AAI released WC standards

ecoli

Very little difference between the IAAF and the AAI standards except in the Marathon and walks

The Mens Marathon has the IAAF standard as its B standard and has set 2.13 as the A standard

In the womens even bigger differences with the B standard being 7 minutes (2.36) quicker than the IAAF and the A standard down a 2.32

The 20k and 50k race walks similarly have seen big jumps

http://hp.athleticsireland.ie/images/spolicy/2013/WC/13_WC_012413.pdf

Krusty_Clown

So Maria McCambridge (02:35:28) and Ava Huchtinson (2:35:33) have achieved the 'B' standard (2:36) for the marathon.
And so it begins... Hard to see anyone getting the A Standard (2:32) before the 19th May.

RayCun

They should send McCambridge. She's earned it.

woodchopper

I disagree with Ecoli with regards to the walks. The 50k standard is 3.55 which is over 17 minutes slower than Rob Heffernan's pb!. However 2.12 is needed to qualify for the marathon which is in theory fine if they want to raise standards but theres a big BUT here.

Athletics Canada and Athletics UK set similiar standards in the marathon so as not to send athletes who would be out of their depth in a world class calibre field. Yet to bridge the gap they set up altitude training camps and funding for top aspiring marathon athletes and in the UK scenario in consultation with the London marathon. This involved athletes been funded to compete and train full time, sponsers ( Canada with New Balance and UK with Adidas) , 5-6 week stints in Kenya twice a year, camps in Font Romeu during buildups etc along with top class support.

Yet over here we expect Paul Pollock and Sean Hehir to carry the flag and try to reach these lofty standards yet they have to work full time to even survive. It is ridiculous to think these guys under current circumstances through no fault of their own can realistically run a 2.12. Paul's training revolves running to and from work and likewise Im sure for Sean.

The marathon mission might as well be scraped because what exactly is the point of it now?

Is it to raise standards?

How to they plan to get guys running 2.12 with full time jobs and no viable support?

Irish distance running is dead if they think you can compete on any stage never mind the world stage against the East Africans if all the guys are working 40 plus hours a week.

Anyone on boards fancy been ridiculed in the media for not beating the Africans when you have to work 40 hours a week.

TRR

Great post woodchopper. Agree with all you say. No problem with them tightening the times but something like 2.15 would have been logical. Never realised the Canadians had put all those structures in place. Wow so a bit of planning from the national organisation brought on athletes, wouldn't it be great if we had administrators like that!!

Ceepo

TRR wrote: »

Great post woodchopper. Agree with all you say. No problem with them tightening the times but something like 2.15 would have been logical. Never realised the Canadians had put all those structures in place. Wow so a bit of planning from the national organisation brought on athletes, wouldn't it be great if we had administrators like that!!

But we do...... Oh no wait that was a dream

myflipflops

Ignoring the marathon standards (should be 2.15 and 2.35 in my opinion), what is the point in listing B standards?

I may be missing it but I don't see any mention of a selection policy for B standards in the document is quoted below. Nobody on a B standard can hope to place top 16 with a B standard (except the long jump where 8.10 could medal) so why list them?

Could do with a much more clearly defined selection policy.

AAI wrote:

3. SELECTION PHILOSOPHY:
3.1 To achieve our High Performance vision of “more athletes wining on the world stage” Athletics Ireland has set the Performance Standards for the 2013 IAAF World Championships, where an athlete and/or relay team selected to compete, will be expected to obtain a podium, top 8, top 16 finish.

ecoli

Apologies WC I wasnt referring to the difficulty of the standards but rather just making a note of the difference between IAAF policy and AAI.

I agree with your post and you make an excellent point in the comparison of standards in other countries coupled with what is actually provided by the NGB very much sets up a performing in spite the organisation as opposed to with support from.

