Olympic qualifying Standards

[Dallen]

This discussion is already brewing on Paul's blog, but I thought I would bring the topic onto the official message board for anyone who may not have seen it.

They changed the men's Olympic Marathon Trials qualifying time to 2:19 and excluded net downhill and point to point courses (more than 30% distance from start to finish points). 

[Dallen]

My opinion is that this could be a good thing, but it does squash the dreams of those of us who hope to someday qualifying at St Goerge on a good day with perfect cool temperatures and a nice tailwind.

In all honesty I think it is fair to exclude the aided courses. However, the lower time standard is a big drop. I would rather see more people qualify. I think it is goor for the running community. Here in Chicago we had about 5 local guys qualify and there were 20 or so who legitimately had hopes of qualifying. With the new standards most of these guys would have never even tried.

[Ted Leblow]

Ok, I have a very strong opinion about this and I really feel people are not talking about the right issues. For me it is much more than just making a tougher standard. Most that are in support of this argue that it can be a good thing because it will make people train harder to get 3 minutes faster. I really do not find this true but to me this really is not the main issue with the change in the standard. I think this is a mute point in comparison with what I see as the bigger issues. However, this point of making the standard tougher in order to make people train harder and run faster is fairly absurd anyway. If this standard was applied to the last couple of Olympic Trials we would have possibly ended several runners careers before they really began. Three quick cases in point are Trent Briney, Brian Sell, and Weldon Johnson. Trent, Brian and Weldon would not have qualified in 2004 or 2000 if this rule were in place. All three may have not continued their running careers as all three were at decision points in their careers debating on continueing to run and train to try and get faster with a chance of someday possibly qualifying for the Olympics or moving on to graduate school programs. By qualifying and going to the trials it lit a fire in them that allowed to make the decision to continue to train full time and get to the next level and for Brain ultimately make the team when others would have never picked him to do so. This is just several examples of how this change has many second and third level effects that were not considered. Hopefully that alone should put to rest most of the arguments that use this as the main reason that they support the new standard. If not I am sure I could find many more examples as well. Now let me move on to what I consider to be the main issue involved in this terrible decision and that is the Future Development of our Sport!

USATF has stated that the main reason for the change was logistics. They want to reduce the size of the field in order to make it easier to manage for race directors and reduce overall costs. This is another smoke screen excuse. First of all if a race director can't handle managing a race for 160 or even 300-500 people then they have no business being a race director, expecially for the Olympic Trials. This was not the case in NY as all agreed the race was run very well and had no issues. As far as cost the B Standard guys paid their own way so the cost is very minimal for them. In fact a better solution is to raise the A Standard and charge an entry fee for the B Standard guys if you want to reduce costs. So what does this decision and the smoke screen USATF excuse have to do with the Future Development of our Sport? Absolutely everything!

This comes down to basic business fundamentals. Most importantly MARKETING. How do we grow our sport and hopefully develop a future generation of young runners that can train and compete with the worlds best? The best way to do this is to get as many kids as possible interested in our sport as early as possible. The more kids we have training at all ages across our country the greater chance we will have at producing greater numbers of faster runners for generations to come. In short we need ADVERTISING and MARKETING to the youth across our nation. We need something that catches their interest and gets them interested and dreaming of becoming a competitive runner. So how do we do that? Oh wait we have already been doing that and it has been working as evidenced by the increased number of faster times the last 8 years (which happems to coinincide with the fact that we lowered the qualifying time and thus increased the number of qualifiers, an important point later in my argument). Or should I say we WERE doing that and it WAS working because with this decision it has been cut off at the kness. Why fix what is not broken. Is it becoming clearer yet? Ok, let me explain for those that are asking, what are you talking about?

