John Lofranco said 9 months ago
As someone once said...discus...
If someone did race another marathon in spring to try to move up, if I were the NTC (which I’m not) I wouldn’t select them anyway because that would effectively exclude them from running well again in summer.
I think it's worth pointing out that it's at least nice that we are having this discussion because there are more than 3 women who have a shot at qualifying.
Need an edit function for all my typos and other glitches!
...Legally what's going to happen now is that essentially, an athlete is going to have to come out publically and say "I deserve it more than she does" and our community just does not do that. I think they should if they believe it but no one is willing to risk bad vibes on social or whatever to throw shade at another athlete. We are too nice. Maybe it will happen though. That would be a pretty big shift in culture.
The various scenarios Weiler outlined all had different outcomes. I don't see much distinction between them and what's proposed by AC now. The elements are the same. What's left is that there's room for the NTC or HPD to make a decision when it's not clear who is actually the best candidate to go.
It's in the marginal cases, like 2:30:00 in a windy race vs 2:29:55 in a hot race...there's no objective way to do it.
I don't think you can do "next fastest athlete in qualifying window" as there are too many variables.
I notice two things. 1: there's no difference in terms of selection if you qualify by standard or qualify by (IAAF) ranking.
One thing that I do like about the IAAF rankings is that it allows for multiple performances to be taken into account. You can definitely argue whether the methods are sound (IAAF points are problematic for sure, but less so within the same event), but it seems more fair than taking just one race. We are kind of funny like that in our sport where athletes are definted by their PBs, unlike say baseball where you are looking at averages.