Rio 2016 Marathon Qualification, whos trying?

tang1

With the qualification time due to be disclosed this month, what elite Irish Males/Females are looking to Rio?

From attending Mark Kenneally over the winter months for rehab, he was looking at an autumn marathon, possibly Berlin to run his time. Martin Fagan is running Rotterdam going by reports, who else does anybody know? Sean Hehir or Mark Christie have any plans in attempting qualification? Sergiu was talking before about possibly running for Ireland in Rio?

The ladies possibly going for it Maria Mc, Fionnuala Britton anybody know of anyone else? Interesting 12 months ahead for them.

pistol_75

Maria McCambridge is targeting Berlin for her QT.

menoscemo

Paul Pollock surely?

tang1

menoscemo wrote: »

Paul Pollock surely?

He slipped my mind, surely as you said.

Itziger

Is Lizzie Lee going to try for the QT? I would have thought she'd go for it. Bit more experience now.

menoscemo

Itziger wrote: »

Is Lizzie Lee going to try for the QT? I would have thought she'd go for it. Bit more experience now.

Pretty sure jebus mentioned something about that in his log (at least that's who I think he was referring to).

Zatopek

Sergiu got his Irish citizenship a few months ago so he'll more than likely give it a go. Other names like Mick Clohisey spring to mind. Going off his half marathon time he wouldn't be too far of the mark if he decides to give it a go. Joe Sweeney who has been lying low the past few months might give it a lash. Probably a good few more there who haven't ran marathons before. Alistair Cragg ran the Fukuoka Marathon back in 2013, definitely not his best race with a time of 2:23. He might give it a go.

Depending on what the standard is it could be very competitive for places on the team.

Clum

The last men to represent Ireland at a Championship marathon were Sean Hehir, Kevin Seaward and Thomas Frazer (Euro champs in Zurich last summer).

Seaward ran 1.05 in the Reading Half Mara a week or two ago.

Not sure what Frazer is up to, but he ran under 3 hours for a 50k back in January.

Pollack ran 1.06 in the Omagh half a few weeks back also.

I don't think Fagan is running Rotterdam. I could be wrong but the impressions I got was that he wasn't.

dublin runner

Believe Fagan is running Zurich. Open to correction.

Sacksian

Is Mick Clohisey still running Rotterdam? JTG mentioned that a few times.

Anyone else down for Rotterdam?

Krusty_Clown

Any bets on the qualification times?
I'd hazard sub 2:17 (M) and 2:32 (F) in order to reduce the numbers/weed out potential contenders.

tang1

Clum wrote: »

I don't think Fagan is running Rotterdam. I could be wrong but the impressions I got was that he wasn't.

I'm open to correction, just following on on reports that he was running Rotterdam. Think Lindie Naughton mentioned in one of her weekly round-ups that was his plan.

tang1

Extract of said article before i get accused of making stuff up again:

dublin runner

tang1 wrote: »

Extract of said article before i get accused of making stuff up again:

Think things changed since then. Zurich was mentioned a few times to me but again, open to correction!

tang1

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Any bets on the qualification times?
I'd hazard sub 2:17 (M) and 2:32 (F) in order to reduce the numbers/weed out potential contenders.

The USA have set times of sub 2.18(male) and sub 2.43(female) to even run in there trials. If you run sub 2.15(male) and sub 2.37(female) your on the plane.

tang1

dublin runner wrote: »

Think things changed since then. Zurich was mentioned a few times to me but again, open to correction!

Yeah that article is the end of February, things could well have changed alright.

Krusty_Clown

tang1 wrote: »

The USA have set times of sub 2.18(male) and sub 2.43(female) to even run in there trials. If you run sub 2.15(male) and sub 2.37(female) your on the plane.

There won't be an Irish trials for the marathon. Are you suggesting that any US female running sub 2:37 will be on the plane to Rio? They're going to need a bigger plane.
*Edit*: results from the 2012 USA trials - 22 runners under 2:37.

The AAI qualifying times for the World Championships were:
Male: 2:13 ('A') and 2:17 ('B')
Female: 2:32 ('A') and 2:36 ('B')

So under the same qualifying times, if Fionnuala Briton were to run sub 2:32, then any other potential female qualifiers would also have to run sub 2:32. Let's hope it's a little more lenient this time.

tang1

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

There won't be an Irish trials for the marathon. Are you suggesting that any US female running sub 2:37 will be on the plane to Rio? They're going to need a bigger plane.
*Edit*: results from the 2012 trials - 22 runners under 2:37.