Has Linda lined up a Spring Marathon? As it stands she is one of the athletes who as of this moment is not qualified for WC and may have to amend her training plan accordingly (if so makes a joke of what was said from the AAI camp regarding team selection for world XC)

Pisco Sour

To be fair, 2:43 for a World A-Standard is taking the piss. The IAAF equate that to 34:32 for 10000m, 16:22 for 5000m and 4:25 for 1500m. It would be a farce sending athletes to World Championships on those times (if it were possible). I know the marathon can accommodate more people hence the weaker standards but I don’t think it’s right that a 2:40 runner could end up at a World Championships while a vastly superior 4:10 1500m runner is left at home. I’m sure loads will disagree but that’s my opinion anyway. Marathon standards were way too weak last year. They are a joke now this year.

woodchopper

Pisco Sour wrote: »

To be fair, 2:43 for a World A-Standard is taking the piss. The IAAF equate that to 34:32 for 10000m, 16:22 for 5000m and 4:25 for 1500m. It would be a farce sending athletes to World Championships on those times (if it were possible). I know the marathon can accommodate more people hence the weaker standards but I don’t think it’s right that a 2:40 runner could end up at a World Championships while a vastly superior 4:10 1500m runner is left at home. I’m sure loads will disagree but that’s my opinion anyway. Marathon standards were way too weak last year. They are a joke now this year.

Your right 2.45 is too slow to compete in a world championship marathon. The point is AAI are setting standards and doing nothing to help athletes bridge the gap. Although 2.31.59 is a lot more friendly than a 2.12 which is what Irish male marathoners have to do off no help and full time work!

notsofast

All A standards are very tough, not just the marathon and they would be just as hard to reach for someone working full time. 800 is 1.45.3/2.0.0. Only one Irish man, David Matthews and no woman has ever beaten that. Lots of the other A standards are better than Irish records.

myflipflops

notsofast wrote: »

All A standards are very tough, not just the marathon and they would be just as hard to reach for someone working full time. 800 is 1.45.3/2.0.0. Only one Irish man, David Matthews and no woman has ever beaten that. Lots of the other A standards are better than Irish records.

There is nothing the AAI can do about those standards though, they are set down by the IAAF.

The point is that (rightly or wrongly), the AAI have made the A standards for the marathon more stringent than the standards set down by the IAAF.

Clum

There's no need for Athletics Ireland to impose tougher standards for the marathon.

Don't compare Championship marathons with big money, city marathons. The annual marathons offer large money and usually pacers which lead to faster times. Championship marathons are usually slower.

In the men's race at the London Olympics a 2.15 finish would have put somebody in the top 20 (the race was won in 2.08). At the world campionships in Daegu in 2011 a 2.17 (the B standard) would have produced a top 20 finish (race was won in 2.07). In Beijing a 2.15 would also have produced a top 20 finish.

Our marathoners running PBs in Rotterdam or London or wherever, getting a qualifying time for a championship but finishing in some position nobody remembers has no direct bearing on how they'll do in a championship. Look at the Ethiopian marathoners who ran in London Olympics. All 2.05 marathoners yet none of them finished the race. Championship marathons (unless being led out by the legend that was Sammy Wanjiru) start out relatively comfortable and finish fast. Athletics Ireland should be picking people on more than just a qualifying time.

Obviously top 20 doesn't ensure a podium finish but it would do a marathoners profile the world of good, helping them get sponsorship or other types of support. A runner being known as such and such who finished 13th in the Dublin marathon doesn't sound quite as good as such and such who finished 13th in the World Championships.

Hard Worker

While people are making some valid points, there are also a lot of defeatist attitudes out there.
Back in the day Gerry Healy ran 2.15 for the marathon. He ran it while working 50 hours a week and studying. He had no support from a kit sponsor and had no support from a Marathon Mission which would have given him assistance with altitude training, sports science and dietary advice etc.
Sub 2.12 is well within the capabilities of Mark Kenneally and Paul Pollock. We have a number of athletes, men and women, with the b standard in the marathon. They may be sent to the World Championships.
Unfortunately, while this country is paying back gambling debts, sport will not receive the funding it deserves. Athletes will just have to be positive and carry on.
If only there was an athlete in the Dáil or Senate.

