Rio 2016 Marathon Qualification, whos trying?

Chivito550

shels4ever wrote: »

I don't think people are saying it was a good run, but when things go wrong in a marathon it can be different to an 800m or 400m. I doubt she was happy with it also, but she held it together ok and managed to get in under the time, meaning she can focus on training now and not worry about having to run another so soon. This is still only her second Marathon so still learning about the event.

There were a good few saying it was a good time on this very thread. Some in fact called it "great". Not to mention the amount of comments by people under the AAI facebook posts about how great it was.

Too much respect is given to a marathon time. It's almost as if we aren't allowed to say anything negative about it because "it's the marathon". She was always going to run under 2:42. She could have done that off one month's training, so there's no point buttering it up as an accomplishment to hit the time, when we are talking about an athlete of the considerable ability of Fionnuala Britton. The fact she is 222nd in the world this year, while Mary Cullen is 70-something (exact position I can't remember off hand) in the 5000m says a lot.

For the record our top male is 457th in the world this year. Imagine if you were that lowly ranked in the 5000m. Nobody would even know who you were.

Britton's time was not a disaster. It just wan't very good by her standards. But she ran well in Zurich off limited preparations, so maybe she will prove that she is a championship performer over this distance. As you say, it is good that she doesn't need to run another one and can now focus on getting it right come August. (if Sinead Diver had declared for Ireland, Britton may well be ranked third now, and possibly in need of running another, because I believe Diver's run in Beijing to be of 2:30 quality, and I think she should run that next spring.)

I've tons of time for her as an athlete. I just think we are doing her an injustice by saying that 2:33 is "great" or "good".

RayCun

just looking back at the last few Olympics, 15th place in the marathon has gone to 2:26, 2:31, 2:35, 2:30, 2:34
Was London the new standard or an outlier? Hard to know
In the world championships, 15th has been 2:32, 2:38, 2:31, 2:30, 2:35

Chivito550

RayCun wrote: »

just looking back at the last few Olympics, 15th place in the marathon has gone to 2:26, 2:31, 2:35, 2:30, 2:34
Was London the new standard or an outlier? Hard to know
In the world championships, 15th has been 2:32, 2:38, 2:31, 2:30, 2:35

Interesting stats. With it being a championship race it would be interesting to see splits at half way. I can’t remember much about these past Olympic marathons but there could well have been the possibility of a slow first half, with 20 people bunched together, before a surge happened, in which case, even if 2:33 came 15th, you’d want to be a far quicker runner than that to be able to significantly up the pace in the second half.

While Chicago wasn’t a good performance, she may have her preparations spot on by avoiding marathons which are essentially time trials. If there is a slow pace of 76 minutes for the first half in Rio, and she is in the group, can she comes back in 75 or so? If she can do that then she could place well regardless of time.

Also worth noting that Atlanta, Sydney and Athens are sort of pointless to look at these days, as it has only been since Beijing that the East Africans have really focused on the Olympics in this distance to the full extent. Baldini won gold in the men’s in 2004, and Valerei de Lima from Brazil got bronze. Both great runners, but I don’t think they’d manage that if around now. The standard is most definitely stronger now, in the Olympics. World Championships still seems to be a bit of a mixed bag as most are thinking about big city marathons to secure qualification for the following year’s Olympics.

RayCun

as well as the championship element, racing for position not time, all of the really fast marathon times are run in spring or autumn on courses designed to be fast. Olympic and world marathons are in the summer on harder courses

TRR_the_turd

Chivito550 wrote: »

She was always going to run under 2:42. She could have done that off one month's training, so there's no point buttering it up as an accomplishment to hit the time, when we are talking about an athlete of the considerable ability of Fionnuala Britton.

True but the fact she ran a low 2.30 instead of a low 2.40 probably means she won't have to go again in the Spring as I doubt 3 other ladies will go sub 2.33. In that sense it was a good run. Not good relative to her ability obviously but good in terms of the long term plan for Rio.

Chivito550 wrote: »

For the record our top male is 457th in the world this year. Imagine if you were that lowly ranked in the 5000m. Nobody would even know who you were.

It's sad to say but I dare say Joe public or the majority of posters here know who Kevin Seaward is!

TFBubendorfer

Chivito550 wrote: »

Also worth noting that Atlanta, Sydney and Athens are sort of pointless to look at these days, as it has only been since Beijing that the East Africans have really focused on the Olympics in this distance to the full extent. Baldini won gold in the men’s in 2004, and Valerei de Lima from Brazil got bronze. Both great runners, but I don’t think they’d manage that if around now.

