Houston 2012: The Right Choice

 By Bryan Green

The 2008 US Olympic Trials were an unqualified success.  The men's race--forevermore remembered as the Ryan Shay Trials--were held in New York City the day before the NYC Marathon on a criterium course in Central Park and saw Ryan Hall and Dathan Ritzenhein--two of America's brightest young stars--qualify for Beijing, as well as blue-collar working-man's man Brian Sell nab 3rd to the delight of underdogs, mustache aficionados and dramatically-inclined NBC television producers everywhere.  

In Boston, Deena Kastor ran down an early charging Magdalena Lewy-Boulet to take the title, with Magda finishing a gutsy 2nd and Blake Russell hanging on for a solid 3rd.  Both events likely benefited from their association with America's two premiere marathons, adding a boost to the already incredible experience held by the tens of thousands of participants in those races.  Had USATF decided to adopt the same approach for the 2010 Olympic Marathon Trials, I don't think we would have heard many complaints.  It seemed to work.

With that said, I have to applaud the choice of Houston for the men's and women's Olympic Marathon Trials.  Without even getting into the money Houston is bidding to host the Trials, I think there are six solid reasons why Houston was the right choice.  All of these should be considered heavily when deciding a future OT marathon venue as well.

 

1. The 2-for-1 Special: I love that both races are going to be held on the same day on the same course.  There are potential issues with this, especially if one race is finishing while a major move is made in another, but these should be solvable.  Hopefully it's enough to get major TV coverage, but as long as they stream it over the web and follow my Marathon Coverage Manifesto from last year I'll be happy.  

I don't have any numbers in front of me to back up this assertion, but I believe it hurts the women's race to NOT have it in conjunction with the men's.  On the men's side, there is a deeper field, more established names, and a general sense of unpredictability.  On top of that, men benefit from the fact that they simply run faster.  This isn't an issue for educated fans who can put women's races into context, but like many other women's sports, I think they suffer from the relative difference in absolute performance marks.  

For the 2008 trials, there were ten men people thought might qualify and no one knew how the race was going to unfold.  Many suspected Hall would win (equally many predicted Meb, Ritz, Abdi, Khannouchi...), but everyone knew Kastor was going to win hers.  By having both races on the same day, people who might have tuned in for the men's but not the women's races will have a reason to watch both.  In 2012, the women's field--likely to have Kastor, Kara Goucher, Shalane Flanagan, one or two more surprise newcomers, maybe even a recently nationalized African star (Sally Kipyego?)--may be more exciting than the men's.  If so, everyone will be tuning in to see it.  

There are a few other nice aspects of this.  All qualifiers will be at the same press events and discussed in the same articles.  Strategies and tactics across genders can be dissected.  I also like the fact that both the men's and women's qualifiers will be on the same schedules.  It never really made sense to me that the women had four months to prepare for Beijing, while the men had nine.  Which brings me to the second point.

2.  Timing is Everything:  I like the idea of having the race in January.  It allows more than enough time for the Olympians to do a complete build-up for the London Games, while also allowing the non-qualifiers to participate in cross country, run Boston, or build up for a summer track season.  Athletes like Shalane Flanagan may even pursue a spot on the 10k squad to increase their options in London.

There is a valid argument that holding the race in January limits the top runners from running a fall marathon in 2011 or a spring marathon in 2012, but I think that's a fair trade-off.  The lack of a fall marathon is obviously the biggest hit, but had the trials been awarded to New York, that wouldn't have been possible anyway.  And I personally think it's too risky to be running a spring marathon prior to the Olympics.  A half maybe, but not a full.  April marathons should be discouraged for any qualifiers anyway.

And I'm not sure that the NYC marathon is completely out of the question for the Olympians anyway.  In 2004, Meb came back from Athens and placed 2nd in NYC.  Ultimately, though, it's not the timing itself that might bother the elites, but the lack of money they will earn by skipping the major marathons.  But is that really an issue?

