|
|
Post by krs1 on Jul 8, 2008 14:40:48 GMT -5
1. Beacause just making a B standard does not make you a rising star. I think the subjective parts of the criteria are explained pretty clearly. Making a B standard does not necessarily mean you are progressing to A/A+ standard. And so AC wants to see other factors pointing towards optimal fitness at the Games and progressing on to A/A+ standard levels for future years. Saying that, it is also true that there is a very real possibility that the athletes that are selected as rising stars may never get to that point either. But I don't ever see AC going back taking single B standard athletes...I have been on those teams and it becomes less performance oriented and more "experience" oreinted for lack of a better explanation. 2. No, there was no discussion of how far under the standard you were. 3. The selection meeting was at the conclusion of the meet on Sunday. Would it have been fair for the committee to meet in early June to decide the fate of one athlete when there was still one month left in the qualifying period? Each athlete was held to the same standards, and the same factors were looked at for each athlete. Some were much easier than others to make a decision on. There is a very real possibility that the committee made a mistake with Eric and that is the beauty of the secondary appeal. Dave and Eric will be able to present their case to an independent pannel and if they find the committee erred, then the decision is reversed. I know this sucks for Eric and I cannot imagine how it felt to get the news. It was heartwrenching having to discuss it with him and Dave. Krs1, very interesting. A few questions perhaps you can enlighten this board about: 1. Why, if there was no set number of Rising Stars (due to monetary or COC performance constraints), did the AC create a subjective criteria in the first place? Why not just say "send the top B Standard if no athlete in that event achieves A"? 2. While it was VERY clear on the AC selection guidelines that athletes were not guaranteed selection by just making the B standard (a point that seems to be lost by some on this strand), was the performance achieved under the B standard of importance? Obviously Muir and Mason were well under B Standard in relative terms, and Gillis was not. It seems obvious that this must be the case, but shouldn't Gillis have been told this to try and run another 10,000m before July 6th? 3. If Gillis' performance was not to be quantified relative to other potential Rising Stars (or some other measure, like his potential cahnce at making the final in Beijing) why was he not told after the 10,000m that he was not on the team? Or the reasons why? This again seems harmful to him in that he should have at least been awarded the chance to turn his attention to the 5000m knowing that he was off the team, or to find a fast 10,000 opportunity to achieve the "higher" standard. It seems to me IF THERE WAS NO QUOTA (as you say), that Gillis certainly has a case here, as he was being judged differently than the others. |
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Jul 8, 2008 14:45:26 GMT -5
3. If Gillis' performance was not to be quantified relative to other potential Rising Stars (or some other measure, like his potential cahnce at making the final in Beijing) why was he not told after the 10,000m that he was not on the team? Or the reasons why? This again seems harmful to him in that he should have at least been awarded the chance to turn his attention to the 5000m knowing that he was off the team, or to find a fast 10,000 opportunity to achieve the "higher" standard. It seems to me IF THERE WAS NO QUOTA (as you say), that Gillis certainly has a case here, as he was being judged differently than the others. Yes, this is a big problem, I think. He was basically required to jump through even more hoops, later in the game. The committee, it seems, was making up the rules as the went along. This should definitely be clarified. I don't know if he was told he had to run or if it was suggested that his running well benefit his possible selection (it was not the committee who told him, but possibly someone on the committee did). If either of these was the case, did that alter DST and Eric's plans? Was Eric not planning on running the 5000m at Nationals? Just curious |
|
oasis
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by oasis on Jul 8, 2008 14:57:41 GMT -5
krs1,
you listed your name on the National team committee as well as 4 others, is this the committee who votes/selects the rising star athletes, if so how does the voting process work i.e. all in favour or majority wins, if this is not the committee who selects the rising star athletes then who are they, it really should be public knowledge this is not a matter of national security
I have to ask you, do you agree with AC's selection criteria, in your opinion what is wrong with using the IAAF selection criteria, why does AC need their own selection process
I wish the best for Team Canada (Track team) at Beijing but in reality the chances for medals are quite slim so sending a few other athletes (that have qualified under IAAF criteria) really should make that much of a difference, if anything it would paint a positive picture for AC
|
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Jul 8, 2008 15:02:41 GMT -5
I think most people on the committee understand that not every decision is going to be respected or agreed to by the public. But I don't see that the committee is obligated to anyone other than DST and Eric to explain the reasoning behind the decision. It also is not appropriate to reveal the discussion to joe public because with every appeal and rising star decisions there were reasons for and against each athlete that were made by various members of the committee. Not every decision was a unanimous decision. Most decisions have disenting opinions within the committee and it would be completely unfair and innappropriate to the other committee members and take away the integrity and frankness of our discussions to say who-said-what, or who-supported-who, and who-didn't support who. All we would be doing as a committee was throwing each other under the proverbial bus. So with all that, I can't even tell you my opinion on the Eric Gillis rising star debate. I have to accept the fact that as part of the committee we chose not to select Eric Gillis even if I may or may not have agreed with that decision, and then take all the s$%t from y'all. Anyone else care to sign up for athlete rep? I'm not sure why the discussion of the committee should not be made public, or if not the actual discussion, than at least the reasons. Come out and say: We're not investing in Eric Gillis because we don't think he's ever going to make it. If someone from the committee doesn't clarify that message, that is what people are going to think. Since Scott MacDonald joined the national team committee, there have been some very good things done, and some great progress made. I really think he has a lot to do with some very good things, and I am personally very supportive of the direction AC is going in, but this decision does not follow the rest of the positive steps (World Cup Marathon team, the idea of Rising Star, hiring Thelma Wright to be cross country coordinator) that AC has made in the last few years. Maybe it's a case of two steps forward, one step back, but it just seems arbitrary and cruel, and not in the sense that life can be (wrt to what SI mentioned in another thread about young people being coddled, etc) but just wrongheaded. If Eric wins his appeal, and goes to Bejing, and does not finish in the top half, that won't hurt his development. It won't make AC look bad either (because only people who care or know what's going on will be watching the 10000m in Beijing). The idea of the Rising Star is that you go for the experience. The rest of the team has to go for performance, but the Rising Stars ARE there to learn. The benefits of having Eric at the Olympics will be that when he goes to the World Championships in 2009, or eventually London in 2012, he will be ready to PERFORM, because not only will he be at that level in terms of fitness, but he'll have the requisite experience, and not have the emotional or psychological distractions that come from a first Games experience. Eric is, if nothing else, the poster-boy for the Rising Star. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Jul 8, 2008 15:19:44 GMT -5
Kevin, thanks for the insight into the system. That's a bit of a heavy burden you carry, eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Jul 8, 2008 15:49:45 GMT -5
Kevin, thanks for the insight into the system. That's a bit of a heavy burden you carry, eh? At times it is, yes. But at the end of the day, I would rather know an athletes voice is being heard even if I have to take some of the garbage that comes along with the job. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Jul 8, 2008 15:59:01 GMT -5
Thanks, Kev., as always for coming in and sharing what you are "able to" with us.
