Why the US Men Should have a "B" Standard for the Olympic Trials (Part I of II)

I'm a bit fired up at the moment, so I figured I would use the energy to get on my soap box about the US Men's Olympic Trials.

First off I should admit that my goal is to qualify for the Women's Marathon Olympic Trials "B" Standard, so I know something about shooting for a goal.  I've already tried twice and fallen short.

The key argument for a "B" Standard may go without saying, but I have to say it anyway.  It inspires a generation of runners.  Those men (and women) who work hard just to qualify for the "B" Standard may never make an Olympic Team, and that may not even be their goal.  But why put them on the line?  People like me (that is, people with limited ability) need a reason to reach for greatness.  We need the inspiration that is allowed when someone like Brian Sell qualifies for the Olympic Team, because without an attainable goal to begin with, how many people of Sell's caliber would get out there every day and train?  I am not trying to knock Brian Sell here; clearly he is a talented runner.  But his biggest PRs came after years of diligent training without big payoffs.  Without a group like Hansens willing to invest in a runner like him, how on earth would he ever have made it as far as he did?

For people slightly less talented than Brian Sell, there may not be clubs waiting in line to sign them for a running contract.  They need to work full time to put food on the table.  They don't have time for naps or massages.  They may need even MORE years to grow and develop as runners than those who are already close to the "A" Standard.  But who is going to bust their butt for years without any foreseeable payoff?  The time goal is just an arbitrary number, so even if the USATF set the "B" Standard at just one minute slower than the "A" (2:19:00), it would give hope to an entirely new pack of runners who are now in shooting distance. 

This brings me to a result of that inspiration:  faster runners out front.  If more people qualify for and enter the Olympic Trials, it puts a bit more pressure on those men vying for the top three spots.  If just one of those "B"-rate guys performs on the right day, it forces every other racer ahead of him to speed up (and every racer behind him to chase).  Let's just say, having more people toe the line means it keeps everyone honest.  Then racers have to beat a hypothetical 200 men in order to earn an Olympic Berth, rather than 100 or so.

A third reason is that it actually increases the prestige of the race.  This may be counter-intuitive, since it would seem that having a more stringent guideline as to who qualifies for the Olympic Trials makes it a more elite field, but if you think about the marathon, it doesn't quite work that way.  If you've read my previous blog posts, or if you've ever run a marathon yourself (or even a shorter race), you know that some days may be "on" days, and others . . . well, they're just "off."

Even some of the best marathoners in the world have "off" days.  Look at Deena Kastor in 2010.  She had a rough day in London, but she still finished in a disappointing 2:36 (over 16 minutes slower than her PR).  In the past, our top American (yes, that's Kastor again), has been reduced to walking in marathons, or slowing dramatically.  If that "off" day happens a few times, it can effectively ruin the chances of a sub-elite runner to make it to the trials.  Also, as I can personally attest to, shooting for a fast time in the marathon can be disastrous in the later miles of the race when it all catches up to you.  Having no safety net could potentially make some very talented runners go out over their heads and die, whereas a more conservative approach might yield them a net time faster than they could achieve with such lofty and strict goals.  If a newcomer to the marathon has only a few chances to try for a qualifying time (because one can only run so many marathons in a year and run them well), then it's safe to say trying for an astronomical time is not the best strategy for them.  However, that same runner, given the chance to merely worry about "qualifying" for the trials, and then given the time to improve over the course of a year or two (because the qualifying window for the trials is two years long), may be that blue-collar guy who challenges the lead pack, or even the chase pack, to keep their pace honest on the day of the race. So to explain why a "B" Standard increases the prestige of the race, it means that the top three men get to say with more definitive clarity that they beat the best runners in the country on that day, and not have to qualify that with "well, the best of those who could afford to train full time," or "there may be others out there who will never know how fast they could've been if they had the opportunity" or "I only beat 100 guys."     

Reason number 4 (if you're counting) is why not?  I keep racking my brain for any benefits that the USATF, the Houston Marathon, or the 12-year-old boys sitting at home get from shutting out our second-tier runners from the sport, and I have yet to come up with a down side.  Let's say the race organizers have to plan for 200 people, they don't lose anything.  In fact, they come out ahead.  Of course the men who earn the "B" Standard don't get a paid trip to Houston, so the USATF loses nothing there.  The race organizers don't need to put out any more tables for elite water, because they can reserve that right for the men up front.  They may need a few extra voluteers to hand out water, and they may need to hire a few extra medical personnel (we all remember Ryan Shay).  But in comparison to the costs of putting on a race, the extra expenses would be minimal.

In fact, adding extra entrants into the field would increase revenue, because these runners are going to pay for everything associated with the race:  hotels, restaurants, memorabilia, photos, and not to mention the hotel and travel expenses for the spouses and loved ones who would travel with them.  So let's recap our economic evaluation:  the USATF gains revenue (entry fees? merchandising); the Houston Marathon gains revenue (entry, spaghetti dinner and other pre- and post-race offerings); the community gains revenue and tourism dollars (hotels, restaurants, and positive word of mouth where "I went to Houston and had a wonderful time!").  Plus, think about all of those 12-year-olds at home watching their local hero run in the Trials.  They are much more likely to personally know a great runner if there are 200 men who toe the line than if there are only 100. 

Reason number 5 is equality.  I may have an over-developed sense of social justice, but I find it insulting to men and women both, to see that women have a "B" Standard, but men don't get the same chance.  Does this suggest that men are capable of greater feats than women? Does it suggest that women deserve more opportunities than men?  Does it suggest that little girls need role models, but little boys don't?  I can't figure out what message the USATF is trying to send by limiting one half of the race and not the other.  I honestly believe it would be more fair if the women only had an "A" Standard as well.  (But believe me, I appreciate the opportunity that the "B" Standard offers, and I wouldn't take it away from women in a heartbeat).

If you look at the world records in the marathon for both men and women, the qualifying times are incongruous at best.  The men's world record is 2:03:59, and the "A" Trials qualification is 2:19.  That's fifteen minutes slower, or about 15% slower in absolute time.  The women's world record is 2:15, and the "A" Trials qualification is 2:39.  That's twenty-four minutes slower or about 20% slower in absolute time.  Essentially, men are held to a higher standard than women in this scenario, which means that they do not have the same opportunities that women do.  If we are going to promote Title IX, give women equal pay for equal sporting feats, and generally cry out in the name of gender inequality, then it's time to cry out for our inspiring, hard-working, 9-to-5 men who just want the chance to compete with an equal opportunity as women.  (On a side note, these same men deserve the right to compete at the college level, where Title IX has had the unintended effect of cutting their scholarships and Track programs all together.)

 It's clear I find the lack of a "B" Standard upsetting, and my intention is not to upset you readers (yes, all three of you).  Maybe it's just something I needed to get off my chest, or maybe I can hope I've convinced even a few of you to believe as I do.