3.  The Prize Money:  Houston is giving out a very generous prize package.  $250,000 dollars in prize money for each race is quite a lot, and one can bet that the prizes will go at least ten deep, if not fifteen.  The Olympic qualifiers may earn less money than if they were the top Americans at a major marathon (despite Meb's victory in NYC, one can't assume any American would be taking home that kind of money from a major).  But the money they will earn through bonuses, sponsorships, and future appearance fees as Olympians will more than compensate for that.

As for the other runners in the field, there are two points worth mentioning.  First, if you don't believe you have a chance of being an Olympian and you know you can win some big prize money in another race, you can always skip the trials.  If you think you can pull a Brian Sell--and I'd be shocked if 90% of the field didn't think they could--then the potential rewards from a 3rd place finish far outweigh the opportunity cost of entering the Trials.  And, if a runner finishes in the top 10-15, they are still going to be taking home money, in many cases more than what they'd get for finishing 10th behind eight East Africans at a major.

For the top few marathoners in the country, money is a legitimate issue.  If Hall or Ritz or Goucher or Meb decided to skip the Trials to pursue the appearance fees at NYC or Boston, I wouldn't begrudge them one bit.  But they are really the only ones who stand to lose, and they'd be the first to tell you that they also stand to gain the most should they medal in London.

4.  The Course, Of Course:  Houston's course is going to be flat and fast.  I know this because both the Chevron Houston Marathon and the Aramco Houston Half Marathon are smokin' fast, and the biggest hill in the region is on a highway overpass.  Why is this good?  Because London's course promises to be similarly flat and fast.

Why should we select our Olympic qualifiers from a course like Boston or New York when both of those courses would be significantly different from what the athletes will run in London?  If there is one event where the type of course matters, it's the marathon.  It's why Meb can run three minutes slower than Hall on London's flat course but win a slow, hilly, tactical course like New York.  Houston gives us the opportunity to select based on the factors that will matter in London, and that's a good thing.

This should absolutely be a factor when deciding where to host the 2016 trials prior to Rio de Janeiro, too.

	Houston	London
Avg High	15 C (59 F)	21 C (70 F)
Avg Low	6 C (43 F)	12 C (54 F)
Avg Rain	84mm (3.3 in)	56mm (2.2 in)

5.  The Weather:  Surprisingly, Houston in January is not all that different from London in August. And it's closer to London's temperatures than either Bostonor New York. This is a smaller point than any other in my opinion, but it is worth mentioning.  Again, we will be taking qualifiers from a race that more closely resembles the conditions in which we are hoping the athletes will excel in the summer.  This is a good thing.

6.  A Houston Boost:  This is actually the biggest reason I like the choice of Houston.  Marathoning continues to gain in popularity around the world.  The big five marathons (Boston, New York, Chicago, London and Berlin) dominate the marathon world and hold a special place in most fans' (and elite athletes') minds.  A few others, like Fukuoka, Dubai, Paris and maybe Rotterdam have established semi-major status.  But there are plenty of other marathons that are superb events and have the potential to become just as important if we give them the opportunity.  They are on the cusp.  I believe Houston is one of those marathons.

Houston already has 20,000+ participants.  It already has course records that are on par with both New York and Boston.  It already hosts the USA Half Marathon Championships and has a reputation for fast times.  And it already has a storied history that few fans know about (but that will no doubt be brought front and center when the Trials are held there).  Most importantly, it has the desire to become the next Chicago or Boston or New York.  It's pulling out all the stops.

By holding the Olympic Trials in Houston, USATF is giving a great event an extra boost in its efforts to go from a minor marathon to at least a semi-major.  Sure it might not happen.  But the simple fact that Houston is making these strides means it deserves the USATF's support.  And now that they have it, it's up to them to execute on their promises and blow the roof off this Olympic Trials.  When they do, it will be a very good thing for US marathoning.