Enduro

woodchopper wrote: »

The point is AAI are setting standards and doing nothing to help athletes bridge the gap. Although 2.31.59 is a lot more friendly than a 2.12 which is what Irish male marathoners have to do off no help and full time work!

<cynicle mode on>
Those figures have the look of something that was extracted from someone's rear end. I would love to hear their reasoning for coming up with those precise targets. I wouldn't be surprised if fear of having to pay for too many flights, or having to send less officials due to having larger numbers of athletes, came into it somewhere along the way. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we had 3 or more athletes who had run, or were likely to be able to run 2:12 that they would set the target at 2:08 or similar.
<cynicle mode off>

It really is a kick in the teeth for our top marathon runners, who are pushing their own standards higher all the time with (as far as I can tell) sod all realistically useful help from the governing body.

Enduro

Hard Worker wrote: »

While people are making some valid points, there are also a lot of defeatist attitudes out there.
Back in the day Gerry Healy ran 2.15 for the marathon. He ran it while working 50 hours a week and studying. He had no support from a kit sponsor and had no support from a Marathon Mission which would have given him assistance with altitude training, sports science and dietary advice etc.
Sub 2.12 is well within the capabilities of Mark Kenneally and Paul Pollock. We have a number of athletes, men and women, with the b standard in the marathon. They may be sent to the World Championships.
Unfortunately, while this country is paying back gambling debts, sport will not receive the funding it deserves. Athletes will just have to be positive and carry on.
If only there was an athlete in the Dáil or Senate.

I don't think the attitude here is at all defeatest. Quite the opposite. The attitude here seems to be admiration that the Irish marathoners can get to the IAAF standards off their own bat without support from AAI (by international standards). These lads are still training under "back in the day" conditions, as far as support from our NGB is concerned, whilst our international competitors have moved on to higher standards of athlete support.

Surely if we accept the fact that we don't have the funding to put international standard support in place for their training that should be a case for NOT raising the bar for the qualifying criteria for the WC. It's totally counter-inituitive to raise the bar and not be able to give the athletes the support that will help them to get to that standard.

Out of interest does the marathon mission provide any funding for their altitude training, access to nutrionists etc, or is it just in the form of information?

jeffontour

Enduro wrote: »

Out of interest does the marathon mission provide any funding for their altitude training, access to nutrionists etc, or is it just in the form of information?

From what I've read from some of the athletes involved there is some help with covering costs for training camps, but I've no clue what the extent of the support is.

average_runner

jeffontour wrote: »

From what I've read from some of the athletes involved there is some help with covering costs for training camps, but I've no clue what the extent of the support is.

If we don't have athletes in these events, how do we expect to grow the sport?

jeffontour

average_runner wrote: »

If we don't have athletes in these events, how do we expect to grow the sport?

Ya wha? I haven't said we shouldn't have people at world champs.

bazman

The news from AAI this week is disheartening. There is low morale in the Marathon Mission group this week at a time where the good athletes should be energised with the prospects of going to a major championship.

I understand the importance of not sending athletes out of their depth, but the recent announcement is a step too far. In my opinion the mens A standard should have been left at the realistic 2:15. There may have been a case of improving the womens standard slightly based on 4 qualifying for the olympics.

Overall it's a sign that they want to send maximum one male and one female in the marathon. I suspect and hope that the fastest male & female times this year with minimum of B standard will get to run ...

I believe the MM organisers pushed AAI to leave standards as per IAAF, but unfortunately it didn't work out. I think the MM group will primarily now focus on Euro 2014 champs where there is a team competition in the marathon - hopefully there will be large Irish representation in Zurich. Again hopefully the AAI don't leave it to the last minute to announce standards, particularly for the marathon. It makes it very difficult to plan & the marathon is all about planning ...