I know there is no Irish marathon trials, just highlighted the USA qualification procedure. Course not every woman running sub 2.37 is going to Rio, must phrase stuff better.

average_runner

2:18 for the men, they said on JTG and also heard from a runner going for it.
2:4x for the women i think, could be way off here.


In fairness the times look soft compare to what track runners have to get for rio.

Krusty_Clown

average_runner wrote: »

2:18 for the men, they said on JTG and also heard from a runner going for it.
2:4x for the women i think, could be way off here.


In fairness the times look soft compare to what track runners have to get for rio.

That would be a complete turn-about from the Worlds policy.

menoscemo

Does Fionnuala's Euro time still count for Rio qualification or does she have to do it again?

tang1

menoscemo wrote: »

Does Fionnuala's Euro time still count for Rio qualification or does she have to do it again?

This is a photo of the IAAF's qualification standards(still cannot create a link). Judging by this it does not get her in:

NetwerkErrer

average_runner wrote: »

2:18 for the men, they said on JTG and also heard from a runner going for it.
2:4x for the women i think, could be way off here.


In fairness the times look soft compare to what track runners have to get for rio.

Marathon times are always softer because of infrastructure available in road racing. Numbers are always larger in the marathon.

menoscemo

tang1 wrote: »

This is a photo of the IAAF's qualification standards(still cannot create a link). Judging by this it does not get her in:

Ah ok, I wonder will she run the Marathon at the Worlds though?
In saying that, probably not the best place to try to get an Olympic QT...

NetwerkErrer

Can someone get this straight for me because there is so many connotations. The IOC sets the A standard which can be made tougher by a National Committee but not easier. At the very least, an athlete has to run under the IOC Q time to get an A standard but may have to run faster depending on the National committee standard. i.e IOC set A standard at 2.15, at the very least, an athlete has to run under 2.15 to qualify with an A standard. The national body can set the A standard at 2.13 if they like but not 2.16.


If like people are saying here, the standard is set at 2.18, that is the B standard as every country is entitled to send one athlete regardless of time above the IOC Q time so they set a B standard in place in the event of no one making the A standard..

If one or more athletes makes the A standard, no athletes who made the B standard can qualify. If no one makes the A standard, one athlete who made the B standard can qualify. A maximum of 3 athletes per country can qualify if they all make the A standard.

Is this right?

average_runner

Is the USA marathon trial, a race just created for the trials or an existing marathon?

Pherekydes

NetwerkErrer wrote: »

Can someone get this straight for me because there is so many connotations. The IOC sets the A standard which can be made tougher by a National Committee but not easier.

The IAAF sets the qualifying standards for all the Olympic games athletic events. NGBs, e.g. USTAF, can set their own standards to limit numbers for their trials. NOCs usually accept that the athletic competitions come under the auspices of the respective NGB. OCI seem to be one of the few exceptions. Their remit seems to be to undermine the authority of the AAI and promote themselves as the sole authority of olympic sport in Ireland.

Pherekydes

average_runner wrote: »

Is the USA marathon triall, a race just created for the trials or an existing marathon?

I'm pretty sure the USA has an explicit trial for each Olympics and WC. Open to correction.

average_runner

Pherekydes wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the USA has an explicit trial for each Olympics and WC. Open to correction.

Be a good race to watch.

Clearlier

NetwerkErrer wrote: »

If like people are saying here, the standard is set at 2.18, that is the B standard as every country is entitled to send one athlete regardless of time above the IOC Q time so they set a B standard in place in the event of no one making the A standard..

If one or more athletes makes the A standard, no athletes who made the B standard can qualify. If no one makes the A standard, one athlete who made the B standard can qualify. A maximum of 3 athletes per country can qualify if they all make the A standard.

Is this right?

A small amendment here is that a B standard athlete can be sent even if someone has met the A standard provided that the B standard athlete is the only one sent. For the London olympics the British team somewhat controversially chose a B standard athlete for the women's 800m ahead of three athletes who had the A standard.

tang1

average_runner wrote: »

Is the USA marathon trial, a race just created for the trials or an existing marathon?