I agree with most of your post but not with that bit. Paul Tergat was the world record holder in the marathons by the time the 2004 Olympics came along and he very much targeted that race because Olympic gold was the only thing missing from his career.

Baldini, Meb and de Lima all took on the best in the world at the time and genuinely managed to beat him. There is no need to talk down their performance. The Olympic marathon tends to throw up strange results and that still hasn't changed, including the 2012 one.

Duanington

Anyone know who is giving the standard a 2nd go in the Spring?

I know Mick C is running Seville this weekend.

Sean O'H has been talking about Paris\London...

Maria?

Any others?

Myles Splitz

Duanington wrote: »

Anyone know who is giving the standard a 2nd go in the Spring?

I know Mick C is running Seville this weekend.

Sean O'H has been talking about Paris\London...

Maria?

Any others?

Maria is in Seville also, Seward and Pollock down for London and a few others have mentioned going over to Rotterdam.

shels4ever

2:15:10 for Mick
http://cronochip.racetecresults.com/MyResults.aspx?CId=131&RId=603&EId=1&AId=835606

Itziger

Could someone remind me of the state of play in the marathon, men and women?

2.15 should be good enough, no?

Duanington

shels4ever wrote: »

shels4ever wrote: »

2:15:10 for Mick
http://cronochip.racetecresults.com/MyResults.aspx?CId=131&RId=603&EId=1&AId=835606[/quoted aster than Sergio by seconds I think

Sergio has 2.15.17 from Berlin...tight margins !

tang1

Seaward 2.14.52
Clohissy 2.15.10
Sergiu 2.15.17
Pollock 2.15.38

Four fastest times so far.

Itziger

It's tight alright. I see from the results there was a nice bunch around 2.11 (5 athletes), such a shame our lads can't make that step up. So, Rotterdam and London I suppose are the obvious Spring ones left then.

shels4ever

tang1 wrote: »

Seaward 2.14.52
Clohissy 2.15.10
Sergiu 2.15.17
Pollock 2.15.38

Four fastest times so far.

Seaward prob doesn't need to run London now but strange boat to be in. Sergio must be in Rotterdam ?

RayCun

What about McCambridge?

shels4ever

RayCun wrote: »

What about McCambridge?

She didn't run

Chivito550

Assuming Pollock runs 2:14, that's a tough decision now between Sergiu and Clohissey. 7 seconds is nothing, and my personal opinion is that an early qualifier should be favoured in such instances. Either way, somebody is going to be feeling very aggrieved.

ultrapercy

Chivito550 wrote: »

Assuming Pollock runs 2:14, that's a tough decision now between Sergiu and Clohissey. 7 seconds is nothing, and my personal opinion is that an early qualifier should be favoured in such instances. Either way, somebody is going to be feeling very aggrieved.

Yes but Seville today is still far enough removed from the Olympic marathon as to be deemed an early qualifyer (if you see what I'm trying to say) it's still 7 weeks to Rotterdam and 8 to 10 from the other big races. I don't really see how the priority to earlier qualifying times is fair. Surely a deadline is a deadline? I can see the logic behind it but it's kind of fudgy.

tang1

Is Seaward looking to run a time in London or as the rumour mill is saying he's pacing Pollock to a faster time than he already has?

ultrapercy

tang1 wrote: »

Is Seaward looking to run a time in London or as the rumour mill is saying he's pacing Pollock to a faster time than he already has?

That's the rumour. I think if I was him I'd be a little more selfish! He is in a strong position but not gaurenteed.

Chivito550

ultrapercy wrote: »

Yes but Seville today is still far enough removed from the Olympic marathon as to be deemed an early qualifyer (if you see what I'm trying to say) it's still 7 weeks to Rotterdam and 8 to 10 from the other big races. I don't really see how the priority to earlier qualifying times is fair. Surely a deadline is a deadline? I can see the logic behind it but it's kind of fudgy.

Yeh it's tough. I think there should be 2 guaranteed spots as at 31 December (pending proof of fitness closer to the time) with the last spot being decided in April after the spring marathons. But without such a clear policy it's basically a free for all. Lots of fun and games to come over this.

tang1

ultrapercy wrote: »

That's the rumour. I think if I was him I'd be a little more selfish! He is in a strong position but not gaurenteed.

Thinking same myself, he could pace Pollock to a faster time than his own then be left looking over his shoulder for others, although I think his 2.14.52 will be hard beaten by others.

overpronator

Apparently Pollock won a very windy Wokingham half in 63.45 this morning, he has to be looking at 2.13 or quicker after that as im sure he didnt taper much if at all for it.