In terms of MM support - it's primarily about training together and financial support to enter top quality races. There is also support from DCU in relation to sports science - blood testing, VO2 etc. & a number of altitude tents available shared between group. It is a very worthwhile initiative and has seen consistent improvements, but it does need AAI support to get to the next level ...

woodchopper

bazman wrote: »

In terms of MM support - it's primarily about training together and financial support to enter top quality races. There is also support from DCU in relation to sports science - blood testing, VO2 etc. & a number of altitude tents available shared between group. It is a very worthwhile initiative and has seen consistent improvements, but it does need AAI support to get to the next level ...

With regards to group training what would the numbers and frequency be like on a long run prior to the Dublin marathon?

It would be great to think that 8-10 guys would be taking it to each other on a long run in the park.

woodchopper

Im afraid once again that AAI High Performance is lacking any clear vision when it comes to marathon championship performances. How can our marathoners compete to a high level in Zurich if they have zero experience in International marathons, the erratic pacing, hot temperatures that bgo with such an event plus the experience of training for a marathon in the Summer.

I think that 3 guys like Paul Pollock, Sean Hehir if he dips under 2.17 and another whether this is Kenneally, Connolly or Bazman himself should be sent provided they show the necessary form. These guys need the experience firstly of a major championship marathon. Okay none of themmay finish in the top 15 but surely been in the top 10-15 Europeans will stand to these guys when they step up against the Spaniards and Poles in Zurich.

Likewise for the women. If we want to finish in the top 5-6 as a team in the European marathon championships then we need athletes who know how to deal with the environments of a championship marathon. Also the Europeans wont feel as daunting if they have first hand experience of competing with the top Europeans in Russia this August.

Anyone think AAI have thought of such logic?

average_runner

jeffontour wrote: »

Ya wha? I haven't said we shouldn't have people at world champs.

Wasnt a reference to your post. Just the way the phone does it.

average_runner

woodchopper wrote: »

Im afraid once again that AAI High Performance is lacking any clear vision when it comes to marathon championship performances. How can our marathoners compete to a high level in Zurich if they have zero experience in International marathons, the erratic pacing, hot temperatures that bgo with such an event plus the experience of training for a marathon in the Summer.

I think that 3 guys like Paul Pollock, Sean Hehir if he dips under 2.17 and another whether this is Kenneally, Connolly or Bazman himself should be sent provided they show the necessary form. These guys need the experience firstly of a major championship marathon. Okay none of themmay finish in the top 15 but surely been in the top 10-15 Europeans will stand to these guys when they step up against the Spaniards and Poles in Zurich.

Likewise for the women. If we want to finish in the top 5-6 as a team in the European marathon championships then we need athletes who know how to deal with the environments of a championship marathon. Also the Europeans wont feel as daunting if they have first hand experience of competing with the top Europeans in Russia this August.

Anyone think AAI have thought of such logic?

Logic and AAI don't belong in the same sentence

TRR

Hard Worker wrote: »

While people are making some valid points, there are also a lot of defeatist attitudes out there.
Back in the day Gerry Healy ran 2.15 for the marathon. He ran it while working 50 hours a week and studying. He had no support from a kit sponsor and had no support from a Marathon Mission which would have given him assistance with altitude training, sports science and dietary advice etc.
Sub 2.12 is well within the capabilities of Mark Kenneally and Paul Pollock.

I usually agree with most you sat HW but kind of disagree with you here. Gerry Healy was the exception not the norm. In recent time nobody has replicated those times with that work load. So a new model is needed a famous man once said Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I think you are playing devils advocate though as you are central to devising new structures.

The one thing that people have failed to mention is that 2.12 would probably place you 12th or 13th on the all time Irish marathon list. Seen as nobody apart from Mark Carroll have broken the top 15 in the last 20 years (open to correction) this seems a definite o=ploy to send a single athlete A or B standard to the worlds.

bazman wrote: »

The news from AAI this week is disheartening. There is low morale in the Marathon Mission group this week at a time where the good athletes should be energised with the prospects of going to a major championship.

