Olympic Trials Marathon

unfortunately the times ran today are not going to put the americans even as
dark horse medal contenders. they will still be in the middle of pack at
best.
"David Dunn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I just followed the Olympic Trials Marathon on the Runner's World site. It sounded like a close
exciting race. Alan Culpepper won in 2:11:41 beating Meb Keflezghi in a duel over the last few
miles by 5 seconds. Dan Browne was 3rd in 2:12:02. I think it was amazing that the 3 favorites
finished in order. Its also very ironic that after the IOC changed the Olympic qualifying time
from 2:12 to 2:15 that they broke
2:12 with Browne narrowly missing it. The embarrassment of 2000 won't be repeated. I think the
race will be shown during the Millrose Games track meet this afternoon.

David Dunn

I agree that without Khalid Khannouchi the US has no chance at a medal
in the Olympic marathon. But at least it won't be as bad as 2000 when
the only US entrant was ill and ran 2:30something in Sydney.

David Dunn

"The embarrassment of 2000 won't be repeated".
--

What exactly do you mean? In Pitt., they raced on a very hilly course &
started in the upper 60's and finished at 80 degrees.
Few qualifiers should have been expected, no reason to have embarrassment in
'00 considering all matters.

If todays runners had to run on the same course and conditions as in 2000, not
a single one of them would have met the A standard.

That's right...not one. If you read up, todays course was designed to produce
3 qualifiers, flat and fast. The 3 minute slower pace allowance? That's a
long time and grace period for the elite marathoner. The winner today beat the
'00 A standard time by 18 seconds with a "stacked deck" wokring in his favor,
A). on a flat fast track; B). race that started at near freezing weather. C).
Relaxed Standards.

In context, imo nothing impressive happend today to delcare, "The embarrassment
of 2000 won't
be repeated".

I'm just trying to figure you what exactly do you mean?

u do have a good point. however going from a world power in the marathon to
a non enity is embarrassing to say the least
"David Dunn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I agree that without Khalid Khannouchi the US has no chance at a medal in the Olympic marathon.
But at least it won't be as bad as 2000 when the only US entrant was ill and ran 2:30something
in Sydney.

David Dunn

In article <[email hidden]>,

Lanceandrew said:

That's right...not one. If you read up, todays course was designed to produce 3 qualifiers, flat
and fast.

Strictly all 3 had already met the original Olympic A standard of 2:12 in previous races. The
"embarassment" would have been if they'd been beaten by another runner who didn't meet the A
standard, and hadn't previously. Fast conditions and the relaxing of the A standard to 2:15 made
this unlikely.

I heard the recent Australian triathlon (2nd) selection trial was held in the middle of the (warm)
day to better simulate the likely conditions in Athens - but triathlon olympic qualification is very
different.

Andrew taylor

The Olympic Commitee will be ecstatic that someone, anyone, watched or cared. This could bring total
Olympic viewership to over a dozen people.

[email hidden] (Lanceandrew) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"The embarrassment of 2000 won't be repeated". What exactly do you mean? In Pitt., they raced on a
very hilly course & started in the upper 60's and finished at 80 degrees. Few qualifiers should
have been expected, no reason to have embarrassment in '00 considering all matters.

"Won´t", not "wasn´t"; The "embarrassment of 2000" referred to must obviously be the one that took
place in Sydney, not the one in Pittsburg.

Quoted message said:

If todays runners had to run on the same course and conditions as in 2000, not a single one of
them would have met the A standard.

The A standard of the 2000 trial, I take it. That is a fairly safe bet - unless there is reason to
believe that this year´s top three are essentially better or in better form than those in 2000.

But I don´t think we should assume that they couldn´t have met this year´s A standard in conditions
and on a course similar to those in Pittsburg - unless we can hold them as essentially no better
than the last Olympic hopefuls.

