|
|
Post by SI on Jul 7, 2008 13:53:00 GMT -5
Lopes during that 8 months was about as far from a "rising star" as you could possibly be. He had been competing at a world class level at that point for about 10 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 7, 2008 13:56:40 GMT -5
|
|
Catts
Full Member
Posts: 181
|
Post by Catts on Jul 7, 2008 13:57:32 GMT -5
Gillis ran an early 10000 where he missed standard by 6 seconds. He followed that up by hitting standard (the 28:07). He then raced the 10km road champs, which he won, and followed that up by winning the 10000m champs. Solid record of racing, including 2 national championships.
When Reid was selected as a rising star in 2005, he only ran 13:52 at nationals, so Gillis' 13:55 shouldn't hinder his chances.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Jul 7, 2008 13:58:44 GMT -5
You guys must know Paul Gains, the guy who wrote the CBC story on Gillis the first time. I used to have his email, but can't seem to find it. Someone should get in touch with him (though he'll know about it for sure). Another story is in order.
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Jul 7, 2008 14:00:22 GMT -5
Lopes during that 8 months was about as far from a "rising star" as you could possibly be. He had been competing at a world class level at that point for about 10 years. My comment had nothing to do with anybody being a rising star (Gillis clearly IS one, AC's position notwithstanding). I was simply offering a comment about peaking - one I've made in other discussions (in different ways) - that seemed relevant (to me), at the time, in light of Matt's specific comment. I don't think a well-trained guy who ran 28:07 at Stanford and is now aiming for a strong 10k in Beijing should necessarily be expected to run a "slow" (for him) 5k in early July, as a natural function of his training cycles. But at the same time, I don't see a 13-high time in early July (an off day can happen for any of a hundred reasons) as a good reason to ignore the 28:07 and leave him off the team. |
|
|
|
Post by feens on Jul 7, 2008 14:08:33 GMT -5
Matt: It was amusing reading you're "hypothetical" conversation, as I had one quite similar with my sister last night. She's just a casual runner who enjoys watching track.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 7, 2008 14:11:04 GMT -5
pgains@golden.net
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Jul 7, 2008 14:29:51 GMT -5
If I can take another segue away from the main focus of this thread (and back onto what journeyman has called my "favourite topic"), I think this: ... a 13-high time in early July .... is also clear indication that Gillis is a likely future star at the marathon distance, in the same way I thought TQS' limited kick at the end of the Montreal half was a strong indication of a good debut at the marathon in Ottawa. I was right then (possibly a first, mind you), so count on it!  |
|
|
|
Post by christie on Jul 7, 2008 14:55:22 GMT -5
Sorry to take things a bit off topic (clearly it's spectacularly stupid not to send Gillis), but I have to say that I really don't think Lopes (and a few other Portuguese runners of that era) maintained an 8 month peak on the basis of any 'training principles'...
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 7, 2008 14:59:47 GMT -5
Pretty sure I know what you are saying and not necessarily disagreeing but Lopes was before the era when the Spaniards and Portugese were clearly doping.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldlegs on Jul 7, 2008 15:05:35 GMT -5
As to being ready to race hard for last weekend's trials vs. being in shape and peaking in Beijing, I am sorry but this argument doesn't hold water under the subjective selection criteria.
If I am not mistaken AC only had a set number of "Rising Star" spots to give out, and needed to make sure the most deserving went. ie. The selection committee had to make several very tough judgement calls, and were going to use discretion in making them.
MattMc, to compare Gillis to Ritzenheim is ridiculous. Ritzenheim ran A+ standard in his trials.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 7, 2008 15:13:07 GMT -5
If I am not mistaken AC only had a set number of "Rising Star" spots to give out, and needed to make sure the most deserving went. That obviously adds an entirely twist to the mix if accurate. Is it? If accurate, it should have been made clear in the criteria. The less potential for subjectivity, the better. |
|
Catts
Full Member
Posts: 181
|
Post by Catts on Jul 7, 2008 15:20:12 GMT -5
If I am not mistaken AC only had a set number of "Rising Star" spots to give out, and needed to make sure the most deserving went. ie. The selection committee had to make several very tough judgement calls, and were going to use discretion in making them. I hadn't heard that before. It would make some very difficult decisions. I wonder if, had the 10km team been named a month ago, would Gillis have been named to the team? Or had the 10000m been run this weekend rather than a month ago, would the identical race that played out in Toronto (a 57 second victory), given strength to a Gillis' selection? |
|
|
|
Post by MattMc on Jul 7, 2008 15:26:42 GMT -5
I don't think the limited # of rising star spots is at all accurate.
