> > > > > the choices - give the marathoners more prize money (and at least 15-20 deep) or accept that you don't have a true world championship.> > > until the 3-per-nation rule is rescinded (as Jim Rome would say, "oh, about... NEVER!"), it can easily be argued that >there's no true world championship in any event. > > gh
Very good point. We've discussed this before on the list. I'd like to see the current "B" standards remain allowing one athlete per country if they meet a minimal standard. But the "A" standards should be tightened enough that anyone from any country who meets the "A" standard can compete. If that means no U.S. distance runners and 50 distance runners from Kenya, so be it. I recognize that this is somewhat of as purist viewpoint and it might result in less interest in the championships on the part of the more casual fan (I'm not just talking about the U.S. here since there are few "casual" fans in the U.S.). But it would be closer to a true world championships. The marathon suffers as much from the 3 per nation rule as any event, particularly given how difficult it often is to pick the best 3 people from a country. In addition, the risk/reward equation for a marathoner deciding on the worlds is much worse than any event, which makes it less competitive. I know it's not "fair" to give them more money but it's the only thing that will bring the marathon competition up to the level of the rest of the events. - Ed Parrot
