In the history of track and field and the Olympics, there have been many
events where the level of performance in the US was so high that there
could have been 10 athletes who were potential medallists. The US
selection system developed around this high quality, because
(unfortunately) it meant leaving potential medallists (winners even) off
the team.
This high level of performance gave rise to the situation of US Olympic
Trials which were in many events just as competitive as the Olympics
themselves. Qualifiers in these events knew they were going to be
contenders for high placings at the Olympics. In this situation, "filling
the team" is a very meaningful concept.
However if you take an event where the US does not lead the world, such
as the marathon currently, "filling the team" is a real luxury. I agree
with the comment that getting the A standard should not even be an issue
for an Olympic contender. You should realise that many countries in the
world have their own selection standards which are much tougher than the A
standard, typically being what it takes to get into the top ten.
So why doesn't the USATF set 2 hr 10 as their standard, and forget about
the principle of the Trials winner being automatically selected. As I
said, I think a dedicated Trials meeting only makes sense when there is
a surfeit of talent. If not, selection by committee is probably going to
be better, especially if the committee can decide to select no one.
David Dallman
