Rio 2016 Marathon Qualification, whos trying?

NetwerkErrer

overpronator wrote: »

I assume that's entry as an elite rather than generally? Is it for the obvious reason?

Refused elite entry I'd say OP. I would presume it was for obvious reasons but it's all speculation at the end of the day.

tang1

List of the elite field for Zurich Marathon this Sunday, Martin Fagan no 15.

average_runner

tang1 wrote: »

List of the elite field for Zurich Marathon this Sunday, Martin Fagan no 15.

Any tv coverage of this?

tang1

average_runner wrote: »

Any tv coverage of this?

Not on tv anyway, haven't found a live stream yet either.

dublin runner

Looking down through he previous results it looks like he should have a decent number of men running between 2.10-2.15. Will be interesting to see his tactics; go for a fast time or simply aim to put himself above the lads currently at Olympic qualification standard.

RayCun

2:17:00 qualifying standard for the men, so Clohissey didn't get the time after all
2:42:00 for the women!

youngrun

RayCun wrote: »

2:17:00 qualifying standard for the men, so Clohissey didn't get the time after all
2:42:00 for the women!

Beat me to it ! .
The Claw and Frazer have the Worlds standard IAAF 2.18 , but not the Irish of 2.15 odd-which may or may not be set in stone.. Wonder will a team be sent to Beijing

Fionnuala and Nicola Duncan have both the IAAF and the faster- naturally! - Irish world standard although the latter is injured.

rom

rom wrote: »

http://comiteolimpicoportugal.pt/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Atletismo.pdf

Individual Events
NOCs may enter up to three (3) qualified athletes for each event on the athletics program. In addition they can enter a maximum of one (1) reserve or P alternate athlete for the same event, provided he/she has achieved the entry standard.

- This would make a lot of sense if there are full allocation

Qualification period: 1 January 2015 to 11 July 2016

Entry Standards: To be approved by IAAF Council in April 2015

http://www.iaaf.org/competition/standards - not listed here.

Where did you get 2:18:30 from ?

Where did people get the other times from as it was listed everywhere that these times would be released in April.

youngrun

rom wrote: »

Where did people get the other times from as it was listed everywhere that these times would be released in April.

Maybe confusion with worlds

Men - IAAF standard is 2.18. Irish HP standard/policy is 2.15.30
Women is 2.44/2.33.30 respectively

You are right , olympics were only released yesterday

Wonder will a team go to Beijing?

rom

Fagan runs 2:16:09 in Zurick this morning. He went out in 1:06:16.

KielyUnusual

rom wrote: »

Fagan runs 2:16:09 in Zurick this morning. He went out in 1:06:16.

....and then O'Lionaird tweets #cleansport. I wonder what he is referring to.

Hard to be anything but apathetic about this result. Its a real pity.

pconn062

On a slightly different note, Yuri Kawauchi was 2nd in 2.12.

TRR_the_turd

Eoin Callaghan 2.18.45 in Manchester. I know he lurks here occasionally. Great stuff and inwouldnt bet against him going sub 2.17 in the next 12 months

pconn062

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

Eoin Callaghan 2.18.45 in Manchester. I know he lurks here occasionally. Great stuff and inwouldnt bet against him going sub 2.17 in the next 12 months

Wow, that is a savage result. His previous best was 2.24 from Rotterdam last year I think. Would love to see him crack the qualification standard.

overpronator

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

Eoin Callaghan 2.18.45 in Manchester. I know he lurks here occasionally. Great stuff and inwouldnt bet against him going sub 2.17 in the next 12 months

Super result for him and a near 4 minute PB I think?

*Edit Looks like nearly 6 mins. Wow. Fair play to him.

Itziger

rom wrote: »

Fagan runs 2:16:09 in Zurick this morning. He went out in 1:06:16.

That's a fairly big fade for an elite runner. Was it windy, hilly in 2nd half? Did others also slow?

dublin runner

Incredible performance by Eoin. 6 improvement from Rotterdam last year. Was thinking during the week he'd go sub 2.20. I thought he might be a sneaky contender for the Olympics. I wouldn't back against him finding another 2-3 minutes.

gerard_65

Itziger wrote: »

That's a fairly big fade for an elite runner. Was it windy, hilly in 2nd half? Did others also slow?

