When the California International Marathon was selected to host the 2026 USATF Marathon Championships on December 6, it looked like another major milestone for one of the country’s biggest marathons. But the race has since become tied to a much bigger dispute inside USA Track & Field, with a member of the organization’s Long Distance Running Committee raising concerns about transparency, decision-making, and whether the committee has any real say in major championship decisions.

The concerns were brought into the open by McKirdy Trained, a U.S.-based running coaching organization founded by coach James McKirdy in 2016.  In a post on X on October 7, McKirdy Trained raised concerns over the way USATF’s Long Distance Running Committee has been involved in major decisions, particularly those affecting championship and international selection races. The post described what it called “little to no transparency” from LDR leadership and the USATF National Office.

One of the main issues involves CIM itself. According to the post, the LDR Committee voted in favor of making CIM a selection event for a World Championship. The committee member said the vote was “yes,” but claimed the Director of Long Distance Running later told CIM that the answer was “no.” During a later meeting, the decision was reportedly described as “undecided.”

That back-and-forth left athletes facing a difficult question. If someone won or performed strongly at CIM, would that performance actually put them in a position to earn a World Championship spot? The post says the situation became even more confusing when committee members were told that their votes were only recommendations.

As McKirdy Trained put it, the committee members were “merely voting for a ‘recommendation,” while the USATF National Office would still have the final say. That distinction is important because USATF is the governing body for the very best track and field and long-distance running athletes in the United States and also selects athletes for various international competitions.

The Pan American selection process was also mentioned. McKirdy Trained said the committee was asked to vote on a Pan Am selection event only about eight weeks before CIM, while the marathon’s entry deadline had already passed on July 1. For marathoners, that kind of uncertainty can have real consequences.

The concerns then expanded beyond CIM. USATF later announced that the Bank of America Chicago Marathon would host the 2027 USATF Marathon Championships. According to McKirdy Trained, members of the LDR Committee were not informed that Chicago had submitted a bid and instead learned about the decision through social media. “We found out on social media,” the post stated. That became a major part of the complaint.

McKirdy Trained also claimed that committee members do not know the results of votes, do not know “WHO is voting,” and are not always informed about decisions being made by the USATF National Office. The post also referenced an alleged comment from the men’s LDR chair that “This is how things have taken place for 20+ years.” McKirdy Trained pushed back against that reasoning, arguing that a process being in place for decades should not be enough reason to leave it unchanged.

At the heart of the complaint is a call for equal treatment. The post ended with a clear message: “Fair and equality for ALL. Not for some. Not for favorites. Not for key athletes. For ALL.”

Interestingly, this is not the first time USATF has faced questions over how much authority its committees have when major decisions are being made, particularly when a committee’s recommendation does not determine the final outcome.

USATF has faced similar committee power disputes before

A similar dispute emerged in 2014 over the host site for the 2016 U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials. According to Runner’s World, the five-member committee responsible for evaluating the bids unanimously backed Houston, while then-USATF CEO Max Siegel favored Los Angeles. The disagreement raised concerns among members about how much control the committee had over the final decision, as USATF’s rules at the time gave the CEO significant authority over championship sites.

The matter was discussed in a larger context of rules during the USATF annual meeting that year. Members approved a resolution to eliminate restrictions on the CEO’s ability to approve sites for championships, but this was complicated by USOPC rules for Olympic Trials location. The same question came up again during the selection process for the 2024 U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials.

Chattanooga initially received an advisory vote of approval from the USATF Board of Directors. The board voted unanimously, with one abstention, but the meeting minutes made clear that “final approval remains with the USATF National Office.” The National Office ultimately announced Orlando as the host. Chattanooga’s bid was later disqualified because of a conflict-of-interest issue involving USATF board member Jim Estes, who had also worked as a consultant for the Chattanooga bid. Estes had disclosed the relationship and recused himself from the relevant discussions.

While the circumstances were different, both cases show that questions over the role of USATF committees and the authority of the National Office have surfaced before.