Dodge

Not sure why people are complicating it. Top 3 times qualify is th fairest and easiest for all

tang1

Dodge wrote: »

Not sure why people are complicating it. Top 3 times qualify is th fairest and easiest for all

Don't think anyone is complicating it, as it stands 46 secs cover the 4 best qualifiers, whoever is fourth and misses out is in tough tough luck and will miss out by mere seconds. Those are the rules and that's the price you pay for the improvement of marathon times since London.

Itziger

Dodge wrote: »

Not sure why people are complicating it. Top 3 times qualify is th fairest and easiest for all

Yeah but being the marathon, it is very different to almost any other event in Rio in terms of preparing for a last minute qualification. Even the 10k, if someone posted a faster time than yours a week before the deadline, you could still try to improve yourself in the time remaining. That can't really work for 42.2k race.

KielyUnusual

Chivito550 wrote: »

Assuming Pollock runs 2:14, that's a tough decision now between Sergiu and Clohissey. 7 seconds is nothing, and my personal opinion is that an early qualifier should be favoured in such instances. Either way, somebody is going to be feeling very aggrieved.

In fairness to Clohissey, he has won almost every national race going that he has entered (which is most of them) for the last couple of years and is a phenomenally consistent performer. Plus, there is a significant gap between now and the Olympics.

tang1

Per Lindie Naughton - Seaward's plan to pace Pollock in London is now scrapped.

shels4ever

overpronator wrote: »

Apparently Pollock won a very windy Wokingham half in 63.45 this morning, he has to be looking at 2.13 or quicker after that as im sure he didnt taper much if at all for it.[/quotes]
He should run 2:13 once he doesn't try to run 2:10

Chivito550

Dodge wrote: »

Not sure why people are complicating it. Top 3 times qualify is th fairest and easiest for all

Not so easy over the marathon. Conditions and course profile come into play. Athletes get 2 attempts max at qualifying. Should one get punished because he ran 2:16 in 26 degrees? Extreme example, but this isn't like track events where you get multiple attempts in a season.

The team that has the best chance of performing well in Rio should be picked. With this in mind I would favour somebody who qualified last year over somebody running a marathon in the Spring.

It's a stupid system we have. Seaward and Ciobanu should have been guaranteed spots after the Autumn, and they could start planning their training to peak in August.

shels4ever

Chivito550 wrote: »

Not so easy over the marathon. Conditions and course profile come into play. Athletes get 2 attempts max at qualifying. Should one get punished because he ran 2:16 in 26 degrees? Extreme example, but this isn't like track events where you get multiple attempts in a season.

The team that has the best chance of performing well in Rio should be picked. With this in mind I would favour somebody who qualified last year over somebody running a marathon in the Spring.

It's a stupid system we have. Seaward and Ciobanu should have been guaranteed spots after the Autumn, and they could start planning their training to peak in August.

I agree that one person should have been picked by now but not 2. Still have a feeling that the top 3 now might be the team to go

average_runner

I think from the start, the selection board should of given clear information on what the selection was, so all runners would know what they need to do.

By just saying run the qualifying time and the board will go from there, is very unfair to the runners.

Coffee Fulled Runner

Is it possible for 3 to qualify? Just seems like it will be very unfair on someone. It's getting a bit close to the Olympics now to be trying to beat the top two and 7 seconds is nothing in a marathon.

ultrapercy

Coffee Fulled Runner wrote: »

Is it possible for 3 to qualify? Just seems like it will be very unfair on someone. It's getting a bit close to the Olympics now to be trying to beat the top two and 7 seconds is nothing in a marathon.

Yes 3 qualify but 45 seconds currently cover 4 athletes with a gang within arms reach too. No selection system is perfect and someone is going to be very disappointed but it's rivitting for us anoraks.

average_runner

ultrapercy wrote: »

Yes 3 qualify but 45 seconds currently cover 4 athletes with a gang within arms reach too. No selection system is perfect and someone is going to be very disappointed but it's rivitting for us anoraks.

I like the idea of the trails.

Could use Dublin as the race, don't invite the foreign runners that year like they did before. First three home goes!!!

overpronator

average_runner wrote: »

I like the idea of the trails.

Could use Dublin as the race, don't invite the foreign runners that year like they did before. First three home goes!!!

We never usually have so many hitting and knocking on the door of the time though. This olympic cycle is pretty unique!

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

I like the idea of the trails.

Could use Dublin as the race, don't invite the foreign runners that year like they did before. First three home goes!!!

