Catts
Full Member
Posts: 181
|
Post by Catts on Jul 8, 2008 6:03:44 GMT -5
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. That's fair, Linc. I do wonder if Gillis' 5km performance at nationals hurt his selection bid. If it did, that is completely unfair. He he won the national championships in his event. Had AC really wanted him to perform at the highest level this past weekend, they should have added the 10000m to this weekend's events. They should not have punished him for a sub-par performance in an off-event. |
|
|
|
Post by Mullet B. Miler on Jul 8, 2008 6:35:41 GMT -5
Even if you have a personal anectode of a couple decent races while "training through" at low mileage for the 800/1500, I would think that it is a generally accepted training principle that IT IS a lot harder to run close to your best while training through it. Not only because Gillis' main event is long (10km), but also because he dropped down to the 5km. The other side of saying slow times from 'training through it' is a myth is to say that tapering and peaking don't work either?
Without seeing Gillis' training log, I can't definitively confirm he wasn't 'training through' (so possibly it's not a legitimate excuse for that reason), but as SI pointed out in the CBC article, he has continued to train towards Bejing.
But it seems to me, with Gillis training at the NEC in Guelph, that there MUST have been some dialogue between him/DST and AC (with having to submit training plans, etc). Did AC requested he run the 5000 at nationals? Were they truly planning to weight his performance there in his 10000m selection? I agree he should NOT (edit: forgot this small but important word!) be expected to be in top 5000m form.
And I agree his performance shouldn't have counted against him. But I wonder what sealed his fate, and if it wasn't already decided before the weekend... the fact the 'rising star' was proving too successful at accomplishing what it was originally intended to do?
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 8, 2008 6:41:50 GMT -5
Does anyone know if he is appealing or if that is even possible? Nothing in any of the usual places this morning(funny papers, Gillis' blog, coldneck's blog, etc.) although it would make sense, politically, to let we, the peanut gallery, post away about the issue while they do what they have to do quietly.
If you listen to Sully's interview, it is interesting to note that he knew he had the luxury of training through nationals which, very likely, cost him the win(my thought, not his). He knew exactly what he had to do and to deal with. He even changed his plans for the race because at one point he was going to help Brannen. It would appear Gillis didn't know what he had to do. Sully's focus was Beijing as was Gillis'. Both thought they did what they had to do. One is going because he was able to react to laid down rules and one isn't because of a committee.
|
|
sdrew
Full Member
Saucony means I fear no injuries. Only really fast dogs.?
Posts: 153
|
Post by sdrew on Jul 8, 2008 7:21:43 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? If Gillis was going to be denied it should have have been communicated to him immediately after the 10,000m trials so he could either a) find himself another 10,000m and get those few seconds he needed, b) get after an 'A+' (or another combination of valid criteria) in the 5k, c) explicitly state what 'proof of fitness' was in minutes and seconds so that he knew what was expected of him between 10k nationals and the selection date. How would announcing his selection/non-selection back in June have to due with anyone else's in July? Each member's selection to the team is independent of each other is it not? Either the individual is qualified on their own merits or not and you move on to the next person. It is almost as if they were trying to keep the team to a certain size rather than taking everyone who qualified. |
|
|
|
Post by MattMc on Jul 8, 2008 8:28:47 GMT -5
Mr. Oldlegs, are you implying that there is an unwritten max. of rising star candidates negotiated in the backrooms? If this is so it is very unsettling and goes against the transparency COC and AC are striving for.
Apparently Gillis is appealing.
Mr. Oldlegs, what time from Mr. Gillis in the 5000m would have satisfied you to justify his selection? 13:50? 13:45? 13:40? 13:35 (a 2s pb)? Remember, Eric 'only' ran 13:37 last summer in an ideal, rabitted race in peak form. The conditions at Nats were not ideal.
Sure, R-Mac beat the pants off him over the last kilo (13 seconds on that last k). Is this surprising given the tactical championship race and their relative strengths? No. I think that if both were in peak form the same would happen again. Ryan's 1500pb is 10s faster than Eric's. This weighs massively in Ryan's facor over a tactical 5000m off a slow pace. This would be magnified if Ryan is peaking for Nats on his home stadium, and Eric is running high volume readying to peak for a longer race in a month.
I have it on good authority that he was told to 'prove fitness' yet provided with no specific time to aim for. How is that fair?