Sticking to the dynamics of the Gillis decision. Here is my take on it. There is a reason why events such as the marathon, 10K, 50K walk are conducted ahead of time, and not with the rest of the Trials. The reason would presumably be that athletes who may qualify or not in those longer events, can get on with their training, knowing that they either are or are not going to be racing in Beijing, and thus increases their chances of running optimally at the Games. I would think it incumbent on the Committee to get together, either by phone or e-mail or a combination thereof, as soon as the National Trials in each of those events are completed, and make decisions. I realize the Rising Star category that Eric ended up in adds one layer of complexity, because of the way the criteria are constructed. However, it certainly seems to defeat the purpose of running the 10K's earlier, having an athlete look as though they are fully selectable, and then telling them after the fact that they are not. If Gillis was not selectable after the 10K. Trials, he should have been told that, and given options so as to make himself more selectable.
Again, calling anyone at a B standard level, as future top 8, or not, is an impossible call, and is the most meaningless piece of selection criteria drivel I have ever read. If it is only in there to ameliorate some COC lunatic fringe, then fair enough I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldlegs on Jul 8, 2008 16:04:05 GMT -5
krs1,
Thanks for the clarifications, and very brave of you to be so forthright. I don't envy you here.
I would like to quibble with you here on one point. I tend to disagree with your logic that because the committee could not/ did not meet after the 10,000m that Gillis was treated equally. It seems to me that because the 10,000m requirements clearly state that only one B Standard was needed, that Gillis should have at least been told that he was on the bubble, or should really try to nail a faster one.
He and DST seemed pretty confident that he was "on the team" as the newspaper reports suggest, and when I read this a few weeks ago I thought this sounded more than a bit optimistic after reading the AC requirements. However, based on what you have said here how would they have known?
No matter which way the appeal goes, I think these frank discussions do end doing some good....I don't think we would even have a "Rising Star" category at all if this sort of public debate didn't occur.
BTW, I am NOT in the camp of people on this list that thinks the AC is out to screw people. I think you guys have done a very good job in the last couple of years of listening to plebes like us.
|
|
oasis
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by oasis on Jul 8, 2008 16:16:18 GMT -5
I think most people on the committee understand that not every decision is going to be respected or agreed to by the public. But I don't see that the committee is obligated to anyone other than DST and Eric to explain the reasoning behind the decision. It also is not appropriate to reveal the discussion to joe public because with every appeal and rising star decisions there were reasons for and against each athlete that were made by various members of the committee. Not every decision was a unanimous decision. Most decisions have disenting opinions within the committee and it would be completely unfair and innappropriate to the other committee members and take away the integrity and frankness of our discussions to say who-said-what, or who-supported-who, and who-didn't support who. All we would be doing as a committee was throwing each other under the proverbial bus. So with all that, I can't even tell you my opinion on the Eric Gillis rising star debate. I have to accept the fact that as part of the committee we chose not to select Eric Gillis even if I may or may not have agreed with that decision, and then take all the s$%t from y'all. Anyone else care to sign up for athlete rep? I'm not sure why the discussion of the committee should not be made public, or if not the actual discussion, than at least the reasons. Come out and say: We're not investing in Eric Gillis because we don't think he's ever going to make it. If someone from the committee doesn't clarify that message, that is what people are going to think. Since Scott MacDonald joined the national team committee, there have been some very good things done, and some great progress made. I really think he has a lot to do with some very good things, and I am personally very supportive of the direction AC is going in, but this decision does not follow the rest of the positive steps (World Cup Marathon team, the idea of Rising Star, hiring Thelma Wright to be cross country coordinator) that AC has made in the last few years. Maybe it's a case of two steps forward, one step back, but it just seems arbitrary and cruel, and not in the sense that life can be (wrt to what SI mentioned in another thread about young people being coddled, etc) but just wrongheaded. If Eric wins his appeal, and goes to Bejing, and does not finish in the top half, that won't hurt his development. It won't make AC look bad either (because only people who care or know what's going on will be watching the 10000m in Beijing). The idea of the Rising Star is that you go for the experience. The rest of the team has to go for performance, but the Rising Stars ARE there to learn. The benefits of having Eric at the Olympics will be that when he goes to the World Championships in 2009, or eventually London in 2012, he will be ready to PERFORM, because not only will he be at that level in terms of fitness, but he'll have the requisite experience, and not have the emotional or psychological distractions that come from a first Games experience. Eric is, if nothing else, the poster-boy for the Rising Star. krs1, first off mean no disrespect to you and appreciate having you on this message board, also congrats to making your 3rd Olympic team I think the question of why AC doesn't follow the IAAF selection criteria is a valid one and yes sometimes when you are a member of a committee you have to take the occasion shit storm but goes with the territory, to say there is a need for privacy in the Eric Gillis situation is wrong, there is too much of a behind doors dealings so to speak with AC, the public has the right to know if AC would just follow the IAAF selection process there probably wouldn't be so much controversy on this matter, like I mentioned before were are only talking about sending 5 more athletes to Beijing and ya they might not place high in the standings but who cares they deserve to go, honestly if every country would only send athletes that could medal (referring to 800m and up) to the Olympics then you might as well just just call them the Kenyan/Ethiopian champinships |