He was ill all week so that might account for a poor second half.

KielyUnusual

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

Eoin Callaghan 2.18.45 in Manchester. I know he lurks here occasionally. Great stuff and inwouldnt bet against him going sub 2.17 in the next 12 months

Brilliant stuff. That's a massive PB. Delighted for him. At that rate of improvement, good chance he'll be challenging for a spot in Rio.

Krusty_Clown

overpronator wrote: »

Super result for him and a near 4 minute PB I think?

*Edit Looks like nearly 6 mins. Wow. Fair play to him.

He was 2:29:xx in Dublin in 2013, so that's 11 minutes in a 18 months. Fantastic progress. Goes to show what miles, dedication and setting no limits will do for you. It would be great to see him run a Rio qualifier.

Itziger

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

He was 2:29:xx in Dublin in 2013, so that's 11 minutes in a 18 months. Fantastic progress. Goes to show what miles, dedication and setting no limits will do for you. It would be great to see him run a Rio qualifier.

Could be a motto for any and all of us.

Chivito550

Any reason why Fagan ran Zurich? A very curious choice. Surely London would be an obvious choice, or does his drug past mean he is not allowed run?

rom

Irish elites have not got invites to London in years. So for drinks support being an elite entry is preferred.

bazman

Fantastic run from Eoin, however I do think the performance has been aided by poor organisation. The Manchester course is not IAAF verified and it seems with good reason as from looking at those who ran with a Garmin, it is likely to be at least 400m short - possibly 700-800m short. This would convert to a couple of minutes.

See examples here:
https://www.strava.com/activities/288437727
https://www.strava.com/activities/288438122

Typically when you run marathon with Garmin you cover 42.5k+

They advertise it as the 'fastest marathon in the UK' and now you know why :-)

No matter which way you look at it, it is still an savage run from Eoin and great to get a podium finish. Might have to run Manchester myself next year if they keep the same course ;-)

Just after looking at their website - no where does it say the course is certified. Bad form from a 'city marathon'.

pconn062

bazman wrote: »

Fantastic run from Eoin, however I do think the performance has been aided by poor organisation. The Manchester course is not IAAF verified and it seems with good reason as from looking at those who ran with a Garmin, it is likely to be at least 400m short - possibly 700-800m short. This would convert to a couple of minutes.

See examples here:
https://www.strava.com/activities/288437727
https://www.strava.com/activities/288438122

Typically when you run marathon with Garmin you cover 42.5k+

They advertise it as the 'fastest marathon in the UK' and now you know why :-)

No matter which way you look at it, it is still an savage run from Eoin and great to get a podium finish. Might have to run Manchester myself next year if they keep the same course ;-)

Just after looking at their website - no where does it say the course is certified. Bad form from a 'city marathon'.

That's hugely disappointing for Eoin I'm sure. Still a great run and probably around the 2.20/21 mark but pretty bad form for a big city marathon to not have a certified course.

dublin runner

bazman wrote: »

Fantastic run from Eoin, however I do think the performance has been aided by poor organisation. The Manchester course is not IAAF verified and it seems with good reason as from looking at those who ran with a Garmin, it is likely to be at least 400m short - possibly 700-800m short. This would convert to a couple of minutes.

Would the out-and-back sections not potentially play havoc with the garmin? 800 metres short would be scandalous if true.

Murph_D

bazman wrote: »

Fantastic run from Eoin, however I do think the performance has been aided by poor organisation. The Manchester course is not IAAF verified and it seems with good reason as from looking at those who ran with a Garmin, it is likely to be at least 400m short - possibly 700-800m short. This would convert to a couple of minutes.

See examples here:
https://www.strava.com/activities/288437727
https://www.strava.com/activities/288438122

Typically when you run marathon with Garmin you cover 42.5k+

They advertise it as the 'fastest marathon in the UK' and now you know why :-)

No matter which way you look at it, it is still an savage run from Eoin and great to get a podium finish. Might have to run Manchester myself next year if they keep the same course ;-)

Just after looking at their website - no where does it say the course is certified. Bad form from a 'city marathon'.