That's sad to hear and I can fully understand why. A 2.15 target would have been ideal in my eyes. It would have meant the lads had to up their game but is a realistic time that a good few could achieve. Then let a bit of natural selection occur, send the fastest 3, this will ensure the lads push as hard as they could and may have run considerably faster than the 2.15 barrier. The 2.12 time is disheartening and may mean a couple aren't willing to flog themselves to run what for them could be a PB (worse case scenario but plausible)

woodchopper wrote: »

Likewise for the women. If we want to finish in the top 5-6 as a team in the European marathon championships then we need athletes who know how to deal with the environments of a championship marathon. Also the Europeans wont feel as daunting if they have first hand experience of competing with the top Europeans in Russia this August.

Anyone think AAI have thought of such logic?

That hadn't registered with me but is a great point. Doesn't seem to be a long term plan in place no matter what BS is spouted.

bazman

TRR wrote: »

The one thing that people have failed to mention is that 2.12 would probably place you 12th or 13th on the all time Irish marathon list.

Marathon
1 2.09.15 John Treacy 04.06.57 3 Boston USA 18.04.88
2 2.10.54 Mark Carroll 15.01.72 6 New York USA 03.11.02
3 2.11.27 Andy Ronan 19.07.63 3 Boston USA 15.04.91
4 2.11.30 John Woods 08.12.55 1 Wexford IRL 24.04.88
5 2.12.19 Dick Hooper 26.08.56 2 Wexford IRl 24.04.88
6 2.12.20 Jerry Kiernan 31.05.53 9 Los Angeles USA 05.08.84
7 2.12.21 Louis Kenny 08.11.56 1 Huntsville USA 13.12.80
8 2.13.06 Danny McDaid 04.08.41 1 Limerick IRL 11.04.76
9 2.13.25 Roy Dooney 23.01.58 1 Duluth USA 20.06.92
10 2.13.39 Neil Cusack 30.02.51 1 Boston USA 15.04.74
11 2.13.55 Kingston Mills 14.03.55 10 Berlin GER 28.09.86
11 2.13.55 Mark Kenneally 18.04.81 18 Amsterdam NED 16.10.11
13 2.13.59 Tommy Hughes 08.01.60 2 Marrakesh MAR 12.01.92
14 2.14.06 Martin Fagan 26.06.83 13 Dubai UAE 18.01.08
15 2.14.37 Gerry Curtis 18.05.59 12 Boston USA 16.04.90
16 2.14.42 John Griffin 21.07.59 37 London GBR 21.04.91
17 2.14.53 Pat McMahon 01.02.42 3 Boston USA 20.04.70
18 2.14.54 Jim McNamara 17.04.39 2 Limerick IRL 11.04.76
19 2.15.03 Sean Healy 23.07.46 1 Kaduna NGR 28.08.71
20 2.15.07 Jamie Lewis 18.03.69 17 London GBR 16.04.00
21 2.15.20 Gerry Healy 08.11.62 3 Southport AUS 12.07.92
22 2.15.21 Donie Walsh 28.05.47 1 Athlone IRL 25.06.72
23 2.15.28 Noel Berkeley 28.11.64 9 Hamburg GER 27.04.97
24 2.15.54 Maurice Cowman 21.09.59 3 Marseille FRA 14.04.85
25 2.16.07 Eamonn Tierney 02.07.57 4 Wexford IRL 24.04.88
26 2.16.08 Alan Harding 06.05.55 7 Hamburg GER 25.05.86
27 2.16.16 Des McGann 21.07.45 2 Athlone IRL 25.06.72
28 2.16.28 Paul Craig 10.06.57 3 Toronto CAN 02.10.83
29 2.16.30 Brian Keeney 27.07.54 2 Cork IRL 07.06.81
29 2.16.30 Paul Pollock 2.16.30 9 Dublin IRL 29.10.12
31 2.16.32 John Fitzgerald 03.04.59 2 Clonmel IRL 22.04.90
32 2.16.37 Gerry Staunton 27.06.50 52 London GBR 17.04.83
33 2.16.41 Paddy Murphy 20.02.44 2 Limerick IRL 06.06.82
34 2.16.42 Sean Connolly 03.08.82 22 Rotterdam NED 15.04.12
35 2.16.50 Brendan O'Shea 06.01.43 1 Berchem BEL 17.09.72
36 2.16.54 Ray Treacy 25.11.54 2 Cork IRL 04.04.83
37 2.17.05 Tom Maher 08.03.65 3 Dublin IRL 25.06.93
38 2.17.17 John Bolger 27.06.58 1 Dublin IRL 27.10.90
39 2.17.20 Tony Brien 31.12.47 12 Boston USA 21.04.75
40 2.17.22 Robert Costelloe 00.00.54 4 Lisbon POR 08.11.87
41 2.17.29 Gary Thornton 29.07.79 28 Rotterdam NED 15.04.12
41 2.17.29 Jimmy Fallon 24.03.60 2 Newport GBR 06.11.83
43 2.17.35 Sean Hehir 27.01.85 13 Dublin IRL 29.10.12
44 2.17.40 Barry Minnock 11.04.75 8 Hannover GER 05.05.12
45 2.17.46 Pat Hooper 12.05.52 1 Tullamore IRL 08.07.79
46 2.17.48 James Craven 01.12.39 13 Manchester GBR 13.06.71
46 2.17.48 Tom McGrath 04.03.66 32 London GBR 26.04.98
48 2.17.54 Willie Dunne 12.09.33 3 Berchem BEL 07.09.72
49 2.18.05 Tom O'Gara 00.00.66 4 Chicago USA 25.10.92
50 2.18.08 Mick Byrne 09.01.56 3 Dublin IRL 26.10.81
51 2.18.11 John Sheridan 16.08.46 2 Berchem BEL 14.09.73
52 2.18.12 Gerry McGrath 19.04.64 1 Belfast NIR 03.05.93
53 2.18.20 Gerry Deegan 14.06.55 2 Cork IRL 23.04.84
54 2.18.22 Michael Molloy 13.03.38 12 Kosice SLO 05.10.75
55 2.18.24 Jim McGlynn 04.09.53 1 Glasgow GBR 18.10.81
56 2.18.26 Eddie Leddy 06.09.51 2 Huntsville USA 16.12.78

