Re: t-and-f: Re: Hosting 2004 Olympic Marathon Trials
I don't understand this discussion. And I also don't understand the logic behind USATFs decision making process. Why aren't the standards for the marathon the same for track? Top 3 go... assuming they have the A standard. If they do not, then the next highest finished with the standard goes. They have a certain amount of time to get it. End of story. If it means we send no one... so be it... no one goes. The Olympic Games serve two purposes... to represent your country and to give athletes the opportunity to see if they are one of the top marathoners in the world. It is not a charity ball where you get to go if you have worked the hardest. If anything it is a reward for the people who have demostrated that they can do ALL of the following... each one, in my opinion, is of equal importance: a) run as fast as the best people in the world, b) beat the best people in this country on the day it matters c) CAN RUN WELL UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AS THE OLYMPIC MARATHON In my opinion, it is necessary to meet all the conditions. Take David Morris for example. A self professed runner who can't deal with the heat. Hey, I have an idea... lets make the marathon in Alaska so he can win and get the A standard... only to bomb and dnf when he gets to Athens. Real smart. Mike _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: t-and-f: Re: Hosting 2004 Olympic Marathon Trials
The Olympic Games serve two purposes... to represent your country and to give athletes the opportunity to see if they are one of the top marathoners in the world. It is not a charity ball where you get to go if you have worked the hardest. If anything it is a reward for the people who have demostrated that they can do ALL of the following... each one, in my opinion, is of equal importance: a) run as fast as the best people in the world, b) beat the best people in this country on the day it matters c) CAN RUN WELL UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AS THE OLYMPIC MARATHON By these criteria, we should send nobody. That is what many countries do. But assuming we are going to send somebody, the marathon trials policy accomplishes this BETTER than the track trials do. In the track trials, you could have a guy win a tactical 1500m in 3:39. 2nd 3rd and 4th place might have run 3:35 earlier in the year to get A standards. They'll be the ones going to the Olympics yet they will have accomplished none of your three criteria above. At least the winner will have accomplished standard #2, so by your definition, he is the one we should send. If we had two or three legitimate contenders for men and women (sub 2:08 and sub 2:25), then I might see your point. I'll note that in a hot and humid marathon I would not put any money on KK. But with our current crop of marathoners, doing the marathon trials like the track trials would be more likely to result in sending runners who meet none of your criteria. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Re: Hosting 2004 Olympic Marathon Trials
In a message dated 12/06/01 07:02:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't understand this discussion. And I also don't understand the logic behind USATFs decision making process. Why aren't the standards for the marathon the same for track? Top 3 go... assuming they have the A standard. Because the marathon is different from (most of) the track race in two very important ways. One is the number of times in which you can run the race in the qualifying period. While a marathoner might be limited to 3-4 A-standard races in a two-year period, a 100m guy, in theory, could go out and run a couple a day literally every day. The other difference is that in no other event do the course and the weather mean so much. Running a hot-weather OT marathon is akin to running all the OT track 10Ks at high altitude, say like Colorado Springs. No American would be likely ever to get an A standard there either. gh
Re: t-and-f: Re: Hosting 2004 Olympic Marathon Trials
Netters Gary wrote: The other difference is that in no other event do the course and the weather mean so much. Running a hot-weather OT marathon is akin to running all the OT track 10Ks at high altitude, say like Colorado Springs. No American would be likely ever to get an A standard there either. The walks face similar problems in relationship to weather and course. However with out the shoe contracts, running USA centers, or potential prize money that the marathoners have, there were 4 A standard athletes in the 50k walk. And now in case any of you haven't heard on this list a World Championships Bronze Medalist as well. Curt Clausen is moved to third after the 1st place finisher was DQ for drugs. Just an open slam here but it was the IAAF that took 2 years to decide that case. WHere is loud mouth Arne and his defenders explaining that? Michael Rohl
Re: t-and-f: Re: Hosting 2004 Olympic Marathon Trials
