On January 29, 2014, USATF announced that Los Angeles would be the host city for the 2016 U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials. Per Toni Reavis, it was made known that Los Angeles was chosen over Houston, in spite of better opportunities for prize money ($100,000) had Houston been selected as the host city.



Similarly, in 1996, the trials came down to two cities, Charlotte and L.A. Charlotte was eventually chosen as the host city. Bob Wood, former LDR Chairman from 1992 - 1997, told us that the biggest influencing factor for Charlotte winning the bid was that the city was able to distribute a record amount of prize money to the winner of the men's Trials ($100,000-- in 1996 that's an absurd amount of money).

Ed Torres, the chairman of the USATF Long Distance Running Committee (LDR), said on LetsRun.com that the vote to have Houston as the venue was a unanimous decision by the LDR. According to Bob Wood, an unanimous decision is very rare. The recent findings regarding the switch from having the Trials in Los Angeles instead of Houston, and the fact that USATF took a $100,000 cut to go to L.A., is a cause for concern. 

WIth the move of the Trials to L.A. over Houston, it comes off as if USATF CEO Max Siegel, is thinking more about the event as a whole rather than the athletes involved in the race. With Torres speaking on behalf of the athletes, it is easy to see why he would be solely concerned about the good of the athletes involved and the loss of a possible $100,000.  

What do you think is a better decision, focusing on the venue or the athletes involved? Hit me up on twitter and tell me what you think @isaacegbertwood