AC: 'Go run another trials race with only one other guy, we won't tell you how fast and we'll decide whether it was good enough after the fact. '
That's patently ridiculous.
To bring up Ritz, yet again-- he qualified way back in November. Did the US tell him that he had to prove fitness/ run trials/ jump through hoops in order to 'stay' selected? No. He could have lived in a cave and trained and still stayed selected.
Gillis dotted his i's and crossed his t's at 10k trials and they ask him 1 month later to prove fitness. Ridiculous.
Linc-- your point is well taken, however there is a massive body of scientific data supporting the concept of periodization of training and peak performance. This is why you don't see the world class guys racing year round at a high level. If you're performing at the same level year round despite training through races, maybe your periodization has to be re-examined?
|
|
|
|
Post by Linc on Jul 8, 2008 8:54:47 GMT -5
Even if you have a personal anectode of a couple decent races while "training through" at low mileage for the 800/1500, I would think that it is a generally accepted training principle that IT IS a lot harder to run close to your best while training through it. Not only because Gillis' main event is long (10km), but also because he dropped down to the 5km. The other side of saying slow times from 'training through it' is a myth is to say that tapering and peaking don't work either? Without seeing Gillis' training log, I can't definitively confirm he wasn't 'training through' (so possibly it's not a legitimate excuse for that reason), but as SI pointed out in the CBC article, he has continued to train towards Bejing. 1) I never said it wasn't harder to run at your best, I just said that it was definitely possible. Especially, when you are continuing to develop. 2) You assume that my anecdote about "training through it" was at "low mileage" for the 800/1500. Without ever having seen my training log I don't think you can say that. 3) I think we need to clearly define what "training through it" means. To me, just because someone is looking towards a race several weeks away, it doesn't mean they are necessarily "training through" all their other races. You don't have to be peaking/tapering to be considered as not "training through it". 4) What does this even mean?? "Not only because Gillis' main event is long (10km), but also because he dropped down to the 5km." also because he dropped down to the 5km what?? I think that in longer events it should be easier to be closer to your best while "training through it" because you would be doing more strength based training and require much less sharpening then the shorter events. Maybe people don't agree with that though?? |
|
|
|
Post by Mullet B. Miler on Jul 8, 2008 8:56:52 GMT -5
I don't expect Gillis or anyone at Guelph to weigh in yet since they are probably saving their case for some type of appeal (through whatever channel, if any) and don't want to say anything that might hurt their chances.
Stephen I agree that ideally each selection should be independent, but I would suggest that AC through the COC are trying to keep the size of the team down. Maybe there isn't a hard and fast total number, but as oldlegs has elaborated they seem intent on minimizing the # of rising stars. While I don't agree with this philosophy/approach, it is in keeping with all we've heard about AC/COC's goals of getting more bang for the buck out of your current olympic team (at the expense of future development of the sport).
I bet Gillis would be on the team if he was the only rising star. Or if we didn't already have as many mens distance runners already going, plus other surprise qualifiers (e.g. Bertocchi).
Maybe AC also internally justified Gillis' exclusion since they did do favours to other 'bubble' athletes by allowing several extensions, including mens distance via Brannen (bit of a surprise given their original push-back). Criteria aside, I'm sure if it was a case of one over the other, they'd rather take a chance on getting someone in the premier distance event with int'l/championship experience (nice headline for AC to trump how their tough standards are working and how they are so athlete-friendly if Brannen makes it and we get our maximum of three entries in the 1500m).
While Gillis might have a little bit more info from Goulet regarding what was expected of him to help his chances of being officially selected, the most frustrating thing is that his selection appears to be completely outside of his control, given he fulfilled all the objective criteria and probably did everything else asked of him. If AC disagreed with him 'training through' I'm sure they would have let him know? (yes, Australia holds the same 'subjective' unwieldly stick but that is no excuse, we shouldn't strive to just have 'not quite the clear-cut worst' policies in this area).
|
|
|
|
Post by coachc on Jul 8, 2008 9:24:06 GMT -5
Equivalent times in the 100 and 1500m compared to the 10000 standards using the mercier tables.