Only 7 on all time list would qualify for Moscow. It's 4 for the women ...
http://www.athleticsireland.ie/content/?page_id=6210

Pisco Sour

Is there a chance that with it being the World's and with no OCI influence that they will send some athletes on B-Standards? They sent some in Daegu. Deirdre Ryan being an example. Maybe 2:15 could still be good enough to gain selection?

woodchopper

Pisco Sour wrote: »

Is there a chance that with it being the World's and with no OCI influence that they will send some athletes on B-Standards? They sent some in Daegu. Deirdre Ryan being an example. Maybe 2:15 could still be good enough to gain selection?

Thats a possibility but they are messing with Irish marathoners heads here. What does Paul Pollock make of this? Does he go after the time again this Spring and throw his 5k/10k plans for Mt Sac and Payton Jordan out the window?

Bazman talks about disillusionment within Marathon Mission. This is not what is needed for someone like Sean Hehir when facing into a daunting marathon training schedule. Before he could believe that a 2.15 or low 2.16 will qualify him for the worlds. He has a single focus in training. Now what is his focus? Does he forget his marathon plans, does he go after 2.12 and struggle home, or does he stay with the sub 2.17 plot like originally planned?

Far too many questions and AAI need to make it clear to these guys this weekend what is needed to be sent to Moscow. Nip it in the bud early and not let it drag on.

What happens if Brian Gregan, Mark English and Ciaran O lioniard come up short from the A. Do we sent these guys and not sent the marathoners or vice versa.