Having 160 or 200 or even 500 runners qualify for the OLYMPIC TRIALS (key wording hear as this is part of what is called brand recognition in the business world) is exactly what we want and need to accomplish the best MARKETING and ADVERTISING that we could ever ask for and it is essentially free. Every single B Standard qualifier and evey single OLYMPIC Trials Qualifier that ran between 2:19 and 2:22 that qualified this year was and is an ambassador to our sport. They are a walking, breathing, running commercial or billboard for us around the entire country. Every single one of them gets the local coverage in their home towns across almost every state in our nation from small towns to big cities. They are talked about and looked up to in their communities and kids that see them and hear that they qualified for the OLYMPIC Trials sees them and the seed is planted. Many of them also have great stories to tell that the American Public loves to hear about. It is the guy that works 60 hours a week, has five kids or overcame all sorts of hurdles or trajedies along his path to qualifying that makes for good press. The guy that trains full time, is single, and has no life other than running does not sell. Not to down play their accomplishments but it is just the truth when it come to ADVERTISING. Besides if we are truly concerned with the Development of our Sport then who cares if a 35 year old who runs a 2:21 but has a great story to tell steals a little of the lime lite from the top runners. It comes back to MARKETING and ADVERTISING fundamentals. We need to use what works and gets the biggest bang for our buck. So with the new standards this means only 38-40 runners would have qualified and ran at the trials this year. So we would have lost almost 150 or 70-75% of our ambassadors (walking billboards) placed throughout our entire country (not to mention the fact that these additional runners and their familes bring much more revenue to the host city). Who cares if these runners do not have a legitimate chance at actually making the team. To the kids and dare I say consumers (yes the ones that buy the shoes, etc.. that ultimately fund our sport and our top athletes allowing them to be paid and pursue their dreams) of our sport they don't care. All they know or hear about is that he qualified for the OLYMPIC Trials and again the seed has been planted and the dream is now possible. By destroying these free ambassadors we have destroyed our free and most effective advertising that we had for our sport. Besides the fact that we have possibly stopped the future development of a Brain Sell, Trent Briney and countless others who may just hang the shoes up and move on with life because they do not make the trials intially.

I could go on and on just from a business stand point alone. This decision makes absolutely no sense at all. Every argument for this decision can easily be shot down and counter arguments can easily show why this is a poor business decision when it comes to the Development of our Sport. Besides the fact that USATF is suppossed to represent each and every one of us, the due paying members of USATF. With out our money the trip to Hawaii where a very small group of individuals made a very poor decision would not have been possible. The fact that this decision was made with absoultely no consulting whatsoever is disturbing. Those at the top of our sport , unfortunately, seem to have lost touch with what the true purpose of USATF should be. The DEVELOPMENT (MARKETING) of our Sport! Unfortuantely this seems to stem from an elitist attitude at the head of USATF. When those at the top of our sport feel that they can do as they please without considering the voice of those that they are suppossed to be representing it is truly a shame. In this case the saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely looks to be true as this decision is absoultely absurd!

Ok, I have vented and am now stepping off of my soap box. I am passionate about the Development of our Sport and unfortunately this decision has the potential to destroy many future dreams and generations of potential young runners that may now never be exposed to our sport in their home towns.

[Superfly]

One other point is that back in '84 or whatever year it was that the time was 2:19 there was 200 people who qualified... Well I would guess that that number would be cut in half if they all had to qualify on a non- aided course. With a qualifying time of 2:19 on a few select courses I'd guess that in four years there will be less that a 100 guys at the starting line.
All I can say personally is that for those of us that wanted to qualify on the next go around things just got a lot more complex. Now we've got to find a certified marathon and run it basically every year-starting now so we are use to running on that course. So by the time we are in shape to maybe squeak out a 2:18:59 we've worked out all the kink's with travel, motel's, and like I said the course it's self. That's all going to cost the runner $$$ and stress.
Hopefully a few of us can hang in there -bite the bullet, and be able to live this dream...

[Adam R Wende]

Paul's original posting: http://marathongis.com/blog/?p=96
I have to say I'm very torn. Paul, Sean, and Sasha make some very good points. In all honesty I think it will hurt. The few people that will push harder from the 2:15 to the 2:10 will still do that. What will be lost are the guys that are trying to push from a 2:30 to a 2:20 and motivate those around them to push harder to a 2:15.

I agree with Paul that if we had 200 2:19 marathoners in the past we should have that many again. But why not change the standard then, after we have a surplus of people? Stories, like Sean’s, Logan’s, and Paul’s motivate me to try harder much more than some guy who was running low 4 minute miles in high school and just switched over to the marathon. I’ve never considered myself a top marathoner but have always had aspirations of a sub-2:30. Am I still going to shoot for that, YES! But most recently and having a lot to do the success of the three qualifiers on this blog I had visions of spending the next 4-8 yrs trying to get the 2:22 mark. Am I still going to shoot for that, maybe but yet another 3-min does put a little water on the flame. It seems like a big jump. Drop the B-std and keep the A-std were it is for a cycle. Then think about lowering it. I hope that Paul is right and that this lights a fire under some guys just sitting on their 2:15 times but I hope that this doesn’t prevent a bunch of 2:30 marathoners pushing to the low 2:20s. As mentioned in the postings, we need to increase the press of middle tier races. I’m self motivated but it takes a lot to give up so much of your life for your passion and it never hurts to have intermittent goals to shoot for. Right now there is nothing in the 3:10 (Boston) to now 2:19 range…