Is the Dublin course IAAF certified? Only mention of IAAF on Dublin website is that the race is run according to IAAF rules, which is not the same thing. Garmin traces are not convincing evidence of a short course.

bazman

Murph_D wrote: »

Is the Dublin course IAAF certified? Only mention of IAAF on Dublin website is that the race is run according to IAAF rules, which is not the same thing. Garmin traces are not convincing evidence of a short course.

Dublin and Cork are the only Irish courses in AIMS and IAAF approved lists. Times on other Irish races do not count for Olympic or IAAF qualification.

It is true re Garmin, particularly one Garmin. But I've checked several from Manchester and all are significantly short. Garmin typically overstates marathon, not under so dodgy course in my opinion

tang1

bazman wrote: »

Dublin and Cork are the only Irish courses in AIMS and IAAF approved lists. Times on other Irish races do not count for Olympic or IAAF qualification

Pardon my ignorance, what does AIMS mean?

bazman

tang1 wrote: »

Pardon my ignorance, what does AIMS mean?

http://aimsworldrunning.org

They play a role in certifying long distance courses for championships

menoscemo

bazman wrote: »

Dublin and Cork are the only Irish courses in AIMS and IAAF approved lists. Times on other Irish races do not count for Olympic or IAAF qualification.

It is true re Garmin, particularly one Garmin. But I've checked several from Manchester and all are significantly short. Garmin typically overstates marathon, not under so dodgy course in my opinion

Ironically enough Waterford posted this week that they now had an AIMs certificate!!
I think Longford has one too even though they haven't used the AIMs measured course for a few years.

BTW I am pretty sure some of the Commonwealth and European championship teams from GB were picked on the basis of Manchester times from last year.

Murph_D

I asked because Dublin is not mentioned on IAAF calendar, afaik. Don't think Cork is either. Where is the list? Not doubting, Just curious.

bazman

Murph_D wrote: »

I asked because Dublin is not mentioned on IAAF calendar, afaik. Don't think Cork is either. Where is the list? Not doubting, Just curious.

https://iaafmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/competitioninfo/2b4e1101-01b0-4f84-911f-020babb88e1b.pdf

List for world champs. We had an athlete selected also on uncertified course. It has to be level playing field.

Pure commercial races do not have same motivation for certification. Fast times attract more punters ...

eliwallach

menoscemo wrote: »

Ironically enough Waterford posted this week that they now had an AIMs certificate

Too little way too late.

Bahanaman

eliwallach wrote: »

Too little way too late.

Absolutely!!

Pherekydes

Just to point out that Fagan has the QT for Rio, but he's not yet selected for Rio.

And may be unlikely to accept a place.

tang1

Pherekydes wrote: »

And may be unlikely to accept a place.

Care to elaborate on that, no probs if you dont, just curious.

demfad

bazman wrote: »

https://iaafmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/competitioninfo/2b4e1101-01b0-4f84-911f-020babb88e1b.pdf

List for world champs. We had an athlete selected also on uncertified course. It has to be level playing field.

Pure commercial races do not have same motivation for certification. Fast times attract more punters ...

Thanks for that. I believe you're running in Dusseldorf yourself this weekend.
The very best of luck!

macinalli

tang1 wrote: »

Care to elaborate on that, no probs if you dont, just curious.

There's an interview with him in todays Irish Times. Basically says that if 3 other guys meet the qualification standard, then he'd be thinking of stepping aside. However if there's not 3 others, then he'd go to Rio.

It'd be interesting to see what happens if we do get 3 others that are sub 2:17 but behind Fagan....

Chivito550

macinalli wrote: »

There's an interview with him in todays Irish Times. Basically says that if 3 other guys meet the qualification standard, then he'd be thinking of stepping aside. However if there's not 3 others, then he'd go to Rio.

It'd be interesting to see what happens if we do get 3 others that are sub 2:17 but behind Fagan....

