Dr. Kateřina Turková
Researcher and Associate Lecturer at the Institute of Communication Studies and Journalism, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. Kateřina Turková primarily focuses on issues associated with sports, social media, and quantitative research methods in her academic career. She is currently a member of the research team ReMeD, supported by the Horizon Europe grant.
Email: katerina.turkova@fsv.cuni.cz
Twitter: @KaterinaTurkova
As “the highest-profile multidiscipline sport event in human history”, the Olympic Games consist of many sports; hence, track and field, as a leading sport, has taken part in the Games from their ancient era. Marathon is a traditional track and field event that is Olympic in its nature, while it is both internationally well-established and seeks to comply with the Olympics’ values and ideals. For all the selected runners, it is a privilege to call themselves Olympic marathoners. But the question that has been again publicly raised before the Paris 2024 Olympics is who deserves to stand at the starting line of the Olympic marathon. Should the IOC aim for a the high-quality, elite field targeting the top performances and records, or are they willing to let the “Games wide open” and allow a significant number of runners qualified thanks to the universality rule to attend the event and pursue their best?
Due to the controversies related to the selection process, the athletes’ road to the Paris 2024 Olympic marathon was highly followed in the months preceding the start of the race. While in the women’s category, the disputes mainly concerned the (un)fair nominations of the “best” runners over more eligible ones, which was further publicly medialized and discussed, the men’s selection came into the conversation even more intensely. Besides the decisions made by the national committees, whose motivations and criteria in many cases remain unclear, the still relatively recently adopted World Athletics’ ranking system (and the possibility of replacing the qualified marathoners with alternates of the same nationality, applied for example by the USATF) enables athletes to qualify for the Games not only by Olympic standards but also through their ranking positions, which reflect their competition results. Whereas in the women’s category, the standard was a necessary condition for qualification (besides universality placings), some ranking-based spots in the men’s category were yet in place.
Although discussions about the (un)fairness of the ranking system commonly appear in the track and field community, these debates have special importance in the case of the marathon, where the number of attempts to achieve certain times and placings is largely limited by the length and hardness of the event. As the Games approached, the marathoners “in the danger zone”, specifically those who were within the desired quota of eighty best men but had not met the standard, began to count and consider their chances. The qualification period closed on May 5th, 2024, and the ranking system initially indicated that nine athletes, including Liam Adams, Ser-Od Bat-Ochir, Hugo Catrileo, Tachlowini Gabriyesos, Elroy Gelant, Abdi Ali Gelelchu, Ilham Tanui Özbilen, and Samuel Tsegay Tesfamariam, secured their attendance due to gained points in Road to Paris. Thanks to his countryman CJ Albertson’s placing, American Leonard Korir seemed to be eligible to stand at the starting line in the French capital too.
Unfortunately for the aforementioned athletes, the updated Olympic marathon selection was published a few days after the first one; hence, these runners without the Olympic standard were substituted by universality-placed marathoners. After the athletes named above, who had sat safely in the originally presented quota, found out that they whould be robbed of the Olympic dream, they followed the famous principle associated with the Games and began to fight to take part in Paris 2024. Amongst the personal appeals, protests, advocacy and medialization of the case, the online petition entitled “Reinstate Olympic Marathon Prospects Unfairly Disqualified by World Athletics” was quickly launched by Winki Solutions (the employer of Liam Adams). The petition then circulated in the public sphere and was signed by thousands of supporters on short notice. Finally, the efforts led to the happy ending; the reinstalment of eliminated marathoners to the entry list and the rise of the participants’ quota to take in the universality-placed runners.
Overall, the public interest in the controversies surrounding the 2024 Olympic marathon selection confirmed that the Olympic candidates deserved fair treatment, transparent rules, and clear communication from the side of decision-makers. Track and field, as a traditional Olympic sport, should set the standard and serve as a good example. Athletes’ endeavors for change were brave and necessary, and their involvement contributed to the adjustment of the entry criteria. On a side note, the results of the marathon still complied with the general Olympic principles and motto of this year’s Olympics: “Games wide open”. The Ethiopian alternate Tamirat Tola, who was called to action after the injury of his training partner Sisay Lemma, won and broke the Olympic record. Vice versa, passing up a preciously earned spot was a true act of Olympism from Lemma. In addition, the universality placings enriched the field with future prospects, such as Yaseen Abdalla, who ran a Sudanese record (2:11:41) without previous marathon experience.
The situation caused by the dramatic qualification process thus revealed that the answer to the posed question is two-sided. At first, pursuing the best possible field by setting transparent rules and seeking fair competition is a non-negotiable condition. In this regard, the marathoners, who claimed their rights, set a precedent enabling further changes. On the contrary, universality places proved to be enriching for the event. Although achieving a balance regarding this issue may be challenging, it is still worth fighting for a dream.