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Jul 8, 2008 16:24:00 GMT -5
Every potential "rising star" should have assumed they were on the bubble. The statement regarding have standards does not guarantee you are on the team says it all right there. krs1, Thanks for the clarifications, and very brave of you to be so forthright. I don't envy you here. I would like to quibble with you here on one point. I tend to disagree with your logic that because the committee could not/ did not meet after the 10,000m that Gillis was treated equally. It seems to me that because the 10,000m requirements clearly state that only one B Standard was needed, that Gillis should have at least been told that he was on the bubble, or should really try to nail a faster one. He and DST seemed pretty confident that he was "on the team" as the newspaper reports suggest, and when I read this a few weeks ago I thought this sounded more than a bit optimistic after reading the AC requirements. However, based on what you have said here how would they have known? No matter which way the appeal goes, I think these frank discussions do end doing some good....I don't think we would even have a "Rising Star" category at all if this sort of public debate didn't occur. BTW, I am NOT in the camp of people on this list that thinks the AC is out to screw people. I think you guys have done a very good job in the last couple of years of listening to plebes like us. |
|
|
|
Post by BeachBoy on Jul 8, 2008 16:29:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 8, 2008 16:39:12 GMT -5
Good article.
LG's comments from the article(I note that the committee is now up to 7 members!):
"This isn’t a personal decision but your 5000m didn’t help you."
If that was the determinative factor, IMHO, this decision was a mistake and the appeal should be successful. Kuddoes to Kevin for coming on here and talking about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by twofeet on Jul 8, 2008 17:01:56 GMT -5
Linc I hesitate to respond because I don’t want to flood the board and stray too far from the important topic at hand: Gillis should be on the team! My point on Gills training for the 10km and racing a 5km is that if he was training through, he was probably putting in a lot of mileage … (another assumption), that high mileage would mean his legs wouldn’t be very snappy to drop down and run something fast at half the distance of his specialty (more suited to just cruise, which is likely what he did). If you don’t buy the dropping down argument then fine, but point remains that you can't expect to race your best while training through for something long due to the volume. A similar situation happened years back with Pete Fonseca. They made him run a 10K at national's to prove fitness for his marathon. The time they expected him to hit altered his plans as he had to incorporate more speed to run a 29:00 or faster 10K... but he had to do it to go the the olypmics. He said that training for that fast of a time threw him off his marathon training. And he ended up not running well in the marathon. An athlete cant just drop down to another event regardless how close the two events are and expect to not have an effect on their long term race goal. Even Sully said he has had problems with the 800m over the years but runs it to make the feel of the 1500m easier. But what if we told him he had to run 1:46 to prove fitness for his 1500m. That would affect his long term training in preparation for Beijing! Good points. If Gillis is in serious 10,000 training, he's probably rattling off some very taxing tempo intervals and such that would leave his legs too dead to run fast 5000. I saw Bruce Deacon run a 10K in the low 29s as proof of fitness for Sydney, and I remember thinking at the time that it must've messed up his marathon training. The peak training phase for the long distances involves a lot more than just mileage. With Beijing more than a month away, I'm guessing that DST had Gillis putting in some serious workouts (I'm just guessing here, but maybe 6 x mile, or 10 x 800 or 3 x 10 mins. fast tempo, that kind of thing) that would help boost his chances for a better time in the Olympics, but hinder a 5000m time. As a marathoner, I've never run a good 10K or half-marathon a month before the goal race because I'm busy piling in the key workouts that are going to help me in the run that matters. Proof of fitness for longer distances is a dodgy business, especially in this case, where there seems to have been a miscommunication about when, where and how Gillis was required to proove himself (again). I hope he wins the appeal, especially given that he may have a future in the marathon. |
|
|
|
Post by spaff on Jul 8, 2008 17:43:32 GMT -5
“Five athletes were in that ‘rising star’ selection pool including Eric,” says Martin Goulet, Athletics Canada’s chief high performance director. ....Typo...or is it how I'm reading it?? Martin listed 5 athletes. Gillis makes 6. |
|
oasis
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by oasis on Jul 8, 2008 18:21:56 GMT -5
Shortly afterwards, Canadian head coach Les Gramantik approached Gillis.