Event...........A+................A....................B
10000.....27:47.31......27:50.00......28:10.00
1500m....3:34.50.........3:34.87.........3:37.40
100m.......10.08..............10.10...........10.19
How many of our 100 and 1500 guys have made those A+ or A standards during the qualifying period?
|
|
|
|
Post by BeachBoy on Jul 8, 2008 9:55:04 GMT -5
Congratulations to Taylor Milne on his 1500m win!!
Like Sully, he was also training through nationals.
no bait intended, just happy he has done so well
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Jul 8, 2008 10:25:23 GMT -5
I don't think this has been posted yet: in the 5000m, Eric and Ryan were very clearly trading off the pace trying to help each other to a fast time. I'm not sure at what point this ended (close to 4k I believe) when Ryan pulled away, but they looked to be very specifically hitting 65s (though I think they needed 64s). I took it to mean Gillis was helping Ryan towards getting standard, and if so I would hope helps with an appeal.
Also, want to echo the comment on lack of National Championship competitors over 5000m and 10000m. We as a community need to take these events seriously and create better fields, for so many reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaff on Jul 8, 2008 10:32:53 GMT -5
I took it to mean Gillis was helping Ryan towards getting standard, and if so I would hope helps with an appeal. STiks interview with Ryan before the race indicated that they were each planning to do their own thing...however, maybe they discussed this after the interview and before the race. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Jul 8, 2008 11:08:56 GMT -5
It may not have been for standard, but they were trading every 400m like clock-work; maybe just elected to do that for 4 laps each then race it.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 8, 2008 11:18:47 GMT -5
Congratulations to Taylor Milne on his 1500m win!! Like Sully, he was also training through nationals. I hesitate to take the bait here because my comment about Sully was not in any way shape or form taking anything at all away from Milne who has performed brilliantly but that comment is basically silly. I guess you are talking about the 12 days between Jerome and the fist heat of the 1500s. Take a couple of down days after Jerome and a couple of easy days before Nats and you are talking about a week. I'm sure Linc, anyway, would agree that one could likely hold a peak that long. |
|
|
|
Post by Linc on Jul 8, 2008 11:20:21 GMT -5
Linc-- your point is well taken, however there is a massive body of scientific data supporting the concept of periodization of training and peak performance. This is why you don't see the world class guys racing year round at a high level. If you're performing at the same level year round despite training through races, maybe your periodization has to be re-examined? I agree that world class guys/anyone shouldn't be expected to race at a high level year round. I never said that(I don't think?) I never said I am at my best year round either. At least, I don't think it was written that way, but maybe i wasn't clear. Obviously, it would be silly to expect great track results from people in say September to early January. I don't, however, think it's crazy for someone to be expected to be close to their best in a 3-4 month period of the year in say May-August?? ...and if they are still "on the rise" maybe achieving results close to their best even earlier in the year, without specifically gearing up for the race, or within a certain period of their training shouldn't be out of the question. I would want/expect my athlete to be at their best from the previous season much earlier in the year following. |
|
|
|
Post by Linc on Jul 8, 2008 11:26:50 GMT -5
Congratulations to Taylor Milne on his 1500m win!! Like Sully, he was also training through nationals. I hesitate to take the bait here because my comment about Sully was not in any way shape or form taking anything at all away from Milne who has performed brilliantly but that comment is basically silly. I guess you are talking about the 12 days between Jerome and the fist heat of the 1500s. Take a couple of down days after Jerome and a couple of easy days before Nats and you are talking about a week. I'm sure Linc, anyway, would agree that one could likely hold a peak that long. hahaha. I will agree!! Maybe we should start another thread, but I would argue that it's possible to hold one(to some extent) for almost 2 months! |
|
sdrew
Full Member
Saucony means I fear no injuries. Only really fast dogs.?
Posts: 153
|
Post by sdrew on Jul 8, 2008 11:48:42 GMT -5
news.guelphmercury.com/Sports/article/351589"I did exactly what I wanted to in the 10,000m. I hit standard and won nationals," Gillis said. "But the unfortunate thing about the 10,000m national championship is that not everyone (from Athletics Canada) is there. More people saw me run the 5,000m and maybe that had something to do with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 8, 2008 11:53:07 GMT -5
"However, the six-person committee that decided the fate of the Rising Stars left Gillis off the national team."
I asked this before. Who are they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mullet B. Miler on Jul 8, 2008 11:57:26 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!