USA trials to be held on 13th of Feb '16 in LA.

NetwerkErrer

tang1 wrote: »

The USA have set times of sub 2.18(male) and sub 2.43(female) to even run in there trials. If you run sub 2.15(male) and sub 2.37(female) your on the plane.

2.15 and 2.37 won't get you on the plane. The US Q procedure is to 2.18 and 2.37 to get to the trials. If an athlete runs 2.06, they do not qualify straight to the Olympics, they still have to run the trials to qualify.

Everyone who runs under 2.18 and 2.37 runs the trials and the top 3 qualify if they are all under the A standard in the trials. Only the athletes who finish under the USATF A standard in the trials and make the top three qualify. If only 2 make it under the standard, only 2 quailify.

tang1

NetwerkErrer wrote: »

2.15 and 2.37 won't get you on the plane. The US Q procedure is to 2.18 and 2.37 to get to the trials. If an athlete runs 2.06, they do not qualify straight to the Olympics, they still have to run the trials to qualify.

Everyone who runs under 2.18 and 2.37 runs the trials and the top 3 qualify if they are all under the A standard in the trials. Only the athletes who finish under the USATF A standard in the trials and make the top three qualify. If only 2 make it under the standard, only 2 quailify.

Your dead right, i phrased my post badly E.

jebuz

Itziger wrote: »

Is Lizzie Lee going to try for the QT? I would have thought she'd go for it. Bit more experience now.

menoscemo wrote: »

Pretty sure jebus mentioned something about that in his log (at least that's who I think he was referring to).

Yep, she's now targeting Berlin for a QT, in great form recently.

RedRunner

Sacksian wrote: »

Is Mick Clohisey still running Rotterdam? JTG mentioned that a few times.

Anyone else down for Rotterdam?

Pretty sure that's the case alright.

Chivito550

Pretty sure the IAAF have done away with A and B standards for all events. Just one standard from now on. Any B standard talk will just be created by the OCI or AAI. If they follow the IAAF, then it's one standard. Simple. No need to be complicating stuff further.

dcorcaigh

Sergio is def trying to qualify and has set out 2 windows, Autumn 2015 and Spring 2016, Berlin and I cant remember is it Dusseldorf or Dortmund marathon. he is hoping for a time close to 2-15 to guarantee him a spot on the plane.

average_runner

Seems like there is a good crowd going for it. Makes it all the more interesting.

Will it be the three quickest or the some other criteria and will that criteria Be known beforehand?

Murph_D

And then there is Chris Harrington. Does he have any chance do you think? At least he seems to be putting in the effort.

average_runner

Murph_D wrote: »

And then there is Chris Harrington. Does he have any chance do you think? At least he seems to be putting in the effort.

Depends on what his times are like

tHE vAGGABOND

Maybe controversial given this forum topic and how small the Irish running community is [and folks here may know the people concerned], but do we want to send a team "for the sake of it"?

We had a full team of ladies in London, with folks even left behind....and one of them came in dead last, and wikipedia tells me that the other two came in 66th and 68th? What did any of them or us gain from it? [I know that is an awful thing to say, but it's worth asking]

average_runner

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

Maybe controversial given this forum topic and how small the Irish running community is [and folks here may know the people concerned], but do we want to send a team "for the sake of it"?

We had a full team of ladies in London, with folks even left behind....and one of them came in dead last, and wikipedia tells me that the other two came in 66th and 68th? What did any of them or us gain from it? [I know that is an awful thing to say, but it's worth asking]

I do agree with you, if they aren't going to be competitive then they shouldn't be going. By coming 66th, 68th, its not promoting the sport in Ireland or doing it any good, as no one is paying attention. Better off investing in the facilities instead.

JTG latest podcast addresses the whole funding thing and how the walkers have developed a professional setup and how the other events are in total disarray.

tang1

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

Maybe controversial given this forum topic and how small the Irish running community is [and folks here may know the people concerned], but do we want to send a team "for the sake of it"?