I don't understand this discussion. And I also don't understand the logic behind USATFs decision making process. Why aren't the standards for the marathon the same for track? Top 3 go... assuming they have the A standard. Because the marathon is different from (most of) the track race in two very important ways. One is the number of times in which you can run the race in the qualifying period. While a marathoner might be limited to 3-4 A-standard races in a two-year period, a 100m guy, in theory, could go out and run a couple a day literally every day. The other difference is that in no other event do the course and the weather mean so much. Running a hot-weather OT marathon is akin to running all the OT track 10Ks at high altitude, say like Colorado Springs. No American would be likely ever to get an A standard there either. gh Also the OT marathon is often the only time theses guys ever compete against each other. Sending someone based on time rather than head to head particularly with the way the weather factors into the event has never made any sense to me. Let's look at the last OT for men. Can anyone say that Morris or Lemay deserved to go over DeHaven? Steve S
Re: t-and-f: Re: Hosting 2004 Olympic Marathon Trials
In a message dated 12/4/01 7:27:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The bad news is that the IAAF may stiffen the A and B qualifying standards in keeping with their current direction of reducing the size of Olympic fields. If there's one event that can handle increased fields, w/o causing additional rounds, heats etc, it's the marathon. In fact, recent editions of the OG WC races have had pretty slim starting fields, and with the trend towards DNFing (If I can't place, I think I'll bag it and make some $$$ in a fall marathon) the finish rate is even lower. Why not drop synchro-swimming or rhythmic gymnastics if the IOC is worried about burgeoning athlete's villages? Jim Gerweck Running Times
RE: t-and-f: Re: Hosting 2004 Olympic Marathon Trials
That's so very sad. What was third and forth choice of the little boys, free sunglasses and bellybutton rings from the Galleria? It looks like I touched off a huge debate on something that IS very simple, and I didn't think it would spark so much controversy and argument. My intent and original question was just based on what happened at the 2000 Trials: Just a few guys (and girls!) having the A standard and three people would go to the Games ONLY if three of those runners from that A-qualifier subset were to place top-three. A lot of us were around the sport in '72, '76, '80 and '84 when it wasn't so much a question of getting three US runners INTO the Games, but a question of trying to get all of some likely top-10 finishers onto a team that is picked in a very unforgiving way. My concern over possibly bad conditions in the winter and Spring Trials races in 2004 stemmed from my perception of the 1976, 1980 and 1984 Trials races for the men, and 1984 for the women, as being very fast and honest 26 mile races. Those races picked good teams, and (in my simple brain) I am hoping that the future Marathon Trials also pick good teams. I believe (but am not certain) that the '80 and '84 Trials races (for men) were both held in Buffalo, NY. I know that the '80 Trials were there. I also know that these were fast courses. I know that there are a bunch of people on the list that know the answers FIRST-HAND, so I won't speculate. FWIW, I side with those people who say, run a sub-2:14 FIRST, then go to the Trials to make the team/or win, go on from there to run your best at the Games. That is the only way it makes sense, to me at least. But the last twelve years say the US will have so few sub-2:14 men that some effort should be made to make sure that if 2:10 runners show up and run 2:28, it is because they stunk, and NOT BECAUSE of the weather. IT also makes sense to select the best heat runners for a hot-weather race. But when did this become such a concern? I can remember MANY Olympic and WC races that we KNEW would be very hot, yet we didn't hold a hot weather Trials. (NOTE: Buffalo Trials for the Games in LA?). When did weather duplication become a selection criteria? We have the track trials in the HOTTEST places in the US, for Olympic/WC meets that will likely be very mild. New Orleans, Sacramento, Indianapolis, etc. I am all for duplicating the conditions that will be faced in the actual comp., but then let's do it every year across the board for track and the marathon. Enough BS from me, last question: Did the top-3 (or top-10?) runners in '80 and '84 get any money at all for placing in the Marathon Trials? Did the dozens of 2:09-2:12 runners we had in those years care about anything but going to the Olympics? I know that since the Trials and Games were the only races you could do for about 6-10 months of that year, that the super-elite guys looked at the Trials as an opportunity-cost, but for the rest of the 2:11-2:20 performers the Trials races were the highlight of the year. What has changed with US men so much that PRIORITY #1 is prize money? /Brian McEwen -Original Message- From: malmo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 8:56 PM To: 'Mark Winitz'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: Re: Hosting 2004 Olympic Marathon Trials That's so very sad. What was third and forth choice of the little boys, free sunglasses and bellybutton rings from the Galleria? malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Winitz Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 3:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Re: Hosting 2004 Olympic Marathon Trials The responding female athletes in the survey that followed wanted in this order: #1 - a course (and conditions??) that mimics that to be expected in the Games; #2 - prize money. The responding male athletes placed top value in the prize money purse--with a fast course running a close #2.