“He was very supportive,” said Scott-Thomas. “He said to Eric, ‘Look I know you are hurting. This isn’t a personal decision but your 5000m didn’t help you."
ok who is this Les Gramantik, DST is way too nice, supportive, in my opinion he is gutless, Eric qualified for the 10k why does a 5000m with really on two main competitors (Mackenzie and Eric) mean anything, really the trials 5k was merely a joke and a tempo run, mind you Ryan Mackenzie tried his best to run a fast time and he clearly did by basically running alone the last km, it looks like to me that AC had already made up their mind that Eric G. wasn't going before the trials and they knew the 5k would be a slow race but gave them their excuse to keep Eric off the team
so these are the people that are in charge of selection for AC, is it just me or don't others see that we have the wrong people in these positions, come on telling an athlete that a race that clearly had no meaning for him (Eric won the trials 10k race, remember AC the race you schedule in early june with 5 runners, might want to change that someday but that's another story) didn't help him get selected, these people obviously have no idea how to prepare an athlete for the Olympics yet they govern who is selected, just doesn't make sense
unless the selected athletes stand up for other athletes I can see no end to the travesty that has happen to Eric, really none of us can do anything but bitch and complain but they (being athletes) could put a stop to this debacle
|
|
Desy
Full Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by Desy on Jul 8, 2008 19:28:47 GMT -5
Shortly afterwards, Canadian head coach Les Gramantik approached Gillis.
“He was very supportive,” said Scott-Thomas. “He said to Eric, ‘Look I know you are hurting. This isn’t a personal decision but your 5000m didn’t help you."
Oasis
I don't think Les is gutless. From what you said in your last post, Les Gramantlk approached Eric and Dave face to face, he didn't call him or send him an email.
Who is Les Gramantlk, that is a rhetorical question, right?
I want Gillis to make the team, by the sounds of things, he still has a shot. Go get them Gillis
Desy
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Jul 8, 2008 19:29:24 GMT -5
So, Eric / DST could have either a) cut down his 10K training, and gear up for a need to run a faster 5K at Nationals, or b) skipped the National 5K all together, or c) stay on course for a good 10K. in Beijing, which was his stated seasonal goal, and which he had qualified for
(other than the "we can select you or not, for no reason" clause). Let's see.....which of those would be most in line with AC's Beijing goals ---- you're right if you said c). And which course did Eric/DST follow? Again, you're right if you said c). And so, Eric is going to Beijing, right ? Gong.....wrong......you lose.......we gotcha, again.... Next....
|
|
|
|
Post by feens on Jul 8, 2008 20:08:05 GMT -5
Being as there is much talk of the 5k, for those who weren't there to watch, I'll link my footage: feens.blip.tv/#1068189It's not super footage, but you can at least see how the race unfolded. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Jul 8, 2008 20:31:24 GMT -5
According to the IAAF/IOC criteria, and the criteria of the USA, amongst other Nations,
the minimum Standard for Olympic participation is the B standard achieved after January 1st, 2007, or after September 1st, 2006 for the Marathon. Further criteria involve the fact that a Nation can only enter 1 athlete per event with the B standard, and in order to enter more than 1 athlete per event (up to a maximum of 3), all must have achieved the A standard. So,
here are the Standard Achievers for Canada, within the IAAF criteria - there are some citizenships questions for some of these athletes*, which I am not fully aware of:
Men's 800 - A standard - Reed, Tadili. B standard - Ellerton, Burley*.
1500 A standard - Sullivan, Milne. B standard - McKenzie, Brannen, Benninger.
5000 A standard - Sullivan. B standard - Coolsaet, Morrison, Bairu.
10000 B standard - Bairu, Coolsaet, Gillis.
marathon B standard - Wykes, Kassap*, Ziak, McInnes, Macharia*, Osaduik.
Women 800 m. - B standard - Cummins, Teteris.
1500 A standard - Elmore, Stellingwerff, Douma-Hussar.
5000 B standard - Metcalfe, Elmore.
marathon - B standard - Kortchaguina, Quinn-Smith, Stevenson.
I hope I have that right, and haven't missed any of those who achieved the acceptable IAAF/IOC Standard within the appropriate time frame.
So, if these were the accepted AC standards...... we could have the following number of entries in the distance events in Beijing. Men - 800(2), 1500(2), 5000(1), 10000(1), marathon (1). Women - 800(1), 1500(3), 5000(1), marathon(1). Not that this would necessarily equate to having more Canadian runners with hope in the future, but I am just saying....