A rather large can of worms has been opened and will be hard to catch all the spilled worms in this icy weather. This of course is all under the assumption that AAI High Performance officials leave their cosy surroundings of Northwood Park

TRR

bazman wrote: »

Only 7 on all time list would qualify for Moscow. It's 4 for the women ...

Thanks for that list. But I guess it's actually worse than you state, if it's sub 2.12 that leaves the top 4 Irish male times!!!!! Wow

Pisco Sour

TRR wrote: »

Thanks for that list. But I guess it's actually worse than you state, if it's sub 2.12 that leaves the top 4 Irish male times!!!!! Wow

To be fair the 800 standard leaves the top 1 Irish male of all time. Same with the 400. As standards go the marathon is still one of the easier ones.

notsofast

No Irish have ever reached hj or 100m standard (at a glance, I'm sure there are more) so yeah, marathon is one of the easier ones. Can't see anyone reaching those standards in the foreseeable.

ecoli

I know from a statistical point of view yes the marathon might sound a little easier but there are alot of factors which can result in this

1) amount of races - you can get maybe 2 or three top chances at it so very little margin for error

2) Remember unlike other events there are 5 able to run per country meaning peaking right and prep for the Moscow rather than the qualifying time should be paramount. This is more than any other event even with the extra place alotted for World Champions

Woodchopper made an excellent point regarding the nature of championship racing in a marathon. Our athletes are spending all there time focusing on trying to hit these standards with sustained level paced only to have to try and revert back would it not make sense to not have such dramatic increases (not saying B standards but a middle ground like 2.15 or 2.33/34) and allow these athletes to try prepare properly for a progressive championship race rather than an all out TT

Krusty_Clown

Pisco Sour wrote: »

To be fair the 800 standard leaves the top 1 Irish male of all time. Same with the 400. As standards go the marathon is still one of the easier ones.

It is certainly more achievable than the 400m and 800m times. You've got to bear in mind though that the 400m and 800m qualification times are established by the IAAF and have nothing to do with the AAI. They are the minimum qualification times required to compete in the event.

TJC

woodchopper wrote: »

I disagree with Ecoli with regards to the walks. The 50k standard is 3.55 which is over 17 minutes slower than Rob Heffernan's pb!. However 2.12 is needed to qualify for the marathon which is in theory fine if they want to raise standards but theres a big BUT here.

Athletics Canada and Athletics UK set similiar standards in the marathon so as not to send athletes who would be out of their depth in a world class calibre field. Yet to bridge the gap they set up altitude training camps and funding for top aspiring marathon athletes and in the UK scenario in consultation with the London marathon. This involved athletes been funded to compete and train full time, sponsers ( Canada with New Balance and UK with Adidas) , 5-6 week stints in Kenya twice a year, camps in Font Romeu during buildups etc along with top class support.

Yet over here we expect Paul Pollock and Sean Hehir to carry the flag and try to reach these lofty standards yet they have to work full time to even survive. It is ridiculous to think these guys under current circumstances through no fault of their own can realistically run a 2.12. Paul's training revolves running to and from work and likewise Im sure for Sean.

The marathon mission might as well be scraped because what exactly is the point of it now?

Is it to raise standards?

How to they plan to get guys running 2.12 with full time jobs and no viable support?

Irish distance running is dead if they think you can compete on any stage never mind the world stage against the East Africans if all the guys are working 40 plus hours a week.

Anyone on boards fancy been ridiculed in the media for not beating the Africans when you have to work 40 hours a week.

Very good post.

Anothere thing the AAI are doing is preventing these athletes from picking up a bit of Sports Funding. If they were to send a few of these runners to the Worlds they would qualify for a 12k grant (if i'm not mistaken). So not only do they have to train full-time and work full-time, they also have to do so without the financial support that others get. Only 7 Irish people to run under 2.13 according to that list above. Are they seriously being realistic?? I feel sorry for these athletes and also for the marathon mission. A lot of their hard work being undone. Some of these guys may be sick of running marathons and not making big finals by the time the europeans come around. I know other athletes train hard, but getting out and running over 100 miles a week is as tough as it comes..
As mentioned, championship races are usually slower than the big races, so our guys could actually do ok.

