Feb 13, 2000 Olympic Marathon Qualifying Controversy By Laurel Park :: Views- 56

In case you hadn't heard, there is yet another controversy brewing in USA Track & Field. This one has to do with the selection of the Olympic Marathon team. In order to participate in the U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials, runners must qualify under either an "A" (full expenses to the race paid by USAT&F) or "B" (runners pay their own expenses) qualifying standard.

However, each Olympic event also has an "A" and "B" qualifying standard. The "B" standard tends to be far less rigorous than the "A" standard, in part to ensure that small countries without a large talent pool of athletes can still participate in the games. Countries may send up to 3 athletes as long as all of them have met the "A" qualifier, but if they have no "A" qualifiers, they may send one and only one athlete who has met the "B" standard.

The controversy? Well, in late fall the International Olympic Committee ("IOC") decided to lower the "A" marathon standard to 2:14 for men and 2:33 for women. As of January 30, only two U.S. men - David Morris and Joe LeMay - and two U.S. women - Libbie Hickman and Kristy Johnson - have met the "A" qualifying standard. USAT&F, in conjunction with the directors of the men's and women's Marathon Trials races, has announced that the overall winners of those races will be on the Olympic team, regardless of whether they have an "A" qualifier. So if the winners have not met the "A" standard (and do not meet it in winning the trials), they and only they will comprise the U.S. marathon "team", regardless of who finishes behind them.

This seems just a little strange to me. Let's say hypothetically that Keith Stopen trains like an animal (OK, so it's not so hypothetical), eats his Wheaties, and has an awesome day in Pittsburgh. He wins the race in a final mad sprint to the finish, narrowly edging David Morris and Khalid Khannouchi (who surprisingly received U.S. citizenship just one week prior to the race). It was a somewhat humid day, and Keith only runs 2:15 - not fast enough to make the "A" Olympic standard. Yet, by virtue of his victory he is off to Sydney, while 2nd and 3rd places - the American and World Record holders respectively - are forced to watch the race at home on T.V. Of course, should Keith run 2:14 or below, all's well in the world and he, David and Khalid head to Australia.

Directors of both trials races have said that sponsorship pressure played a large role in the decision. The sponsors, who are putting up big bucks to have their products associated with America's Olympians, are not thrilled at the prospect of standing up on the award stage next to someone who ran a heck of a race, won the thing, but is not going to the Olympics. I understand their point (and they are, after all, paying the bills) but I think it calls into question yet again the whole Olympic team selection process.

I have long been critical of the current "one shot" system. While it certainly rewards the fit, the patient, and the extremely lucky (make sure to double-tie your shoes), I'm not so sure it is the best way to ensure that our most qualified athletes make the team, particularly in the marathon. I would like to see USAT&F switch to a multi-race "weighted" system, in which the trials race is only a part (albeit a large one) of the selection process. For example, I would propose that in the 18 or 20 months prior to the trials race, marathoners be required to run at least two races, with the best two results comprising 25% of their total "qualifying" mark. The trials race would still be required, and in order to participate runners would have to meet an "A" or "B" standard, but rather than the whole cigar, the trials result would comprise the final 50% of an athlete's "qualifying time". At the conclusion of the trials, "overall times" would calculated and the three fastest runners would make the team. It would ensure that the three runners who have performed the best and the most consistently in the months leading up to the Olympics are chosen for the team.

The system could also be used for the track and field team, although rather than 2 races in 18 months you could have a series of 4 or 5 "trials qualifying" track meets (some in the east, some in the west) and athletes would be required to participate in at least three of those meets, plus the trials. Again, the best three times plus the trials results would be weighted and calculated and the top three performers would make the team. Think of the marketing possibilities (the "Olympic Four" series) and the head-to-head competition that could take place.

Is this system perfect? Of course not - I don't think a perfect system exists. Would it guarantee that our Olympic "A" qualifiers make the team? No, but it certainly improves the odds.

I'm no Grinch. I enjoy seeing a Jenny Spangler or a Mark Conover catch the running world by surprise as much as anyone. But my heart also aches for the hard luck stories of runners such as Joe Falcon, Lisa Weidenbach, Dan O'Brien and Steve Holman. I just think that there has to be a more equitable way.