I'm no fan, but say what you like about his cheating, if he was to do the above that would be very decent of him. Most drug cheats wouldn't do that. So I guess we should hold off on all this talk until he actually accepts a spot on the team.

dublin runner

I can see Pollock and Kenneally securing the time. With Fagan that could possibly make up the team. A long way to go yet and some other lads have a very good chance. Would be great to see 5 obtain the qualifying time.

Dodge

Chivito550 wrote: »

I'm no fan, but say what you like about his cheating, if he was to do the above that would be very decent of him. Most drug cheats wouldn't do that. So I guess we should hold off on all this talk until he actually accepts a spot on the team.

OR

He knows he won't get picked ahead of athletes who have always been clean* and he's saving face by not having Athletics Ireland bring up his past when they explain why he wasn't picked

*To me anyway

Chivito550

Dodge wrote: »

OR

He knows he won't get picked ahead of athletes who have always been clean* and he's saving face by not having Athletics Ireland bring up his past when they explain why he wasn't picked

*To me anyway

Don't know about that. I don't think AAI or OCI can block athletes competing based on drug past. The BOA's stance didn't hold up in the CAS and Chambers was allowed run. If Fagan is the fastest of the qualifiers and he doesn't get picked he'd have a legit case IMO. Let's hope it wouldn't come to any of that though.

Dodge

Chivito550 wrote: »

Don't know about that. I don't think AAI or OCI can block athletes competing based on drug past. The BOA's stance didn't hold up in the CAS and Chambers was allowed run. If Fagan is the fastest of the qualifiers and he doesn't get picked he'd have a legit case IMO. Let's hope it wouldn't come to any of that though.

Nowhere does it say they must take the top 3 times. He might have a case but if they don't pick him, is he really going to go a legal route to get on a team that doesn't want him?

No if he gets the standard and he's one of only 3 and they don't pick him, then that's completely different. All speculation at this stage, of course

ultrapercy

Using strava to verify the measurement of a course is not foolproof method. This has been discussed at length before but gps watches are vulnerable to all sorts of environmental conditions. Large crowds, tall buildings tunnels etc all affect signal and lead to errors in measurement. Cork for instance reads short because of loss of signal in The Jack Lynch Tunnel. In Rotterdam last year my own garmin read that course as being short and I heard some others mentioning the same. The winner of yesterday's Manchester Marathon was 1 minute outside his pb and as he continues to produce very prolific and consistent 2.16 to 2.18 performances that may be as good an indication of course measurement as gps. Manchester is a big race and It is a big accusation to suggest the organisers deliberately run a short course so as to have fast times for marketing purposes.Surely to question someones time in a large city marathon requires a degree of evidence more reliable than random posts on strava.

ultrapercy

Dodge wrote: »

OR

He knows he won't get picked ahead of athletes who have always been clean* and he's saving face by not having Athletics Ireland bring up his past when they explain why he wasn't picked

*To me anyway

OR

Maybe he is really Keyser Soze.

Chivito550

Dodge wrote: »

Nowhere does it say they must take the top 3 times. He might have a case but if they don't pick him, is he really going to go a legal route to get on a team that doesn't want him?

No if he gets the standard and he's one of only 3 and they don't pick him, then that's completely different. All speculation at this stage, of course

He could hire Cathal Lombard or Michelle Smith to fight his case

bazman

ultrapercy wrote: »

Using strava to verify the measurement of a course is not foolproof method. This has been discussed at length before but gps watches are vulnerable to all sorts of environmental conditions. Large crowds, tall buildings tunnels etc all affect signal and lead to errors in measurement. Cork for instance reads short because of loss of signal in The Jack Lynch Tunnel. In Rotterdam last year my own garmin read that course as being short and I heard some others mentioning the same. The winner of yesterday's Manchester Marathon was 1 minute outside his pb and as he continues to produce very prolific and consistent 2.16 to 2.18 performances that may be as good an indication of course measurement as gps. Manchester is a big race and It is a big accusation to suggest the organisers deliberately run a short course so as to have fast times for marketing purposes.Surely to question someones time in a large city marathon requires a degree of evidence more reliable than random posts on strava.