|
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Jul 8, 2008 22:05:54 GMT -5
So this bring me to the question I've been trying to figure out for a while. We (sorta) know what the criterias are from both the AC & COC. It's obvious from this thread that it has a lot of people (including me) upset. And it seems abundantly clear that tougher standards are meant to exclude fringe athletes(read: those who would could qualify, maybe race well, but wont necessarily win the the Gold). e.g. IOC/USOC qualifying standards for the marathon are A= 2:15:00 B = 2:18:00, AC standard A+=2:11:31, A=2:12:38, B=2:14:00 Our B standard is a full minute faster than the IOC A standard!!! So my question is why do they do it?Is it financial? Ego/pride (i.e they don't wanna be embarrassed)? Is it to "help" the athletes? Do they think that by making it harder it will make anyone train harder? Do better? Does anyone know?  Slamer; Either you are particularly dense or you don't read very well. AC has made it VERY clear that it has equated road performances (read Marathon) with equivalent track performances. What method used I don't know - IAAF standards, Mercier tables, Daniel's Formula? Regardless, the relevant performances are close to those for 5000m, 10000m , etc. Maybe you need a reading lesson too? The marathon was an example (hence the "e.g."). I didn't ask how they came to the standards... I ask why[/b] They are not out to "Screw" anyone over, rather they are trying to keep performance levels for different events on the same "page", so to speak. That this doesn't comply with the IAAF standards - which has nothing to do with performance and everything to do with simply allowing more people into the event - is NOT the AC/COC agenda. First of all that is bull... if the IAAF wanted everyone to participate, then why even have standards? Or they would make the men's 2:25 or easier. And it's clear that the AC/COC agenda isn't to help more athletes make standards. You make standards harder when you want to make sure less people qualify. That much is abundantly clear. I happen to agree with the AC stance on this, and I can't believe the number of whiners who think that 2h15/2h37 belong on an Olympic team when we keep off people who run much faster (equivalently) in other events who we wouldn't even consider sending at a similar performance level. The reason i used the marathon was because it by far had the biggest difference. But most of the other events also have harder standards set by COC/AC (with exceptions being most of the field events and the 1500 on the men's side). My point again (to help you understand), was why? And to further prove my point, the 1500 on the men's side didn't have a tougher standard than the IOC one, and (thankfully) Milne made it... and nathan may (hopefully) still make it. You think that if they made the A+ standard 3:35 point something you would have had as many guys going? It's that simple!! Can you say that the Marathon is being "screwed"? If you think so, but it's attitudes like this that is why our records for this event are now 23 and 33 years old, and with little hope (it sometime seems) to be taken down anytime soon. I wonder why we have fallen so low that athletes find these performances so difficult to match when the rest of the athletics world manages to exceed these levels - even the US, and their development (minus the imports - like Lagat and Khannouchi) isn't all that great, at least in depth anyway. But when we have National championships for 5000m and 10000m that can't even attract 10 people in each race (M/W) , then perhaps we need to start there, and not with AC standards. When we can only manage two 5000m runners under 14 minutes and 17 minutes at this meet , respectively, where in heck are we going to find marathoners capable of "world-class times". This has little to do with AC standards and more to do with state of the sport and our development priorities in this country. Either everyone is out doing Triathlons trying to become the next Simon Whitfield, or we have led our athletes into thinking that we can develop only middle-distance runners (1500m anyway). I personally don't care about the marathon... i know quite a few who race it and do it decently well. Do you seriously think that making standards harder to get helps people qualify? Or motivates them? Really? You think that someone says, "Well the A standard is only 3:36.6/1:46.0/13:21:50/27:50:00 and not 3:36.6/1:45.24/13:19:62/27:47:31 .... so I wont train so hard. I'll take it easy." Get the F outta here. The truth is all areas of track (not just the marathon) is not where they used to be. Why? Cause the general public doesn't give a rats ass about track. They don't put their kids into it. People play hockey or some other sport. You think Canada is good at hockey cause we set the goals high? We have some kind of physiological advantage that other nations don't? Or is it that everyone loves it and that creates more interests from kids? It's a cycle, more success creates more success. Good coaching, more resources good competition is what makes for successful programs. If there were more quality people achieving great success in running, then the attention wouldn't be going only to those athletes that just qualify. It would be on the Sullivan's and Tyler's of track. The lesser guy would run their races, do okay to bad and then learn (hopefully) and then maybe improve... but no one would notice them (or at least until they were successful). But they would go. So I ask again... I'm not whining, I'm asking seriously ... why aren't they allowed? |
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Jul 8, 2008 22:24:45 GMT -5