The big question here is why does the US even have the trials? It is for public relations. It would be much better to identify our top marathoners and not make them run themselves stupid a few months before the games. Again is the Boston marathon for the winner? I don’t think so! The Boston marathon is more for the 3:15 marathoner than the 2:45 marathoner. I ran Boston not for the prestige but because people actually have heard of it. Qualifying… I’ve done that in training runs. The same could be said for the winners of the Trials, they could run a 2:22 in training runs. Boston doesn’t motivate me, the pursuit of PRs, and the dream of the trials does. However, Boston motivates many of my friends and co-workers in the 3:15 to 4 hr range… I’ve often thought about suggesting a tougher Boston qualifying time but everytime I thought about it the answer was the same. Just come up with another prestigious marathon that you have to qualify for…

Ted and Superfly posted while I was drafting my original message. I have to agree and add the following. The more I think about it they are only hurting the sport. Back in 1984, 1 in 2 kids was not overweight, sitting on the couch, playing video games all day. We need things to get more people out on the road not motivate the 50 of us on this blog who are already self motivated and would continue running anyway. I agree with Ted “As far as cost the B Standard guys paid their own way so the cost is very minimal for them. In fact a better solution is to raise the A Standard and charge an entry fee for the B Standard guys if you want to reduce costs.” The people that will go from a 2:15 to a 2:10 would do that anyway, they look at the marathon on the world level and want to run a 2:04 anyway and will push just as hard. Overall, he has said it much better than I did but I’ll post my thoughts anyway.

[James Winzenz]

Some strong feelings here.  I would just like to say that I agree with Ted.  I got up at 4:30 in the morning to watch the Olympic trials ONLY because of 3 guys there that qualified at St. George.  NOT because of Ryan Hall or any other "Super elite" professional athlete.  It is much easier to get excited about a sport when you know the story of someone involved.  I think guys who are running 2:20 marathons really are sufficiently motivated already without making it so much more complicated (by limiting the races) and lowering the time so drastically.  I predict that it will discourage more people than it will encourage--both possible OT qualifiers, and people like me.  Are some people going to let themselves off the hook because of this change?  I think so.   Hmmm.  Looks like I forgot to log James out.
--Lybi   

[Sasha Pachev]

I will restate some points  I posted in Paul's blog.

To summarize, the new standard is a path of lesser resistance for USATF. In most sports, no amount of hard word can compensate significantly for the lack of natural ability. Marathon running is perhaps the most notable exception. This is where somebody who sits on his bum and violates the laws of health more often than not gets beat by somebody who works in spite of the worker's lack of natural ability. This unique qualify of the marathon distance creates what I call a grey zone - a time range that you can see from an undertrained  athlete with serious Olympic potential as well as from an athlete without it who does everything right but cannot do any better by doing anything currently known to exercise science. I would put that grey zone at 2:20 - 2:40 .

With the standard being 2:22, especially with St. George allowed, a less talented individual could dip under the standard if he maximized his potential through proper training, nutrition, and rest overtime. In my view, this is precisely what USATF did not want happening. How do you distinguish between an undertrained Olympic caliber talent runner, and a hard worker without one? You guessed it, make them run a half, or even better, 10 K! The science of today knows how to get endurance through hard work, but it has no clue about how to get speed through hard work.

I will not belabor the point of why you need speed to run a world-class marathon. Suffice it to say that if running one 5:00 mile is a struggle for you, you will not be able to run 26 of them like that back to back. Instead, I will focus on the issue of how a guy without speed can get it.

To short-circuit the previously encountered dead-end paths of this discussion. The lack of fast-twitch fibers is not a cause of the lack of the kind of speed we are interested in. In fact, it is good to lack them. If your speed comes through fast-twitch power, this is the bad kind of speed. You cannot sustain it. It is a waste of time to develop that kind of speed for a marathoner. We are interested in developing the speed WITHOUT increasing the fast-twitch muscle power. Thus most of what a sprint coach would tell you do it is not relevant to us.