I understand this view completely and I didn't post lightly. It is my current opinion and I may well be proven wrong. You will always get an odd watch with short measurement, but every single Strava measurement from multiple different types of devices over 2 years (2014 & 2015) measures short for Manchester route. This is highly unusual to say the least. Most Rotterdam routes on Strava are over 42.2k - yes, there are exceptions which could be from a faulty watch or a particular watch losing reception for a period. I've contacted the organisers, but they haven't yet provided approved course length certification. This along with the facts that it is not a IAAF sanctioned event and that it is purely commercial with no athletics club affiliation means I have my suspicions. So many people run PBs in Manchester.

We've seen examples on Irish soil where races are short (and indeed long). As a race organiser myself, I know an incorrect distance can happen easily if you are not diligent. My point is you cannot accept all races as accurate on face value - someone has to question these things. If we just accept without questioning, it simply leads to a tolerance of inaccuracy ...

From an analysis of the official results, the issue appears to be between 10m and 20m. Race results of top-2 runners:
1st 10m, 2nd 10m, Last 6.2m
0:53:25, 0:51:24, 0:32:55
0:54:16, 0:51:37, 0:32:53

This suggests that the top-2 got seriously quicker over the 2nd half or that their intermediate markers are out.

Pace 1st 10m, Pace 2nd 10m, Pace to finish
0:03:19, 0:03:12, 0:03:25
0:03:22, 0:03:12, 0:03:24

1st 10 and latter 6.2m stack up. Middle 10 does not make sense. Looks like pace is 10s/k out = 2:39 for the 10miles.
I'm now convinced. This is all the evidence I need, but thanks for making me go the extra mile (excuse the pun) to verify my suspicions :-)

average_runner

Dodge wrote: »

OR

He knows he won't get picked ahead of athletes who have always been clean* and he's saving face by not having Athletics Ireland bring up his past when they explain why he wasn't picked

*To me anyway

In fairness if Athletics Ireland brings up his past, they should state this before hand and not accept his membership fee, either he is in or not.

A good time considering he walk for a bit also

ultrapercy

bazman wrote: »

I understand this view completely and I didn't post lightly. It is my current opinion and I may well be proven wrong. You will always get an odd watch with short measurement, but every single Strava measurement from multiple different types of devices over 2 years (2014 & 2015) measures short for Manchester route. This is highly unusual to say the least. Most Rotterdam routes on Strava are over 42.2k - yes, there are exceptions which could be from a faulty watch or a particular watch losing reception for a period. I've contacted the organisers, but they haven't yet provided approved course length certification. This along with the facts that it is not a IAAF sanctioned event and that it is purely commercial with no athletics club affiliation means I have my suspicions. So many people run PBs in Manchester.

We've seen examples on Irish soil where races are short (and indeed long). As a race organiser myself, I know an incorrect distance can happen easily if you are not diligent. My point is you cannot accept all races as accurate on face value - someone has to question these things. If we just accept without questioning, it simply leads to a tolerance of inaccuracy ...

From an analysis of the official results, the issue appears to be between 10m and 20m. Race results of top-2 runners:
1st 10m, 2nd 10m, Last 6.2m
0:53:25, 0:51:24, 0:32:55
0:54:16, 0:51:37, 0:32:53

This suggests that the top-2 got seriously quicker over the 2nd half or that their intermediate markers are out.

Pace 1st 10m, Pace 2nd 10m, Pace to finish
0:03:19, 0:03:12, 0:03:25
0:03:22, 0:03:12, 0:03:24

1st 10 and latter 6.2m stack up. Middle 10 does not make sense. Looks like pace is 10s/k out = 2:39 for the 10miles.
I'm now convinced. This is all the evidence I need, but thanks for making me go the extra mile (excuse the pun) to verify my suspicions :-)

I agree that based on that data the course needs to be proven to be the proper measurement. All races should have to publish or display a measurement certificate IMO. Until a race is proven to be inaccurate, however, it is just speculation. If you or anyone prove it to be short it's a disgrace on the organisers behalF.