Final touches on Olympic Marathon Trials

Alexi Santana wrote:

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

Okay by me. However, I'm not really bothered whether the Pete Bromkas of the world are in or out of the OT, especially if they're layering on supershoes and supercourses to get there. I honestly don't see this affecting the actual prestige of any given race, that's splitting hairs.

Not An Expert wrote:

I guess my point is that CIM (and, to a lesser degree, some other races like Grandma’s) have hung their hat over the past decade or so on deep fields of emerging elites and Olympic Trials qualifiers, and have supported these runners with travel stipends, OTQ bonuses, and a great experience. If sub-elites can’t run qualifiers at these races, I’m not sure they’ll get the same bang for their buck in supporting them, and they may invest in other parts of the event to build their brand/reputation, rather than sub-elites/borderline elites. I don’t think that would be good for American marathoning, and also seems like a disservice to these races.

So what if these races change their focus away from OTQers if it is better for the integrity of US Marathoning? If you're fit enough to take a shot, there are plenty of races across the US that are legitimate courses (record eligible in this sense).

why on earth would they need to 'tighten the half standards significantly'? The half standard was not an issue. Do you know how many women qualified with a half standard? 12. And how many women qualified with the marathon standard? 500. Are you that eager to get ten or so people out vs the hundreds of extra people that the softer marathon standard allowed?

Not An Expert wrote:

I guess my point is that CIM (and, to a lesser degree, some other races like Grandma’s) have hung their hat over the past decade or so on deep fields of emerging elites and Olympic Trials qualifiers, and have supported these runners with travel stipends, OTQ bonuses, and a great experience. If sub-elites can’t run qualifiers at these races, I’m not sure they’ll get the same bang for their buck in supporting them, and they may invest in other parts of the event to build their brand/reputation, rather than sub-elites/borderline elites. I don’t think that would be good for American marathoning, and also seems like a disservice to these races.

That’s fair. Hopefully other races will step up for the sub-elite group going for OTQs. Other than Chicago and Houston, I think the most qualifiers for 2024 will come from a race that doesn’t exist yet

I have heard that the only reason for a HM qualifier is to not lose a Rupp or Seidel. The standard is going to be super aggressive like 62 minutes for men and 71 minutes for women.

Would love to know when the window will open.

A race that doesn't exist? Marathons aren't a charity and a couple hundred fast guys won't offset the cost of running a marathon. There could be a next rock n roll that attracted the vacation runners and paid enough prize money to get the elites. Otherwise, no one is going to go to a new race. There are fast courses that get no fast people because they offer no prize money already in existence. I guess something like the marathon project could pop up again but it won't be big when half the people are going to Chicago, a third are going to Houston, and what not.

committee will be disliked wrote:

Which Olympian got their qualifier at CIM? NONE

Really great point, minus the fact that CIM hosted a US championship in recent years

same.

Not An Expert wrote:

I guess my point is that CIM (and, to a lesser degree, some other races like Grandma’s) have hung their hat over the past decade or so on deep fields of emerging elites and Olympic Trials qualifiers, and have supported these runners with travel stipends, OTQ bonuses, and a great experience. If sub-elites can’t run qualifiers at these races, I’m not sure they’ll get the same bang for their buck in supporting them, and they may invest in other parts of the event to build their brand/reputation, rather than sub-elites/borderline elites. I don’t think that would be good for American marathoning, and also seems like a disservice to these races.

However, if USATF adopts the “World Athletics Olympics and World Champs Qualifying” rules as laid out by D. Katz (see his posts earlier in this thread), Grandmas would still be eligible. I also don’t think Grandma’s has been used as an OTQ-mill like CIM and has built its reputation for being a great experience for all runners.

Is there another Marathon project type race this year?

The committee is going to especially be disliked if they don't announce in time for fall marathon season.

Rojo can you get an official statement from USATF on expecting timing?

Have a connection on the USATF board and I'm hearing 2:37 for women. Not sure about men. Not a great sign for non-professionals though

Any idea when these will be announced? You'd think they'd want to get it out there before the fall major marathons begin!

I don't know. The LOC has only once in history covered expenses for all athletes, and that was in Atlanta. It wasn't required to do so, any nobody expected them to. The water bottle issue became big in 2007 primarily because it was USATF that made the decision without even telling the LOC, and the LOC was like, "no, really, we can do this and we were planning to do this." If you're not covering expenses, then the marginal increase in cost for 20% more athletes than expected is pretty small.

Well there are two planning issues. One is travel, which for a lot of people is a pretty big deal. 6-9 weeks is still short notice for relatives to get time off work, and the cost is higher when you book closer. This isn't a small expense for a lot of people. The other planning issue is bigger: What pace are you training to run? For some athletes, it's a multi-year plan to get to a place where 5:18 pace feels comfortable. And even if the training isn't quite so specific, people have to decide what pace to run when they start a race. The faster you try to go, the higher risk of totally failing, so it's not like you can just say, "run as fast as possible."

With fall marathon season underway, we need some updates. The standard tells a lot of people whether to specialize in the half or the full. Imagine you're shooting for a 104 half and then find half can no longer be used to qualify or its now 103 or something. Training for the marathon is radically different. Or you're training for the marathon and the standard is 216 and not 219, maybe that's out of your reach and you just want to focus on club xc nats instead or you need to run say London over Boston to get a few seconds off.

USATF is really dropping the ball on this. The standards and qualifying window should be announced as soon as the qualifying window for the previous olympic marathon trials ends so USATF is way behind what would be the right thing to do.

The latest rumblings say fall of 2022 with a shorter qualifying window. I don't really agree with that approach but an october 2021 opening seems less likely.

I won't be qualifying, but I just sent a message via twitter. I agree they are dropping the ball. This doesn't seem like it should be difficult to decide upon and communicate.