Comparing Ritzenhein to Gillis absolutely was not my point. Surely, noone would argue that Ritz is the better athlete. I, however, argue that both deserve to be Olympians, and both were running the 10k/ 5k at their respective trials under similar circumstances.
Ritz is planning on running the marathon in Beijing, and had already locked up a spot on the team at the marathon trials last November. He is in the middle of a heavy training phase, and is aiming for a peak marathon performance in August. He ran the trials as a training tool-- not to make the team or help his marathon selection.
Gillis is planning on running the 10k in Beijing. He already made standard, won the 10,000m trials and is in the middle of a heavy training phase aimed at peaking for a 10,000m in August. He used the trials as a training tool-- not to make the team or help his 10,000m selection.
Are they equal athletes? (their SBs in the 10,000 being 2s apart aside) No-- Ritz is clearly better.
Are their situations analagous? Yes.
All I said was that the USATF wouldn't deselect Ritz b/c he was 30s off his 10k pb just as AC shouldn't deselect EG b/c he was 18s off his 5k pb (which BTW was his best ever placing in the 5000m at trials).
BTW Ritz Ran 28:05 which is B, not A+ standard (but who's interested in accuracy eh?).
|
|
|
|
Post by Tzdimslaw on Jul 7, 2008 15:33:34 GMT -5
I was looking forward to seeing Gillis run the 10k in Beijing. There was certainly a lack of communication between the national selection committee and Gillis and his coaches. As Catts alluded to above, after the 10k nationals, Gillis had made B standard, had won the national championship, and believed he had everything he needed to be able to make the team. It should have been possible at that moment to tell him that he had either made the team, or that he needed to do something else to demonstrate fitness. Megan Metcalfe has been consistently successful and I do not mean to detract from her accomplishments, but I wonder if her selection over Gillis was because there were already 4 male distance runners and 0 female distance runners on the team? I think that Gillis is poised for a relatively stronger placing at the Olympics this year. Consider the 2004 Olympics results: In the 10k, Gillis's best race would have put him in the top 12. It is absurd to say that he would have run his PB in a championship race, but look at the kilometre splits. He would have had no problem being in the mix at 5k and possibly even 6k before the hammer was dropped. www.iaaf.org/history/OLY/season=2004/eventCode=3201/results/bydiscipline/disctype=4/sex=M/discCode=10K/combCode=hash/roundCode=f/results.html#detIn the women's 5k, Metcalfe's PB would still leave her 10 seconds out of qualifying for the final. www.iaaf.org/history/OLY/season=2004/eventCode=3201/results/bydiscipline/disctype=4/sex=W/discCode=5000/combCode=hash/roundCode=h/results.html#det |
|
|
|
Post by oldlegs on Jul 7, 2008 15:53:55 GMT -5
You read the post wrong--what was meant was that Ritz made the A+ standard in the marathon at the trials, and was CHOSEN to the team. Sorry the "inaccuracy".
How Ritz ran the 10k at the US trials was his business. From what I have read he didn't want to risk cutting back his training becasue he was training for the event HE ALREADY QUALIFIED FOR, and supposedly ran 120 miles last week.
Gillis WASN'T yet chosen to the team--that is the difference.
For the record I certainly would have supported the idea that any athlete that made B standard and came in the top 3 at nationals should have been eligilble to make the team... But those weren't the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 7, 2008 15:58:56 GMT -5
That's the rub. What were the rules?
|
|
|
|
Post by Linc on Jul 7, 2008 16:36:56 GMT -5
Yes, and even with those slow early splits his pb still almost would be lapped...That's like saying you could be in the mix for 800m of a 1500m. Great. I can do that, send me!!
In the selection criteria, included in the subjective part of of the criteria, doesn't it state something like "showing the ability to have a top 16 finish..."
Gillis has the 69th best time in the world so far this year. In the selection commitee's eyes, that probably seems like a pretty big stretch to say that he has a shot at top 16.