The why is in the selection criteria (see below). As a fun little project, how many countries go strictly by IAAF/IOC standards and qualifying periods. My guess is you would be hard pressed to find very many. Not even the U.S. How many countries even have a process that allows an athlete who was not selected to appeal that decision? OVERVIEW This is the Olympic Games! Athletics Canada (AC) has established these Criteria to accurately reflect performance readiness that indicates an athlete’s capability of finishing in the top 12 at the Olympic Games. Our intention is to compete with the best in the World on our biggest stage. As indicated in AC’s current Strategic Plan, the specific objectives are to bring home 2 medals, that 40% of the team achieves a top 12 performance, and that a significant majority of our team (65%) will finish in the top 16 of their field or will achieve a seasonal best in Beijing. The Olympic Games plan (including these Criteria, but also training camp and preparation plans) has been developed with these performance objectives in mind. We are going to Beijing 100% ready to compete. Attached to this document are three appendices, which form an integral part of this Selection Criteria. All athlete selections made in accordance with this Selection Criteria are also subject to AC’s general rules and regulations for team selection outlined in the National Team – Selection Rules Book available at: www.athletics.ca/files//NationalTeamPrograms/NationalTeams/Policy/NATIONALTEAMSELECTIONRULESBOOKFINAL2008.PDF. The National Team Committee (NTC) is responsible for the implementation of these criteria and has the sole authority to make all decisions relating to the selection of the Olympic Team. 2.0 TEAM OBJECTIVES Athletics Canada’s objectives for team selection for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games are as follows: Select individual athletes capable of finishing in the top 12 and top ½ of the field, and select Relay teams capable of finishing in the top 6 and top ½ of the field at the 2008 Olympic Games. Select athletes identified as “rising stars” who have achieved AC “B” standard(s) (as per Appendix B), and who have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the NTC that they have competed internationally with success, and have the competitive abilities to achieve a top 24 and top ½ of field placing in Beijing, and a top 8 finish in a future Olympic Games. Ensure high quality direction and support to selected athletes in the final period leading up to, and including the 2008 Olympic Games. Match our best results or improve on our country ranking, and the number of podium, top 8, top 12, top 16 and top ½ of field finishes from Olympic Games in Athens (2004), Sydney (2000) and Atlanta (1996) In line with the Strategic Plan, 40% of the team achieving top 12, and 65% of the team to finish Top 16 or achieve a seasonal best. Slamer; Either you are particularly dense or you don't read very well. AC has made it VERY clear that it has equated road performances (read Marathon) with equivalent track performances. What method used I don't know - IAAF standards, Mercier tables, Daniel's Formula? Regardless, the relevant performances are close to those for 5000m, 10000m , etc. Maybe you need a reading lesson too? The marathon was an example (hence the "e.g."). I didn't ask how they came to the standards... I ask why[/b] First of all that is bull... if the IAAF wanted everyone to participate, then why even have standards? Or they would make the men's 2:25 or easier. And it's clear that the AC/COC agenda isn't to help more athletes make standards. You make standards harder when you want to make sure less people qualify. That much is abundantly clear. The reason i used the marathon was because it by far had the biggest difference. But most of the other events also have harder standards set by COC/AC (with exceptions being most of the field events and the 1500 on the men's side). My point again (to help you understand), was why? And to further prove my point, the 1500 on the men's side didn't have a tougher standard than the IOC one, and (thankfully) Milne made it... and nathan may (hopefully) still make it. You think that if they made the A+ standard 3:35 point something you would have had as many guys going? It's that simple!! Can you say that the Marathon is being "screwed"? If you think so, but it's attitudes like this that is why our records for this event are now 23 and 33 years old, and with little hope (it sometime seems) to be taken down anytime soon. I wonder why we have fallen so low that athletes find these performances so difficult to match when the rest of the athletics world manages to exceed these levels - even the US, and their development (minus the imports - like Lagat and Khannouchi) isn't all that great, at least in depth anyway. But when we have National championships for 5000m and 10000m that can't even attract 10 people in each race (M/W) , then perhaps we need to start there, and not with AC standards. When we can only manage two 5000m runners under 14 minutes and 17 minutes at this meet , respectively, where in heck are we going to find marathoners capable of "world-class times". This has little to do with AC standards and more to do with state of the sport and our development priorities in this country. Either everyone is out doing Triathlons trying to become the next Simon Whitfield, or we have led our athletes into thinking that we can develop only middle-distance runners (1500m anyway). I personally don't care about the marathon... i know quite a few who race it and do it decently well. Do you seriously think that making standards harder to get helps people qualify? Or motivates them? Really? You think that someone says, "Well the A standard is only 3:36.6/1:46.0/13:21:50/27:50:00 and not 3:36.6/1:45.24/13:19:62/27:47:31 .... so I wont train so hard. I'll take it easy." Get the F outta here. The truth is all areas of track (not just the marathon) is not where they used to be. Why? Cause the general public doesn't give a rats ass about track. They don't put their kids into it. People play hockey or some other sport. You think Canada is good at hockey cause we set the goals high? We have some kind of physiological advantage that other nations don't? Or is it that everyone loves it and that creates more interests from kids? It's a cycle, more success creates more success. Good coaching, more resources good competition is what makes for successful programs. If there were more quality people achieving great success in running, then the attention wouldn't be going only to those athletes that just qualify. It would be on the Sullivan's and Tyler's of track. The lesser guy would run their races, do okay to bad and then learn (hopefully) and then maybe improve... but no one would notice them (or at least until they were successful). But they would go. So I ask again... I'm not whining, I'm asking seriously ... why aren't they allowed? [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by feens on Jul 8, 2008 22:38:32 GMT -5
Another question to throw on the heap: The point has been made that Gillis may not be capable of hitting a top-8 finish in future games, which could be part of his being left off the team (I'm not saying that's the case, it has just been mentioned). I wonder if that is assuming that he is going to continue with the 10,000m in 2012, or if it considers that he'd move up to the Marathon (as noted in the article/interview). Note that Ryan Hall has a personal best of 28:07 in the 10,000m as well. Just some food for thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Jul 8, 2008 23:48:57 GMT -5
