BELL LAP #22

SELECTING OUR OLYMPIC TEAM (January 5, 2000)

No other country selects its Olympic marathoners the way the U.S. does. In most countries, a panel of coaches and experts review past performances and recent indicators of fitness, then they make a decision. The choice is based on objective criteria, but it also includes a large measure of judgment.

The U.S. used to choose its team this way, using Olympic Trials races as indicators of performance, but not as iron-clad determinants. A top finisher at the Trials might be left off the team if the selection committee decided that a "better" athlete had had an off day. This seemed reasonable, since it allowed for stomach aches, untimely injuries and faulty biorhythms. At least it seemed reasonable if you weren't the athlete who was passed over in favor of someone "better."

Thirty years ago the U.S. scrapped that system, though, and adopted one that is simple, clear, and brutal. Athletes "self-select," based on performance in one single race. No ifs, ands or buts.

Is this a good system?

I wondered that a LOT in 1992, when my training partner Kim Jones was left off the U.S. Olympic squad. Kim had the best time of any American the previous year. She had demonstrated her talent in international competition, finishing in the runnerup position at both New York and Boston. If she wasn't the best U.S. runner in 1992, she was unquestionably one of the top three. And yet an untimely foot injury forced her to drop out of the Trials race. A month later she was healed, and by the time the Olympics rolled around she was fit to race. Any other country would have put her on its team.

So, was leaving her home a good idea? Discuss that amongst yourselves for a few minutes, but know this: no proposal to change the selection process has ever gotten more than a whisper of support. At the beginning of every Olympic cycle, when the decision on how to choose the U.S. team comes up for review--and this includes a cross-section of coaches, athletes and officials--the decision is always the same. Keep it.

It's fair to say that in the U.S., the agreed-upon definition of our "best" Olympic prospects is based on performance in the Olympic Trials. For better or worse, that's been the hallmark of our philosophy for three decades.

This issue came up again when the IAAF threw the U.S. a curve ball last June, tightening the Olympic marathon "A" standard. I won't rehash this (for details, see RW Online, Thursday, December 9), except to say that the IAAF's belated action means that the U.S. will not be able to guarantee that the first three finishers in the Olympic Trials marathons will go to the Games. That can happen now only if the top three have run fast enough (2:14 for men; 2:33 for women) during the designated time period.

People have offered a variety of opinions about how the U.S. should respond to a situation the IAAF created. Meanwhile, men's and women's committees of USATF have been scrambling to honor commitments made to athletes and event organizers, and both committees have now clarified the process in light of the new standards. The final language is necessarily complex, but on the most important score each committee has made the same correct decision. If all else fails, at least the Trials winner will go to the Olympics.

Is the winner of the Trials our best marathoner, the runner who, above all others, deserves to go to the Olympics? Maybe, maybe not. But that's been our philosophy for the past 30 years, and now is not the time to change it.