I think the hard training phase is a pretty weak excuse. You should still be able to run relatively close to your best(when your best is from a year ago and you are "on the rise"), especially at this point in the season.
Again, I'm just trying to provide some other reasoning as to why the decision was made.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 7, 2008 16:45:12 GMT -5
In the selection criteria, included in the subjective part of of the criteria, doesn't it state something like "showing the ability to have a top 16 finish. No. You should still be able to run relatively close to your best(when your best is from a year ago and you are "on the rise"), especially at this point in the season. Not if you are training through it. |
|
|
|
Post by Linc on Jul 7, 2008 20:52:40 GMT -5
In the selection criteria, included in the subjective part of of the criteria, doesn't it state something like "showing the ability to have a top 16 finish. No. You should still be able to run relatively close to your best(when your best is from a year ago and you are "on the rise"), especially at this point in the season. Not if you are training through it. well... "Team Objectives 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." Sorry, not top 16...more like top 12 based on the 24 entries from the last olympics. I have "trained through" several races in the last couple of years and run pb's and a couple times very close to my pb in those races. I don't buy the "I'm just training through it" line. It's BS. If you haven't done any prep for the race, you shouldn't be racing. "I was training through it" is usually an excuse made after the fact when someone has a bad race. |
|
|
|
Post by Mullet B. Miler on Jul 7, 2008 21:16:19 GMT -5
oldlegs may be on to something, I wouldn't be surprised if hidden behind the backboneless out-clause of the AC rising star criteria, the COC was giving them a cap, or at least tying the funding formula in some way so that athletics is still putting their neck out and being punished for their attempt to include some forward-thinking policies. I would like to know the truth though!
I doubt they would publicly admit it (and sorry if this sounds like I'm trying to start a wacky conspiracy theory) but in the back-room meetings where the AC/COC might have been batting potential names around, I bet none of the bigwigs were seriously expecting Taylor Milne to be in the mix. Obviously they can't interfere on that one since Taylor has A+ and top-4 - but if they are still viewing him as 'out-of-nowhere' & 'fringe' (not a wealth of international or big meet experience), maybe they figured Speed River was already over-quota on distance guys not expected to win medals. No offence to Taylor or Gillis at all either.
And yes, a lot of these complaints do come to a fevered pitch around Olympic qualification time, when we are seeing friends missing out on their lifelong dreams due to unconscionable bureaucracy. And yes some of these complaints are not as well thought out as others and can sound repetitive - but this is a message board where OFSAA still reigns supreme so I can see why some peoples’ arguments may not be as refined as those of university graduates (whereas I still haven't learned about run-on-sentences!). Not to take it personally since I have refrained from the fray until now, but I for one have been opposed to AC's ridiculous qualification criteria from the start. It's only now that we can make the tangible statements such as Reid made - we'd have had X qualifiers for the Olympics if we didn't have such anal policies, versus the current zero. So I don't think it's just due to 'whining' that we hear noise about standards now. Yes yes yes the standards have been in place since whenever and any smart athlete should familiarize himself with the rules and know them back and front, but that doesn't mean the rules are fair to begin with and that everyone should just shut up! I would think that if we hoped to in any way have some influence on changing these policies for the better in the future, we are going to have to voice those complaints (albeit succinct versions) again and again, louder and louder. And obviously not just on this messageboard - at the track, dinner table, cafeteria, at work, and to the right people who could make change.
So I don't mind if people want to hone their debating skills on the topic in this forum first, where there are still a surprising number that just don't seem to get it.
|
|
hoey
Junior Member
Posts: 80
|
Post by hoey on Jul 7, 2008 21:43:09 GMT -5
In response to Gillis being 69th in the world this year:
Remember ... Kenya, Ethiopia, Marocco, Qatar, Japan, USA etc can only send 3 athletes each ...
