WHETHER WEATHER WILL REPEAT (December 12, 2001)

It was over a year ago when we last wrung our hands and pointed fingers about the selection of the U.S. Olympic marathon team. That was because our team included only two runners--one male, one female. Why in blazes weren't we sending three of each, as we always had?

The answer lay in a somewhat convoluted pile of home-grown and international rules. Every country can send three marathoners of each gender to the Olympics, but only if they've all met the "A" standard (2:14 for men, 2:33 for women in 2000). Athletes in the U.S. "self-select" by finishing in the top three in the Trials, but that doesn't get them to the Olympics unless they've also met the international standard.

Of course it didn't help that the IAAF, the international governing body for track and field, announced the new, tighter standards well after the U.S. Trials process had been finalized. 2:14 and 2:33 may seem like modest times in today's marathoning world, but not when race conditions are unfavorable. That's basically what happened in 2000. Both men's and women's courses were a tad challenging, warm weather hit both sites, times were slow, and the U.S. sent two lonely marathoners to the Games.

So today's question is: Will it happen again in 2004?

As reported here on RW Online, both the Men's and Women's Long Distance Running Committees selected sites for the 2004 Trials during the recent USATF Annual Meeting. The men will run in Birmingham, Alabama, on February 7, 2004, the women in St. Louis on April 4.

Both marathons are on multi-lap, criterium-style courses that are described as fast, fair, or both. That's fair enough. And the weather? Well, weather is weather, isn't it? As I read the record highs and lows in those two cities recently, it seemed that Birmingham on February 7 could possibly top 80 degrees or dip below 5. St. Louis on April 4, on the other hand, could be as high as 90 or below freezing. Not likely, perhaps, but possible, as are wind, rain, snow, ice. And none of it conducive to fast running.

I don't bring this up to criticize either site. I think they're both outstanding. Selectors did an admirable job of finding bidders willing to put their hearts and souls into hosting an Olympic Trials. They also listened to the.athletes, who put prize money and a fast course at the top of their list of priorities.

I do bring this up, though, to illuminate a fact, which is that Mother Nature is--let's face it--a fickle wench. You never know what tricks she's got up her pantaloons. And as long as we continue to select our Olympic Marathon team the way we have for the past three decades, we're going to be at her whim, risking exactly what happened in 2000--bad weather, and two solo marathoners in the Olympics.

It may seem like nothing has changed this time around, but there is one thing. This time, we know the kind of standards the IAAF might impose. Times in 2000 were set ridiculously tight, presumably to reduce the size of the marathon fields in the Olympics. But is that goal etched in granite?

The IAAF hasn't set its 2004 standards yet, so at this point we have a chance to head off a possible repeat of 2000. Let's hope USATF's Craig Masback is busy lobbying the IAAF to return to more reasonable times. That wouldn't absolutely avert a disaster in our Trials, but almost.

And if that fails, we should try the only thing left. Sacrificing a calf or two to our favorite fickle wench.