These guys are being treated disgracefully.
Yhe AAI clearly do not have a clue.
If they invested their money in athletes instead of settling court cases they might have some hope of improving Irish athletics....but even if they did have the money they'd find some other way to F*** things up!!

(Rant over)

Pisco Sour

TJC wrote: »

I know other athletes train hard, but getting out and running over 100 miles a week is as tough as it comes..

This bit I would take issue with. Training at a high level is equally tough for all events. There seems to be a bit of entitlement with regards the marathon here. All the AAI have done is bring the standard more in line with that of other events (it is still easier). I've no issue with this at all, and plenty of other countries do this aswell (Australia, Canada). As I've said before I don't think it's fair that somebody like Mark English or Jessie Barr could miss out on selection while somebody running 2:16 or 2:39 gets to go to Moscow.

However this information should have been communicated a long time ago. Anybody with half a brain cell could predict that the IAAF standards would be the roughly the same for Moscow as they were for London (and in fact they were easier for the marathon), so why didn't they inform athletes immediately after the Olympics that they were going to raise the selection standards? This would have given everyone ample notice and they could plan their year's accordingly. Instead we have another massive cock-up, just 7 months before the World Championships.

No problem with tightening the standards (I would support it being honest) but the way they have done it is unfair and athletes can rightfully feel aggrieved at that.

endswell

outside of the 12k grant, how much does it cost to send an athlete to a wc marathon?

Krusty_Clown

Pisco Sour wrote: »

There seems to be a bit of entitlement with regards the marathon here.

I don't get it. If you hit the 800m IAAF standard, you get to go. If you hit the IAAF standard for the marathon, you don't. It's kind of like the opposite of entitlement.

TJC

Pisco Sour wrote: »

This bit I would take issue with. Training at a high level is equally tough for all events. There seems to be a bit of entitlement with regards the marathon here. All the AAI have done is bring the standard more in line with that of other events (it is still easier). I've no issue with this at all, and plenty of other countries do this aswell (Australia, Canada). As I've said before I don't think it's fair that somebody like Mark English or Jessie Barr could miss out on selection while somebody running 2:16 or 2:39 gets to go to Moscow.

However this information should have been communicated a long time ago. Anybody with half a brain cell could predict that the IAAF standards would be the roughly the same for Moscow as they were for London (and in fact they were easier for the marathon), so why didn't they inform athletes immediately after the Olympics that they were going to raise the selection standards? This would have given everyone ample notice and they could plan their year's accordingly. Instead we have another massive cock-up, just 7 months before the World Championships.

No problem with tightening the standards (I would support it being honest) but the way they have done it is unfair and athletes can rightfully feel aggrieved at that.

I totally agree with what ur saying about the likes of Barr and English...The way they have been treated just shows how inept the AAI are.
But you dont get 20/21 year olds running marathons. The guys in their late 20s and early 30s are the marathon equivalent. They too should be given a chance to develop as marathon runners.
The Team GB qualifying standard was 2.12 for London. They had 1 man from over 60 million people get it. While the IAAF times might be a bit 'soft' in some people's eyes, the AAI A standard is a joke. This is not the right way to go about raising standards.. Why not change all the standards if they want us to medal???

ecoli

Dick Hoopers opinion on the matter;

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/hooper-hits-out-at-hike-in-a-standard-3372028.html

rom

"Britton's burning desire to have a team supporting her at the World Cross-Country championships in March has taken a sudden turn for the better.

AAI had been lukewarm about sending a team to Poland, but it seems the excellent form shown by North Sligo's Mary Cullen last weekend, in her first race in 18 months, has forced a major rethink by AAI."

That would be sweet