The exercise science of today is not particularly interested in this subject, just like it was not interested in how a guy without endurance would develop it back in the 40s and 50s. It is perfectly happy to state, in more polite words, though, that if you are born a loser you are to remain a loser for the rest of your life. Something deep inside me tells me this is wrong, though. The pioneers of our sport like Paavo Nurmi, Emil Zatopek, and Arthur Lydiard found success through their persistence that eventually convinced the public endurance could be developed. It is now time to prove that sustainable speed can be developed as well. I believe our Fast Running Blog community can make a contribution in this regard.

Elder Oaks, one of the leaders of the LDS Church, said at one point: "How do we begin? We begin by beginning. Inspiration comes when we are on the move." I would like to begin. I have a plan for the first few steps. I want to know something about how and if a guy with sustainable speed is anatomically different from a guy without it. I need a radiologist willing to volunteer a couple of hours a week with access to the equipment to be able to measure bone lengths, ligament attachment points, the shape of the spine, and the quality of the spinal discs + 5 guys that can run a sub-15:00 5 K + 5 guys that cannot run a sub-16:30 5 K and are bad sprinters (100 meters slower than 14.0) consistently training at 60 miles a week.

[Jon Allen]

Boy, there sure are some long responses to this post.  My opinion?  Likes James and Ted, I think getting more people is better.  I, too, only followed the marathon because I knew people in it.  I was proud to know them.  I am glad to see elite (i.e. Culpepper, etc) runners get publicity.  I am more glad (is that correct english?) to see some of my friends run in the trials.

[Paul Petersen]

Perhaps one solution is to elevate the prominence of the U.S. Championships that are held every year. For example, the 2008 Marathon Championships are the Twin Cities Marathon. I believe there is a time standard to get in, but forget what it is. The problem is that the yearly U.S. Championships are currently not in the spotlight at all. If this changed, and running championship races become the "cool" thing to do, I think that could help the grassroot programs. Perhaps some incentive, such as letting the Top 30 runners at the Half Marathon and Marathon Championships every year into Trials, along with the existing "auto" time standards, would give 2:20-2:25-ish runners hope and reason to train. Kind of like how in NCAA track you can qualify with a time or with a regional meet performance. Or introduce the idea of "at large selections", like in XC.

Since it's the USATF's goal to make the Trials field smaller, I'm sure this will not happen, but I do like the idea of earning other ways into Trials through placings at big races. In any case, the US Championships for the Half, 20K, and Marathon do have some time standards (at least I think so), and are generally a lot more open. If these races can be raised in importance and put in the spotlight more, I think that could give runners of all levels something to shoot for, and stay in the sport and continue development.

I've thought a lot about this issue since my initial posting (and weighed the arguments of others). It seems evident to me now that the USATF does not seem interested in developing the 2:22-2:30 crowd. Like in everyday life, we cannot rely on the "government" to help us out. Like in everyday life, WE must help us. Now is the time to get involved in race committees, to get involved in grassroots programs, and to encourage other runners as individuals. If good change is to come, it is to come from us, not a bloated, bureaucratic, out-of-touch "government". It comes down to individual responsibility. (sorry for the conservative rant, but I've been listening to Dave Ramsey all day). :-)

[Josse]

I agree with Ted, I think you should take your point to the source.  Maybe they will meet you in Hawaii.

[Sean Sundwall]

While at the USATF Club Cross Country Championships, I spoke with Jim Estes, the marketing director for USATF. Keep in mind this is their PR guy. He told me that this decision happened OUTSIDE the regular meetings in Hawaii and caught him and others completely off guard. The original plan was to throw out some ideas at the meetings and stew on them for a year and not make any rash decisions. He was being very careful to not say more than he should but it was clear that this was a rash decision made without the normal discussion and thought put into it. There was absolutely no reason they had to make the decision this soon. The earliest qualifying race for the 2012 Trials will be the 2009 US Marathon Championships. They could have easily waited and gotten more feedback from the community. The result may have been the same but at least they would have given the appearance of caring what the running community had to say.

[Michelle Lowry]

If anyone sees a change in the Women's Trial standards for 2012, some of us are anxiously awaiting them so be sure to alert us!  I thought there might be an announcement shortly after the Trials like happened for the men but I haven't seen anything yet.

Thanks!

[Sean Sundwall]

I'm sure as soon as I post this I will be proven wrong, but I don't expect anything to come on the women's trials too soon. The main reason there was such a quick announcement on the men's side was that their annual meetings came on the heels of the trials. I wouldn't expect anything formal and final for either gender until well after the Olympics and maybe not until the beginning of 2009. The qualifying window won't even open until the marathon championships in 2009 or 2010.