We had a full team of ladies in London, with folks even left behind....and one of them came in dead last, and wikipedia tells me that the other two came in 66th and 68th? What did any of them or us gain from it? [I know that is an awful thing to say, but it's worth asking]

I think one of the ladies you are talking about was suffering badly with PF going into London, so may explain her result. Think the same woman is now concentrating on rowing.

pistol_75

tang1 wrote: »

I think one of the ladies you are talking about was suffering badly with PF going into London, so may explain her result. Think the same woman is now concentrating on rowing.

There were 3 in total. The girl you are thinking of Jennings came last in well over 3 hours. She went into the race with an injury which probably wasn't the best idea.

I disagree that we shouldn't be sending anyone that is not going to be competitive. They have all achieved the standards as defined and have earned their right to toe the line.

RayCun

The comparison that comes to mind is with a cross country race, or some other event, where a club doesn't think they'll do well but will enter a team to support the event and show the club colours. I think you could describe that as putting in a team 'for the sake of it'.

But this is the Olympics. Qualifying for the Olympics is a career goal for many athletes, something they will have dedicated their training to for years. If they qualify they deserve to go.

What is the point in building facilities, if not to train people to go to the Olympics? If every female runner is told, "until you're as good as Sonia O'Sullivan, we won't bother sending you to the Olympics", we'll never again have a female runner as good as Sonia O'Sullivan.

tang1

RayCun wrote: »

we'll never again have a female runner as good as Sonia O'Sullivan.

Argentina said the same thing about Maradona, now they have Messi. Bit of hope Ray!!

rom

Nothing against her as anyone would have done the same but UKA allows entry pending they pass a medical. So this resulted in Paula not being able to go. It was clear that the PF was ongoing issue (she may have even passed a medical) but when Maria McCambridge got left at home even after achieving the standard I hope that AI include pending medical for all athletes as sending an athlete that is injured is something that should be learned for as she was not the only athlete carrying an injury.

NetwerkErrer

RayCun wrote: »

The comparison that comes to mind is with a cross country race, or some other event, where a club doesn't think they'll do well but will enter a team to support the event and show the club colours. I think you could describe that as putting in a team 'for the sake of it'.

But this is the Olympics. Qualifying for the Olympics is a career goal for many athletes, something they will have dedicated their training to for years. If they qualify they deserve to go.

What is the point in building facilities, if not to train people to go to the Olympics? If every female runner is told, "until you're as good as Sonia O'Sullivan, we won't bother sending you to the Olympics", we'll never again have a female runner as good as Sonia O'Sullivan.

+1. They all made the A standard. The only controversial topic about the team being sent was that Maria Mc was left at home. Look at all the athletes who didn't make it out of the heats too. If only medal contenders are sent, that would be a pitiful opening ceremony parade of 6 Irish. They trained all their lives to get to where they are and earned that place in the Olympics. You shouldn't punish the athletes who make it for a lack of depth in athletics, they deserve recognition for all the effort they put in.

average_runner

RayCun wrote: »

The comparison that comes to mind is with a cross country race, or some other event, where a club doesn't think they'll do well but will enter a team to support the event and show the club colours. I think you could describe that as putting in a team 'for the sake of it'.

But this is the Olympics. Qualifying for the Olympics is a career goal for many athletes, something they will have dedicated their training to for years. If they qualify they deserve to go.

What is the point in building facilities, if not to train people to go to the Olympics? If every female runner is told, "until you're as good as Sonia O'Sullivan, we won't bother sending you to the Olympics", we'll never again have a female runner as good as Sonia O'Sullivan.

I think if you improve from the ground up, you will have a better runner than Sonia. Her daughter is actually doing very well apparently.

But they can go to the Olympics if they are competitive, for example in the marathon, competitive could be top 30, i am not saying they have to win medals.

No one is saying they have to be as good as Sonia, she was fantastic.

thirstywork2

Mens standard fro Rio is 2.18.30

The Claw & Hehir should both get this in Rotterdam.
Kenneally & Pollock should also achieve this.

Fagan running Zurich also.

Be interesting to see how selectors vote on this one

Regarding ever having another Sonia(will only ever be one Sonia) I think Ciara Mcageean can achieve some major championship medals.

RayCun

What is the goal you hope to achieve by putting another hurdle in the path of athletes? By saying, it is not good enough to meet the standard set by the Olympics, we won't send you unless you are in the top 30 in the world.

Do you think Irish athletes will decide to work harder? Or is it to save money?