It also isn’t my intention to get personal but since you called me out, and have persisted with others, I will respond. Catts put it nicely and maybe I didn’t have to go into comparing your situations any more than that, but I still disagreed with your position after you clarified for him.
I am not as frequent/avid a reader/poster as some, but I do recall a thread on training where you either supported the high intensity / low mileage training philosophy, or at least admitted to training that way (at some point). If I’m remembering that wrong my apologies.
Regardless, even just from knowing you are/were an 800/1500 guy, it is not a huge leap in logic to assume you’d be doing less mileage and a different type of work than Gillis (granted you said you aren’t directly comparing yourselves, but you make your conclusion on ‘training through’ based on your experience, and then offered it in context of Gillis’ situation).
So yes, I did assume and those are my reasons (and since you didn’t outright deny I assume I probably wasn’t too far off the mark). But even if you gave details from your log that show you ran Xmpw and managed to come within Ys of your PB, that still doesn’t do it for me in justifying a blanket statement on how training through a race is ‘BS’.
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.
And Gillis isn’t just a few weeks away – Bejing track events don’t start until August 15th, so the 10km couldn’t be before then. So as MattMc alluded to he is probably still in a heavy phase.
Again I stress I’m not trying to start a petty little internet flame war and distract from the important issues. And it’s not like Gillis is on the board whining with BS excuses either – others are offering these up. But if Gillis & co were to use that reasoning in some type of appeal I would find it completely legitimate to explain why he ran below his potential best time at 5000. And we are still all just guessing at this point as to why Gillis was excluded – it sounds like it does, but training through this period/his 5000m race may not have been the deciding factor. AC must have been aware Gillis was training through. IF his performance over the weekend negatively affected his chances of getting selected, THAT is BS because AC could have asked him (albeit unreasonably) June 4th or earlier to schedule his training & racing otherwise if they wanted to see a fast time (how they could expect to see one anyways in a relatively weak domestic field is questionable – agree with SW on this one these distance fields should be stronger – but given their current state, further justification why you can’t expect Gillis to pull off a miracle on short notice).
So, long explanation… conclusion, potentially moot point? Good luck to Gillis in finding an avenue to a successful appeal?! Maybe then more will be revealed…
|
|
|
|
Post by Mullet B. Miler on Jul 8, 2008 12:17:21 GMT -5
IF his performance over the weekend negatively affected his chances of getting selected, THAT is BS because AC could have asked him (albeit unreasonably) June 4th or earlier to schedule his training & racing otherwise if they wanted to see a fast time (how they could expect to see one anyways in a relatively weak domestic field is questionable – agree with SW on this one these distance fields should be stronger – but given their current state, further justification why you can’t expect Gillis to pull off a miracle on short notice). Good luck to Gillis in finding an avenue to a successful appeal?! Some light was shed on that pretty quick in the Mercury article: "They wanted me to peak (in the 5,000m) for nationals in Windsor, but that's not what they stated earlier." He said if winning the 5,000m in Windsor would have bettered Gillis' chances at an Olympic berth, he would have had his runner race differently |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 8, 2008 12:33:00 GMT -5
My guess is that DST will have an email trail which will nicely support his case and it will be with a non-committee member. Faces saved all around if the committee members have to change their minds.
|
|
|
|
Post by feens on Jul 8, 2008 12:44:12 GMT -5
If I read that article correctly, Gillis was the only Rising Star athlete not selected to the team. What a great message to send to an athlete. It's one thing to set high standards (and although I may not agree with them, they at least have put forth reasoning for them), but it's another to basically give tell an athlete that you don't think they're good enough now, and don't have the potential to be in the future. Heck, I wonder if they even let him know their reasoning for his being left off the team.