Make that 35th
|
|
Catts
Full Member
Posts: 181
|
Post by Catts on Jul 7, 2008 21:49:23 GMT -5
I have "trained through" several races in the last couple of years and run pb's and a couple times very close to my pb in those races. I don't buy the "I'm just training through it" line. It's BS. If you haven't done any prep for the race, you shouldn't be racing. "I was training through it" is usually an excuse made after the fact when someone has a bad race. Linc, you and Gillis run significantly different events. I don't think it's a fair comparison. I remember doing both, running surprisingly fast and surprisingly slow races while still in a heavy training phase. As for saying he shouldn't have been racing, maybe that was his mistake. I think it's pretty sad if showing up for national championships to run the 5km impacted his selection for the 10km. |
|
|
|
Post by oldlegs on Jul 7, 2008 21:54:18 GMT -5
Just to be clear, I never read anything anywhere that officially stated that a "quota" of Rising Stars could (or should) be met, but I did hear this from one National Team coach and from a very "in the know" official that the COC (to accomodate a lot of the political and public debate occuring on sites like this in several sports) would open the door but a crack for athletes on the bubble. The number I heard was 7 athletes (again totally unconfirmed). The issue was that each sport would be able to set standards based on a criteria.
Now if this is true or not I can not say, but I would note that the Rising Star criteria does underline about 4 times, that no athlete with the minimum B standard is guaranteed placement on the team--hence the selection committee and no automatic placement on the team.... So, it makes sense that if, say, only 4 athletes were in that boat, it would have been easy to make the picks. But if there were quite a few it would have made for a very subjective decision.
I would guess that with Metcalfe, Muir, Mason and a few of the 4x100m guys, that it left Gillis in a tough spot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Linc on Jul 7, 2008 23:17:56 GMT -5
I have "trained through" several races in the last couple of years and run pb's and a couple times very close to my pb in those races. I don't buy the "I'm just training through it" line. It's BS. If you haven't done any prep for the race, you shouldn't be racing. "I was training through it" is usually an excuse made after the fact when someone has a bad race. Linc, you and Gillis run significantly different events. I don't think it's a fair comparison. I remember doing both, running surprisingly fast and surprisingly slow races while still in a heavy training phase. As for saying he shouldn't have been racing, maybe that was his mistake. I think it's pretty sad if showing up for national championships to run the 5km impacted his selection for the 10km. I should have been more clear about what I meant. I was responding to the fact that SI was basically saying that you can't run fast/close to your best in a race when you're "training through it". I disagree with that, and used myself as an example. I wasn't trying to compare myself to Gillis. I also wasn't trying to infer that I thought Gillis shouldn't have raced the 5km at the trials. That was also meant to be a more general statement about racing while you're supposedly "training through it". I have no idea about where he's at in his training etc. I really didn't mean to have those comments seem like they were directed towards him. |
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Jul 8, 2008 0:56:03 GMT -5
It's top 24, or for the 10000m which is unlikely to have 48 competitors, top 1/2. Team Objectives
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.
I want to see Gillis run for Canada. But based on the criteria, it's no surprise he wasn't chosen. He hasn't demonstrated international success, top 1/2 potential in Beijing, or top 8 potential for a future Olympic Games. Metcalfe has some international success, maybe top 1/2 potential in Beijing, and maybe top 8 potential in a future Olympic Games. Based on this criteria, you'd certainly have to choose Metcalfe before Gillis. 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?  |
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Jul 8, 2008 1:00:22 GMT -5
And I want to add, the 10k champs in Toronto that Gillis won should not take anything away from him or times he ran before. Having been there, I'm pretty sure he was just running for the win. His only real competition that day was Wykes and he wasn't even close to challenging Gillis. And he ran at least half of it solo.
|
|
|
|
Post by slamer on Jul 8, 2008 1:10:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bystander on Jul 8, 2008 4:43:05 GMT -5
It's top 24, or for the 10000m which is unlikely to have 48 competitors, top 1/2. Team Objectives
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.
I want to see Gillis run for Canada. But based on the criteria, it's no surprise he wasn't chosen. He hasn't demonstrated international success, top 1/2 potential in Beijing, or top 8 potential for a future Olympic Games. Metcalfe has some international success, maybe top 1/2 potential in Beijing, and maybe top 8 potential in a future Olympic Games. Based on this criteria, you'd certainly have to choose Metcalfe before Gillis. 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. 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. 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. 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). |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 8, 2008 5:31:18 GMT -5
And I want to add, the 10k champs in Toronto that Gillis won should not take anything away from him or times he ran before. Having been there, I'm pretty sure he was just running for the win. His only real competition that day was Wykes and he wasn't even close to challenging Gillis. And he ran at least half of it solo. He would have been crazy to do anything other than run for the win. And I would like to know why he is the only athlete that is expected to perform well at TWO national championships? Is that reasonable? |
|
