I believe the 1211 score reflects both added weight from his 7th place at a world major event but also deducted weight based on the total elevation drop. Anybody know the perf scoring formula?

Whatever the likelihood of Fauble winning in a time in a time over 2:11:30, I would expect
his world ranking would still go up based on perf scoring on winning a national championship or not materially go down. Hard to know what the top 80 list will look like in May but seems likely he would be in the top 80 and go on his own qualification. Worse case he uses the replacement rule, and potentially displace someone, as I don't see any language from IOC or UATF specific to the 2:11:30 pathway and restricted aid courses - that bullet only pertains the to the 2:08:10 auto qualifier, IMO.

I do have concerns about the no chase rule. I get USATF intent to make it a settled mater on trials date to elevate the importance the event, but USATF has no control over what happens between Feb and May. If your USATF response reads correct they very well may not allow him to chase a qualifier to boost his ranking after the trials despite IOC allowing it. This would be a departure of a USATF mandate to send as many qualified athletes as possible.

If a runner is in the TOP 80 after trials and run a half to boost his ranking before May 4th, would that still be chasing???

(1) Gault is old school? Since when? Also he’s like 29 years old

(2) so you admit that you’re not a real journalist

(3) just bc a story gets attention doesn’t mean it’s good. that’s NOT WHAT GOOD JOURNALISM IS. You getting them to respond to you is part of you DOING YOUR JOB BEFORE you publish

(4) your half story followed by half explanations has left me more confused than if you had just waited and wrote ONE story with clarifications, in which you could have pointed out anything you wanted about USATF’s flaws

(5) all of your articles and posts and followup posts and articles have left me more confused than ever

Exactly. I’m more confused than ever and that’s 100% Rojo’s fault