|
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Jul 8, 2008 12:55:35 GMT -5
5 person National Team Committee: Martin Goulet Les Gramantic Scott MacDonald Kevin Sullivan (athlete rep) Nicole Forrester (athlete rep) There were absolutely NO quotas for team size, rising stars, or # of appeals accepted from AC or COC so the conspiracy theories can all stop as they are quite insulting to the integrity of all those on the committee. I spoke with Dave and Eric immediately after they found out the dissapointing news and we discussed what the determining factors behind Eric's exclusion were so that they could better prepare their secondary appeal to an independent appeals panel. A couple of things about "rising star." The athlete reps had been pushing for a number of years to allow developmental athletes who were on the cusp of intenational success despite AC's insitence that World Champs and Olympic teams should be athletes who show the potential through repeating A+/A/B standards. Candice Jones/Karlene Haughton and myself were able to convice AC to include a section to allow developing athletes who had achieved B standards a shot at getting World Champs and Olympic experience. Part of this agreement was that this criteria would have both objective and subjective parts to it and that just meeting the objective parts were not a guarantee to be selected. While I know there are many who are passionate about Eric's plight the alternative is to take the rising star criteria out all together because there will not be a strictly objective "rising star" criteria, that has been made very clear to the athlete reps. One last note is that since rising star was instituted in 2005 we have increased the number of rising stars for each World Champs/Olympics (2005-1, 2007-2, 2008-4or5 can't remember off top of my head) That is about the extent that I am willing to comment on the situation as I am not in a position to divulge to the public the extent of the discussions on appeals and rising stars. The affected parties know the reasons behind each decision and can then make an informed decision about whether it would be in their best interest to pursue a secondary appeal. "However, the six-person committee that decided the fate of the Rising Stars left Gillis off the national team." I asked this before. Who are they? |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 8, 2008 13:01:36 GMT -5
Thanks for that. Who is on the independent appeals panel? Is that public information? I am pretty sure you gave us that National Team Committee earlier but I couldn't find the post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Linc on Jul 8, 2008 13:08:17 GMT -5
It was probably more along the lines that I trained that way at one time(in high school).
You didn't say "less" mileage then Gillis. You said "low" mileage. Maybe this is where we differ? I was doing over 80 miles a week for a number of weeks(which was the longest I was ever that high). I know that's not a ton, but I don't consider it low either. Maybe you do, I don't know.
I wasn't trying to validify a blanket statement like that with my example. My example was meant to show that I think it is possible to run fast/close to your best while "training through it" because someone implied that it isn't.
I was going to say I don't think I called you out. But it looks like I sort of did.
I don't want to either...I am more interested in creating a discussion about the training part. Sometimes it takes a little to get it started though.
|
|
|
|
Post by im on Jul 8, 2008 13:09:08 GMT -5
One last note is that since rising star was instituted in 2005 we have increased the number of rising stars for each World Champs/Olympics (2005-1, 2007-2, 2008-4or5 can't remember off top of my head)
Case in point... maybe we have more rising stars because it gives athletes hope they can make a national team. It not so much you've increased the number (as you said there is no quota) as it's been the willingness of athletes to maybe hang on a bit longer because maybe there is somewhat of a chance. The numbers going up just may reinforce the notion that if you give the athletes a "legitimate" shot of making a team, then they will work hard and strive for excellence.
|
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Jul 8, 2008 13:14:14 GMT -5
I do not know who is on the independent appeals pannel but know the pannel has already been put together and is ready to start the appeals process. Thanks for that. Who is on the independent appeals panel? Is that public information? I am pretty sure you gave us that National Team Committee earlier but I couldn't find the post. |
|
|
|
Post by im on Jul 8, 2008 13:16:04 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! |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Jul 8, 2008 14:01:34 GMT -5
Pure speculation about what might have happened in camera:
Three of the five committee members know a thing or two about distance racing, and would likely have understood the ramifications of what was asked of Eric, and the significance (or lack thereof) of his 5000m race. I'm sure the young high jumper on the committee did not have a veto power of any kind, and I'm willing to bet she did not figure too much in any technical discussions of distance running, but probably was in support of the rising stars as much as any athlete would be. That leaves one person who might not know as much about distance racing, though since he's a big important head coach, one might assume he is somewhat versed, though I don't know for sure. I think he is a combined events specialist.
It seems like it really comes down to the message that the committee does not think Eric Gillis is going to be world class in the future. Now, as a coach, I know I tend to exaggerate the potential of my athletes, but when DST says he thinks Eric Gillis is going to be one of the best in "Canadian history" even if you factor in a bit of homerism, it seems like this guy is a good bet to do well in the future, if he is supported and encouraged by his federation.
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. The committee obviously answered no, which is a bit of a slap in the face to not only Eric himself, but to his coach, and training group as well. And really to any athlete who jumps through hoops.
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 oldlegs on Jul 8, 2008 14:02:35 GMT -5
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 journeyman on Jul 8, 2008 14:04:26 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. |
|