The why is in the selection criteria (see below). As a fun little project, how many countries go strictly by IAAF/IOC standards and qualifying periods. My guess is you would be hard pressed to find very many. Not even the U.S. How many countries even have a process that allows an athlete who was not selected to appeal that decision? That research would take forever. You know how long it took me just to finish the Canadian, American and IOC standards? Surprisingly time consuming. I don't think I have the time for that... but having compared the the US and the IOC ones (see links below www.usatf.org/events/2008/OlympicTrials-TF/entry/qualifyingStandards.asp www.iaaf.org/statistics/standards/newsid=43175.htmlIt's easy to understand the why. The only events where the US has a harder standard than the IOC is all the sprints (100 to 400 M/W) and women's pole vault. It's easy to figure out that the US is loaded with sprinters (as is Kenya in the Marathon)... so it makes sense to make it harder. And even then they have way more than 3 people qualify. (and just for fun: here's the link for the British one www.ukathletics.net/EasysiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=17937&type=full&servicetype=attachmentSame standards and qualifying periods as IOC, but have to place top 2 national, or top 8 and a good meet, or run 'A" standard again -- so 2 of the 4) OVERVIEW This is the Olympic Games! Athletics Canada (AC) has established these Criteria to accurately reflect performance readiness that indicates an athlete’s capability of finishing in the top 12 at the Olympic Games. Our intention is to compete with the best in the World on our biggest stage. As indicated in AC’s current Strategic Plan, the specific objectives are to bring home 2 medals, that 40% of the team achieves a top 12 performance, and that a significant majority of our team (65%) will finish in the top 16 of their field or will achieve a seasonal best in Beijing. The Olympic Games plan (including these Criteria, but also training camp and preparation plans) has been developed with these performance objectives in mind. We are going to Beijing 100% ready to compete. Attached to this document are three appendices, which form an integral part of this Selection Criteria. All athlete selections made in accordance with this Selection Criteria are also subject to AC’s general rules and regulations for team selection outlined in the National Team – Selection Rules Book available at: www.athletics.ca/files//NationalTeamPrograms/NationalTeams/Policy/NATIONALTEAMSELECTIONRULESBOOKFINAL2008.PDF. The National Team Committee (NTC) is responsible for the implementation of these criteria and has the sole authority to make all decisions relating to the selection of the Olympic Team. I will read that PDF, but the parts you quote tell me what they are doing, but don't tell me why excluding the lower athletes will help this process. But maybe the PDF does... so I'll get back to you later. 2.0 TEAM OBJECTIVES Athletics Canada’s objectives for team selection for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games are as follows: Select individual athletes capable of finishing in the top 12 and top ½ of the field, and select Relay teams capable of finishing in the top 6 and top ½ of the field at the 2008 Olympic Games. Select athletes identified as “rising stars” who have achieved AC “B” standard(s) (as per Appendix B), and who have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the NTC that they have competed internationally with success, and have the competitive abilities to achieve a top 24 and top ½ of field placing in Beijing, and a top 8 finish in a future Olympic Games. Ensure high quality direction and support to selected athletes in the final period leading up to, and including the 2008 Olympic Games. Match our best results or improve on our country ranking, and the number of podium, top 8, top 12, top 16 and top ½ of field finishes from Olympic Games in Athens (2004), Sydney (2000) and Atlanta (1996) In line with the Strategic Plan, 40% of the team achieving top 12, and 65% of the team to finish Top 16 or achieve a seasonal best. I don't understand how putting these standards help 1) athletes like you 2) Athletes who this manages to bump out. 1) Has this set up in any way shape or form made you train harder??? Do better?? Or anyone else? 2) Perdita had said that her experience at Sydney really helped her understand what it took to compete at that level. And get to where she is at. She wouldn't have gone if the newer standards had been in place. |
|
Catts
Full Member
Posts: 181
|
Post by Catts on Jul 9, 2008 0:21:47 GMT -5
Good article. LG's comments from the article(I note that the committee is now up to 7 members!): "This isn’t a personal decision but your 5000m didn’t help you." If that was the determinative factor, IMHO, this decision was a mistake and the appeal should be successful. Kuddoes to Kevin for coming on here and talking about this. It is completely unfair to use Gillis' 5000m at nationals as a strike against him. Perhaps we should ask Carline Muir to run an 800m to prove her 400m fitness. Or Metcalfe to go run a fast 1500 to prove her 5km fitness. Absurd, is it not? After checking the numbers, there were 4 rising star athletes selected: Carline Muir, Adrienne Power, Mike Mason, and Megan Metcalfe. Gillis was the 5th possible rising star candidate. Sully, I think everyone here appreciates your effort. It's great to have someone who is willing to come on this board and shed some light on the inner workings of AC, even though it means you will take some heat. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 9, 2008 4:43:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mpdelmonte on Jul 9, 2008 6:11:31 GMT -5
I'm just a bit confused with this idea that Canada wants to: "Match our best results or improve on our country ranking, and the number of podium, top 8, top
12, top 16 and top ½ of field finishes from Olympic Games in Athens (2004), Sydney (2000) and Atlanta (1996)."
I don't know the history of Canadian Summer Olympics but it doesn't seem that Canada has a huge pool of middle-long distance medals to show off. Am I wrong?
Sometimes the best way to move forward is to stop, recognize that you've been going in the wrong direction, make some adjustments and then move forward. This may mean that there will be 3-4 Games where athletes don't meet these high standards, but it may yield greater results in the future. I mean no offense, but what have we got to lose?