Re: t-and-f: Re: Hosting 2004 Olympic Marathon Trials
I can confirm that Buffalo was the 84 trials site. I saw the race. Any photo of the lead pack is a who is who of the 80s. I can also confirm that it is very fast, having run the 84 Skylon held on the same course-finishing 2nd and my training partner, Rick Mannen, was first. The only hill is the Fort Erie Peace Bridge and it's so early in the race, you don't even notice it-about 100 feet and then there is a net elevation drop. Go to http://www.niagarafallstourism.com/niagarathon.html for an elevation analysis. Regards, Martin - Original Message - From: Mcewen, Brian T [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 9:57 AM Subject: RE: t-and-f: Re: Hosting 2004 Olympic Marathon Trials That's so very sad. What was third and forth choice of the little boys, free sunglasses and bellybutton rings from the Galleria? It looks like I touched off a huge debate on something that IS very simple, and I didn't think it would spark so much controversy and argument. My intent and original question was just based on what happened at the 2000 Trials: Just a few guys (and girls!) having the A standard and three people would go to the Games ONLY if three of those runners from that A-qualifier subset were to place top-three. A lot of us were around the sport in '72, '76, '80 and '84 when it wasn't so much a question of getting three US runners INTO the Games, but a question of trying to get all of some likely top-10 finishers onto a team that is picked in a very unforgiving way. My concern over possibly bad conditions in the winter and Spring Trials races in 2004 stemmed from my perception of the 1976, 1980 and 1984 Trials races for the men, and 1984 for the women, as being very fast and honest 26 mile races. Those races picked good teams, and (in my simple brain) I am hoping that the future Marathon Trials also pick good teams. I believe (but am not certain) that the '80 and '84 Trials races (for men) were both held in Buffalo, NY. I know that the '80 Trials were there. I also know that these were fast courses. I know that there are a bunch of people on the list that know the answers FIRST-HAND, so I won't speculate. FWIW, I side with those people who say, run a sub-2:14 FIRST, then go to the Trials to make the team/or win, go on from there to run your best at the Games. That is the only way it makes sense, to me at least. But the last twelve years say the US will have so few sub-2:14 men that some effort should be made to make sure that if 2:10 runners show up and run 2:28, it is because they stunk, and NOT BECAUSE of the weather. IT also makes sense to select the best heat runners for a hot-weather race. But when did this become such a concern? I can remember MANY Olympic and WC races that we KNEW would be very hot, yet we didn't hold a hot weather Trials. (NOTE: Buffalo Trials for the Games in LA?). When did weather duplication become a selection criteria? We have the track trials in the HOTTEST places in the US, for Olympic/WC meets that will likely be very mild. New Orleans, Sacramento, Indianapolis, etc. I am all for duplicating the conditions that will be faced in the actual comp., but then let's do it every year across the board for track and the marathon. Enough BS from me, last question: Did the top-3 (or top-10?) runners in '80 and '84 get any money at all for placing in the Marathon Trials? Did the dozens of 2:09-2:12 runners we had in those years care about anything but going to the Olympics? I know that since the Trials and Games were the only races you could do for about 6-10 months of that year, that the super-elite guys looked at the Trials as an opportunity-cost, but for the rest of the 2:11-2:20 performers the Trials races were the highlight of the year. What has changed with US men so much that PRIORITY #1 is prize money? /Brian McEwen -Original Message- From: malmo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 8:56 PM To: 'Mark Winitz'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: t-and-f: Re: Hosting 2004 Olympic Marathon Trials That's so very sad. What was third and forth choice of the little boys, free sunglasses and bellybutton rings from the Galleria? malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Winitz Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 3:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Re: Hosting 2004 Olympic Marathon Trials The responding female athletes in the survey that followed wanted in this order: #1 - a course (and conditions??) that mimics that to be expected in the Games; #2 - prize money. The responding male athletes placed top value in the prize money purse--with a fast course running a close #2.
RE: t-and-f: Re: Hosting 2004 Olympic Marathon Trials
That's so very sad. What was third and forth choice of the little boys, free sunglasses and bellybutton rings from the Galleria? malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Winitz Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 3:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Re: Hosting 2004 Olympic Marathon Trials The responding female athletes in the survey that followed wanted in this order: #1 - a course (and conditions??) that mimics that to be expected in the Games; #2 - prize money. The responding male athletes placed top value in the prize money purse--with a fast course running a close #2.