NOW, this would work, because the Olympic standard has been weakened significantly to 2:19:00. But at the time of the DCM the standard was 2:17:00. Almost never is the DCM won in 2:16 or faster. It’s a slow marathon, with often crap weather. There was no logic to using it as a trial at the time, because you can’t guarantee a spot to somebody who wins in 2:17:xx, as it is too slow to qualify, and that athlete would have to target a Spring marathon to get the time, defeating the purpose of the trial. There was no way AAI could foresee at the time that they would weaken the standard by 2 minutes. If the standard for Tokyo remains at the ridiculously soft 2:19, then I agree a trial at DCM is the way to go with the top 2 guaranteed qualification.

ultrapercy

Chivito550 wrote: »

NOW, this would work, because the Olympic standard has been weakened significantly to 2:19:00. But at the time of the DCM the standard was 2:17:00. Almost never is the DCM won in 2:16 or faster. It’s a slow marathon, with often crap weather. There was no logic to using it as a trial at the time, because you can’t guarantee a spot to somebody who wins in 2:17:xx, as it is too slow to qualify, and that athlete would have to target a Spring marathon to get the time, defeating the purpose of the trial. There was no way AAI could foresee at the time that they would weaken the standard by 2 minutes. If the standard for Tokyo remains at the ridiculously soft 2:19, then I agree a trial at DCM is the way to go with the top 2 guaranteed qualification.

But a trial means everyone has to be 100% right on one particular day to qualify. If, for talk sake, you have a 2.09 runner who wakes up with flu his chance is gone for that Olympics. I do agree tho that the national championship should have some weight in qualifying but Dublin is a tough course now and it would be hard to work in time stipulations eg first home selected if under x time.. However if the first Irish man in Dublin was guaranteed deletion would it make Dublin a lot more competitive or would lads still try for a quick time on one of the faster courses anyway? I ran Berlin last year in 3.31.30 and was 15th Irish man home I think 9 went sub 2.20. Now Dublin is a slower course but if all those lads were in the one race in Dublin it would do a lot of good for the race, athletics in general and the runners profiles as well.

average_runner

ultrapercy wrote: »

But a trial means everyone has to be 100% right on one particular day to qualify. If, for talk sake, you have a 2.09 runner who wakes up with flu his chance is gone for that Olympics. I do agree tho that the national championship should have some weight in qualifying but Dublin is a tough course now and it would be hard to work in time stipulations eg first home selected if under x time.. However if the first Irish man in Dublin was guaranteed deletion would it make Dublin a lot more competitive or would lads still try for a quick time on one of the faster courses anyway? I ran Berlin last year in 3.31.30 and was 15th Irish man home I think 9 went sub 2.20. Now Dublin is a slower course but if all those lads were in the one race in Dublin it would do a lot of good for the race, athletics in general and the runners profiles as well.

The whole idea of waking up with the flu on trail day, that's just bad luck, sure could happen to a gold medal fav in the olympic final.

What time do you have to run in the states to get into the trials? I know its a bigger pool of talent.

Do they not allow people in with half times?

28064212

average_runner wrote: »

What time do you have to run in the states to get into the trials? I know its a bigger pool of talent.

Do they not allow people in with half times?

2:19 in the marathon, 1:05 half: http://www.usatf.org/Events---Calendar/2016/U-S--Olympic-Team-Trials---Marathon/Qualifying-Standards.aspx

That gave them 211 male qualifiers, of which 166 started in the trials

ultrapercy

average_runner wrote: »

The whole idea of waking up with the flu on trail day, that's just bad luck, sure could happen to a gold medal fav in the olympic final.

What time do you have to run in the states to get into the trials? I know its a bigger pool of talent.

Do they not allow people in with half times?

It's bad luck for sure but a good selection policy means luck is less of a factor. A runner missing out on selection because of illness or bereavement ia a weakness in the trial system. It is exciting tho which is its main selling point. No system can be 100% fair in everyone's eyes and they all have pros and cons.

Chivito550

ultrapercy wrote: »

But a trial means everyone has to be 100% right on one particular day to qualify. If, for talk sake, you have a 2.09 runner who wakes up with flu his chance is gone for that Olympics. I do agree tho that the national championship should have some weight in qualifying but Dublin is a tough course now and it would be hard to work in time stipulations eg first home selected if under x time.. However if the first Irish man in Dublin was guaranteed deletion would it make Dublin a lot more competitive or would lads still try for a quick time on one of the faster courses anyway? I ran Berlin last year in 3.31.30 and was 15th Irish man home I think 9 went sub 2.20. Now Dublin is a slower course but if all those lads were in the one race in Dublin it would do a lot of good for the race, athletics in general and the runners profiles as well.

Personally I always thought the idea of a trial that people were banging out was quite poor. But now that the standard is 2:19 it has more merit for future Olympic Games, if the standard stays at 2:19. In such an instance I wouldn't offer all 3 places in a trial. Maybe the winner, or top 2 (and assuming they were under the 2:19 mark, if not they'd have to run another marathon obviously).