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Jul 9, 2008 8:50:04 GMT -5
The question before the committee, after Eric made the requirements, was do they think he is going to keep getting better to the point where he'll be making the A standards in a few years' time. Eric is, if nothing else, the poster-boy for the Rising Star. It is clear from the objectives that a rising star has more than A+ standard potential in the future (that is, future top 8 potential). The problem on this message board is that everybody interprets rising star as someone who has B standard and won nationals. But it is not up to you to arbitrarily decide what you think rising star should be, it is up to the committee to select candidates based on the objectives set forth (not that I agree with the objectives, but that's another discussion). There would certainly be an argument for Gillis if other rising stars did not meet the objectives, but until someone demonstrates this, there isn't a strong argument for sending Gillis as a rising star, as defined by AC. Actually, I think there is a strong argument, and Gillis' coach thinks there is as well. Rising Star definitely implies some future potential beyond just making B standard and winning nationals. I don't think my post assumed that was the only goal. It's not unreasonable at all to think he doesn't have a chance to develop into a top 8 finisher, especially given Muir, Metcalf, Mason (maybe he should change his name to Mgillis?) and Power are given the benefit of that doubt. What is the difference between Gillis and those others? That is the real question. From the latest Gains article: “He's improving at a greater rate (than the others),” says Scott-Thomas, “He's closer to the A plus standard in his primary event, his performances are in line with hundreds of data points of international class competitors and he is still below the average age of peak for his primary event. We hope that lends credibility to our case.” Scott-Thomas says the long-term plan is for Gillis to run the marathon at the 2012 Olympics and the Beijing 10,000m was to give him experience at the biggest international sporting stage." Again, seems like a poster-boy to me... |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 9, 2008 8:57:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Jul 9, 2008 9:13:16 GMT -5
This is a problem as well. How can a committee member not know the criteria by which they are charged with selecting athletes? One committee member can decide on their own to tell (or not tell, since it seems like this was not clear to the athlete) one particular athlete that he has to jump through another hoop while the rest of the Rising Stars were not put up to this standard? How is this possible? That's a joke! Imagine a hiring committee of 5 people, where one decides, ok, we're only hiring people who wear red suits, but doesn't tell anyone else. Then, the applicant shows up in a blue suit. The committee member says, oh, by the way, you had to wear a red suit, sorry, you don't get the job. Joke. Yes, this is a big problem, I think. He was basically required to jump through even more hoops, later in the game. The committee, it seems, was making up the rules as the went along. This should definitely be clarified. I don't know if he was told he had to run or if it was suggested that his running well benefit his possible selection (it was not the committee who told him, but possibly someone on the committee did). If either of these was the case, did that alter DST and Eric's plans? Was Eric not planning on running the 5000m at Nationals? Just curious |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Jul 9, 2008 9:22:22 GMT -5
Kevin, yes, it is part of the job to take shit from people who care about the sport, and at least you have the balls to put yourself out on this board, where people can be, it's true, far from rational. That said, the thing with this decision (in my mind anyway) is not so much that Gillis was not selected, but how the decision was made. That is really the key. If it had been made clear to him that he needed to perform at a certain level at nationals, and he didn't come through, then there's not much he can say. But if the committee is making changes to the criteria at the last minute, adding objective (but we're not sure what kind of 5k time he needed to run) criteria on top of subjective (it is hard to tell who will bloom into a top 8 finisher), then it is the process that needs to be exposed. Track is a simple game. The time you run is out there. We give meaning to the times by saying you need to run X to go to X meet, etc. Rising Star is obviously somewhat subjective, and as you've noted, it's something the athletes have fought for and achieved, so maybe as a group, the athletes have brought this on themselves, but if an objective criteria is going to be applied (run a certain time at nationals) then it has to be applied fairly, i.e. ahead of time. I appreciate that until the appeal is done, there's not much the committee can say, but in the end, whatever the outcome, I hope that someone has the balls to come out and say that a mistake was made, not necessarily in the selection or non-selection, but in the process. I think most people on the committee understand that not every decision is going to be respected or agreed to by the public. But I don't see that the committee is obligated to anyone other than DST and Eric to explain the reasoning behind the decision. It also is not appropriate to reveal the discussion to joe public because with every appeal and rising star decisions there were reasons for and against each athlete that were made by various members of the committee. Not every decision was a unanimous decision. Most decisions have disenting opinions within the committee and it would be completely unfair and innappropriate to the other committee members and take away the integrity and frankness of our discussions to say who-said-what, or who-supported-who, and who-didn't support who. All we would be doing as a committee was throwing each other under the proverbial bus. So with all that, I can't even tell you my opinion on the Eric Gillis rising star debate. I have to accept the fact that as part of the committee we chose not to select Eric Gillis even if I may or may not have agreed with that decision, and then take all the s$%t from y'all. Anyone else care to sign up for athlete rep? I'm not sure why the discussion of the committee should not be made public, or if not the actual discussion, than at least the reasons. Come out and say: We're not investing in Eric Gillis because we don't think he's ever going to make it. If someone from the committee doesn't clarify that message, that is what people are going to think. Since Scott MacDonald joined the national team committee, there have been some very good things done, and some great progress made. I really think he has a lot to do with some very good things, and I am personally very supportive of the direction AC is going in, but this decision does not follow the rest of the positive steps (World Cup Marathon team, the idea of Rising Star, hiring Thelma Wright to be cross country coordinator) that AC has made in the last few years. Maybe it's a case of two steps forward, one step back, but it just seems arbitrary and cruel, and not in the sense that life can be (wrt to what SI mentioned in another thread about young people being coddled, etc) but just wrongheaded. If Eric wins his appeal, and goes to Bejing, and does not finish in the top half, that won't hurt his development. It won't make AC look bad either (because only people who care or know what's going on will be watching the 10000m in Beijing). The idea of the Rising Star is that you go for the experience. The rest of the team has to go for performance, but the Rising Stars ARE there to learn. The benefits of having Eric at the Olympics will be that when he goes to the World Championships in 2009, or eventually London in 2012, he will be ready to PERFORM, because not only will he be at that level in terms of fitness, but he'll have the requisite experience, and not have the emotional or psychological distractions that come from a first Games experience. Eric is, if nothing else, the poster-boy for the Rising Star. |
|
Krs1, very interesting.