Quoted message said:

That's right...not one. If you read up, todays course was designed to produce 3 qualifiers, flat
and fast. The 3 minute slower pace allowance? That's a long time and grace period for the elite
marathoner. The winner today beat the '00 A standard time by 18 seconds with a "stacked deck"
working in his favor, A). on a flat fast track; B). race that started at near > freezing weather.
C). Relaxed Standards.

As pointed out, for the marathoners who´d already met the A standard this race was only about
finishing in the top three (and making sure that the winner, in the case of his being a B standard
guy, met the A standard). There was no bonus for running any faster than needed for that purpose
(and, unless I´m quite mistaken) no great financial reward for winning the race.

I don´t meant to belittle the event by implying that the victory itself wasn´t desirable to the
runners, but that all of the above may have turned it, at some point rather early in the race, into
a tactical effort.

Anders

Winner received $64,000, 2nd $30,000 +, 3rd $20,000+

"Anders Lustig" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Lanceandrew) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"The embarrassment of 2000 won't be repeated". What exactly do you mean? In Pitt., they raced on
a very hilly course

&

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

started in the upper 60's and finished at 80 degrees. Few qualifiers should have been expected,
no reason to have

embarrassment in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

'00 considering all matters.

"Won´t", not "wasn´t"; The "embarrassment of 2000" referred to must obviously be the one that took
place in Sydney, not the one in Pittsburg.

Quoted message said:

If todays runners had to run on the same course and conditions as in

2000,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not a single one of them would have met the A standard.

The A standard of the 2000 trial, I take it. That is a fairly safe bet - unless there is reason to
believe that this year´s top three are essentially better or in better form than those in 2000.

But I don´t think we should assume that they couldn´t have met this year´s A standard in
conditions and on a course similar to those in Pittsburg - unless we can hold them as essentially
no better than the last Olympic hopefuls.

Quoted message said:

That's right...not one. If you read up, todays course was designed to produce 3 qualifiers, flat
and fast. The 3 minute slower pace

allowance?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's a long time and grace period for the elite marathoner. The

winner

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

today beat the '00 A standard time by 18 seconds with a "stacked deck" working in his favor, A).
on a flat fast track; B). race that started at

near > freezing weather. C). Relaxed Standards.

Quoted message said:

As pointed out, for the marathoners who´d already met the A standard this race was only about
finishing in the top three (and making sure that the winner, in the case of his being a B standard
guy, met the A standard). There was no bonus for running any faster than needed for that purpose
(and, unless I´m quite mistaken) no great financial reward for winning the race.

I don´t meant to belittle the event by implying that the victory itself wasn´t desirable to the
runners, but that all of the above may have turned it, at some point rather early in the race,
into a tactical effort.

Anders

[email hidden] (David Dunn) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I just followed the Olympic Trials Marathon on the Runner's World site. It sounded like a close
exciting race. Alan Culpepper won in 2:11:41 beating Meb Keflezghi in a duel over the last few
miles by 5 seconds. Dan Browne was 3rd in 2:12:02. I think it was amazing that the 3 favorites
finished in order. Its also very ironic that after the IOC changed the Olympic qualifying time
from 2:12 to 2:15 that they broke
2:12 with Browne narrowly missing it. The embarrassment of 2000 won't be repeated.

Kind of funny that in the year the US can send 3 marathoners to the Olympics the US Baseball team
won't be competing.

Nice to have something positive in US marathon racing.

Andy

Quoted message said:

I think the race will be shown during the Millrose Games track meet this afternoon.

David Dunn

In article <[email hidden]>,

(amh) said:

Kind of funny that in the year the US can send 3 marathoners to the Olympics the US Baseball team
won't be competing.

Don't get me started on that. A single elimination tournament for BASEBALL, where the best team wins
53% if its games and the worst wins 47%?! Okay, I'm exagerating, but there's a reason that they play
a World *Series*: you need a bunch of games to have a decent chance of having the team that's
actually "better" winning the title.

They might as well have chosen the baseball teams from our region by coin flipping.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

- Homer J. Simpson