Bit of a typo on your marathon time there.

wrstan

Chivito550 wrote: »

... if the standard stays at 2:19. In such an instance I wouldn't offer all 3 places in a trial. Maybe the winner, or top 2

Just out of interest, why would you not offer all 3 places if it was a trial?

Chivito550

wrstan wrote: »

Just out of interest, why would you not offer all 3 places if it was a trial?

Just to take the bad luck element out of the equation, like has been previously mentioned about getting sick at the wrong time, or a family bereavement or whatever. By still having one spot available it gives athletes a second chance, but stacks the odds firmly in favour of those who are running well the Autumn before the Olympics. I think that would be a fair balance IMO.

Krusty_Clown

Chivito550 wrote: »

Just to take the bad luck element out of the equation, like has been previously mentioned about getting sick at the wrong time, or a family bereavement or whatever. By still having one spot available it gives athletes a second chance, but stacks the odds firmly in favour of those who are running well the Autumn before the Olympics. I think that would be a fair balance IMO.

Two spots for first two finishers in the national champs (having achieved the standard) and a discretionary spot (again having achieved the standard) makes a lot of sense. The selection committee could choose to offer the 3rd spot to the 3rd place finisher in the national champs, or if they had a breakout performance within a finite window of opportunity (like a 2:13 for men, or another 2:32-2:33 for women), they'd have the freedom to allocate the place elsewhere accordingly. The current reality is that none of those who are likely to represent Ireland at the Olympics, will have run the national marathon champs in recent years (I stand to be corrected), and will all have qualified on foreign soil. Seems like a wasted opportunity given that part of the value of sending athletes to the Olympics, is to inspire future generations to compete at a high level, which is better facilitated in a home race than having individual athletes finishing in the top 40 of a marathon major. But as mentioned on another thread, hindsight is a great thing, and we didn't know that the standard was going to be softened. Hopefully it's an improvement that can be made for future qualification cycles. There will still be disappointment for those who don't get selected, but at least they might be free'ed up to compete in other events, like the World Half Marathon Championships, or the World athletics champs.

Peterx

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

.. The current reality is that none of those who are likely to represent Ireland at the Olympics, will have run the national marathon champs in recent years... hindsight is a great thing, and we didn't know that the standard was going to be softened...

It would be fantastic to see the National Marathon Champion sent to Rio.

Now I am a member of Rathfarnham WSAF and would of course be bigging up Sean's chances but quite apart from all that parochialism it would raise the profile of the National Marathon Champs hugely if the winner was guaranteed selection (assuming he/she also gets the required time) and encourage young lads and ladies all around the country.

The reality is that none of the potential Irish Rio bound athletes will medal.

Sean Hehir has performed in championship running with his 20th in Zurich in 2014 and it is within the bounds of possibility that he can run well in Rio also (as could the other contenders of course)

Dodge

Whatever about future championships, you can't change it now for Rio

worth look at for World Champs etc

28064212

Peterx wrote: »

It would be fantastic to see the National Marathon Champion sent to Rio.

There should be no possibility of the National Marathon Championships having any affect on the selection criteria for Rio.

There's merit in discussing whether it should affect selection for Tokyo. Although IMO, given our lack of consistent performance at marathon level, it's a discussion for two years' time at the earliest. The last time we had a full marathon team going to the Olympics was 1992, and I'm not even sure if there was a fourth athlete eligible. If, in 2018, we still have a strong marathon contingent, and it looks likely that we could have 3+ athletes capable of running inside the qualifying time in Dublin, then it should be considered

Peterx

28064212 wrote: »

There should be no possibility of the National Marathon Championships having any affect on the selection criteria for Rio.

There's merit in discussing whether it should affect selection for Tokyo... .

In specific terms within the current qualification race I agree with you.

In general terms I still think sending the National Marathon Champion to the following season's major marathon Championship has huge merit but that's a slightly off topic discussion.

Should the standard completely fall apart in future years it starts to make even more sense to send the National Champion - If nobody has the A standard and the National Marathon Champion has the B standard than send him.

Chivito550

Peterx wrote: »

In specific terms within the current qualification race I agree with you.

In general terms I still think sending the National Marathon Champion to the following season's major marathon Championship has huge merit but that's a slightly off topic discussion.

Should the standard completely fall apart in future years it starts to make even more sense to send the National Champion - If nobody has the A standard and the National Marathon Champion has the B standard than send him.

There is no A and B standard. It is just one standard. If the National Champion has no standard, he doesn't go. It's that simple.