BELL LAP #26

THE BEST OLYMPIC SELECTION PROCESS EVER (May 3, 2000)

I'm hopeful the selection of the U.S. Olympic marathon team in Pittsburgh is a success. The late decision by the IAAF to lower the "A" standard to 2:14 threw a wrench into the machinery, but let's hope for the best--good weather, fast times, and an automatic selection of three legitimate contenders.

If not, or even if so, the kind of discussion that's gone on here on Runners' World Online should continue. What's the best way to select our three Olympians next time? That discussion especially needs to go on this fall, after the Olympics and leading into the USATF convention in December. That's when and where any new or revised system will need to be introduced. 2004 rolls around very, very quickly after that.

To help that discussion along, I'd like to introduce the best selection process ever. It goes something like this:

Have the Trials on a flat course, in a region of the country with a high likelihood of moderate temperatures. Eliminate prize money. And most important, schedule the Trials two months before the Olympic marathon.

Elements of this, I know, are anathema. Eliminate prize money? The athletes need that carrot to focus. Runners who train with the carrot in mind will no doubt rise to greatness.

Two months recovery? Any moron knows you can't recover from one top-level marathon and be ready for another in only two months.

It's a flawed system, no doubt about it. It is, though, the system the U.S. used in 1972. On July 9 of that year, Frank Shorter, Kenny Moore and Jack Bacheler went one-two-three at the Trials in Eugene, Oregon. And on September 10, they finished 1-4-9 in the Olympics in Munich. The U.S. has never done better than that.

Of course it was probably just an aberration, an anomaly, an anachronism, or one of those other "a"-words. And we have to admit that none of the three actually met the current "A" standard in the Trials. Even so, I often wonder how the system worked as well as it did.

Back to the future now, and the real question of how, if at all, we change the system in 2004. Pittsburgh organizers mobilized an impressive community effort this year, supporting the Trials with enough money to finance generous travel arrangements, prize money and Olympic development grants. A number of athletes have written to suggest that we shouldn't kowtow to all this by guaranteeing organizers what they thought they were getting in the first place, the right to select the Olympic team--or at least one member of it.

Fine, let's not be persuaded by the suits. That attitude will help restore one key element of the best selection system ever--no prize money. All we need to do now is to schedule the Trials closer to the Games, and we'll be back in business.

Or maybe the whole process of selecting your best marathoners in a clear, fair and ultimately successful process is more complicated and less predictable than anyone wants to admit. It does help, of course, if you've got runners willing and able to hang with the world's best.

At a clinic at this year's Boston Marathon, Todd Williams was quoted as saying, "At some point, the athletes have to stand up and be heard. They have to say, 'This is wrong, and it needs to be fixed.'"

Fine--we'd all love to see the plans. Bring 'em to the USATF convention in December, along with some convincing arguments on why your system will work better than the one we have. Or, especially, the one we used in 1972.