pcal
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by pcal on Jul 9, 2008 10:10:05 GMT -5
Question: how many of us would have guessed that Eric would be running the kinds of times he is now (28:07) if we were asked 4 years ago? Be honest... not many, right?
Queston: which current 20-year-old (or younger) is going to run the fastest 10,000m in 2016? If you don't know the answer, I guess you can't be on the Olympic Selection committee.
Point: I'd love to know from the 5 member committee that left Eric off the 2008 Olympic team what the 8th place time is going to be in the 2012 London Olympics! Or, maybe they know how fast he'll run the marathon and they know the 8th place time from that race.
Hopefully the appeals committee gets it right.
|
|
gtown
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by gtown on Jul 9, 2008 10:41:02 GMT -5
Thanks to Kevin for providing what he can. It is greatly appreciated.
Reading the articles, it seems little bits of the decision making process are trickling through. Now we know of 2 factors - age (28) and the 5000m at nats. Both of these should be proven to be weak arguments at best in the appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 9, 2008 11:48:31 GMT -5
I suspect that Kevin, at least, would have an opinion about just how ancient 28 is. Not to mention an opinion on verbal vs laid down criteria and how confusion in that area can impact training and racing plans.
Interesting to note(at least according to the interview) that Brannen was told he had to hit standard at nats and then they changed their minds. It would appear that exactly the opposite may have happened in Gillis' case.
I have said it on this board that Gillis could be the guy that finally takes down Drayton's record. While that may not be top 8 or whatever in the world when that happens, it would certainly be a marketable event for AC vis a vis defining success.
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Jul 9, 2008 12:04:16 GMT -5
For info, ages of our "rising stars." (from AC athlete profile data)
Gillis - 28
Power - will be 27 in November
Metcalfe - 26
Mason - will be 22 in September
I'm not 100% sure these were all selected as rising stars, or if it's a complete list.
Can anybody post a career progression for Gillis, for interest's sake? My impression (which may be wrong) is that he's had some years where he's made great gains (like this 28:07), and other periods where he's plateaued in between. If that's the case, I wonder how the committee would have looked at that. I would think you'd like to see a continuous growth curve, in ideal circumstances, but then again, a big improvement like this year should also be a strong sign too. Would have been very interesting to have been a fly on the wall during this discussion (not to make light of Eric's situation in any way - I'm just very interested to understand).
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 9, 2008 12:14:07 GMT -5
|
|
Roy
Junior Member
Posts: 75 
|
Post by Roy on Jul 9, 2008 12:34:48 GMT -5
Point: I'd love to know from the 5 member committee that left Eric off the 2008 Olympic team what the 8th place time is going to be in the 2012 London Olympics! Or, maybe they know how fast he'll run the marathon and they know the 8th place time from that race. Prediction: 8th place will be a sub-2:10 marathoner. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Jul 9, 2008 12:46:30 GMT -5
Thanks. Only shows the past ~ 4 years unfortunately, but it's better than nothing. On the plus side (in my view), his 10k PB (28:07 from 2008) is superior to his 5k (13:36 from 2007), which is superior to his 3k (7:58 from 2007, and again indoors 2008). This means (to me) that DST is likely right that he has potential to run better at the marathon and be our next marathon star. According to the Running Times calculator, 7:58 = 13:43, and 13:36 = 28:19, and 28:07 = 2:11:49. Given he's outperformed the calculator at all distances going up, we might expect him to outperform the 2:11:49 for the marathon. However, if we use IAAF points, it doesn't look quite as rosey (although still good). 7:58 = 1068, 13:36 = 1082, and 28:07 = 1121. Given the trend for improvement with distance, we might expect him to improve another 40-60 points moving up two more distances (HM and M), which would put his potential (based on current PBs) somewhere around 1160-1180 points, or 2:12:48 to 2:11:47. So I'd have to agree that the future looks very bright, for the marathon at least. Getting back to the bit about his age, however, yes 28's not very old. But, he's been training for a lot of years under very good coaches (Chisolm at SfX, and the last few years DST). I think it's reasonable to wonder how much upside potential he has at 10k and shorter, given the years he's already committed. That said, I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) he's really worked seriously at 10k for very long, and his improvement from last year to this year is very solid (plus the drop from 30:25 in 2003 is also a HUGE leap), and perhaps indicative of more to come (at that distance and longer, if not at 5k or shorter). |
|
|
|
Post by twofeet on Jul 9, 2008 13:35:47 GMT -5
The Ryan Hall comparison is interesting:
Hall:
28:07 at Stanford, 2007
28:51 in June of 2007 at USA Outdoor Champs
Marathon of 2:06:17 in London, 2008
I think Gillis should get Rising Star status for the 10,000 regardless, but this begs the question: can he get Rising Star in the Beijing 10,000 for a future shift to the marathon in 2012, or did the committee only look at the 10,000? Since the whole point of Rising Star is to gaze into a crystal ball, it makes sense to consider Gillis's future in the marathon, and this solidifies his case. In 2012, he'll be 32, the primo age for a good marathon.
|
|
|
|
Post by feens on Jul 9, 2008 14:05:08 GMT -5
That's what I was saying in my post earlier, though nobody seemed to pick up on it. I'm also curious if they take into consideration the future plans of the athlete.
|
|
|
|
Post by emantsal on Jul 9, 2008 14:05:22 GMT -5
Hall ran both those times while training for a marathon. His 5k best is 13:16 from a few years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 9, 2008 14:06:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by spaff on Jul 9, 2008 14:39:56 GMT -5
Would be great to see a lot of support in the 'comments' section of Eric's blog from the running community! |
|
|
|
Post by Bomba on Jul 9, 2008 14:52:10 GMT -5
...so five people on the original meeting as Sully has noted. We can probably figure out where Sully stood on things....the question i have (and am not asking sully to officially comment on this as it's ethically challenged to do such a thing regarding Eric's appeal), but it would seem that of the group of five one could 'assume' how how things went down....so my question is do we really need a panel to decide things?  Is this more 'lip service' to a democratic process of perception versus reality??? In the end I can't imagine why people leave the sport..... Gillis follows the periodized model of training so near and dear to the whole AC coaching model and then gets screwed over because he actually does what they advocate....I mean why would you quit the sport.....hell i'd line up with bells and whistles....of course that might be the masochistic concept of distance running mentality in me... |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Jul 9, 2008 15:00:13 GMT -5
.... it would seem that of the group of five one could 'assume' how how things went down....so my question is do we really need a panel to decide things? Is this more 'lip service' to a democratic process of perception versus reality??? OK, I have to say I'm getting sort of tired of this kind of criticism. I don't agree with the panel's decision on this one, but it's unfair to lob this sort of unfounded crap at people who have been charged with making tough decisions on our behalf. Remember, they did let one distance runner in as a rising star, so you can't call them out for being anti-distance. How many of you have ever been in a similar position where you had the responsibility to make big decisions affecting people's lives? It's not easy, and I honestly doubt anyone on the committee would have taken any particular sort of pleasure in rejecting Gillis, OR made the decision lightly. I can only imagine it was very difficult for the committee to have come to this particular decision, and I have no doubt they spent a lot of time considering a lot of details from many different angles. I know many of you don't like the subjective aspect of these rising star decisions, but as Kevin said, there's no way there would have been ANY rising stars without some subjectivity in the process. If you think there's a better way to make these sort of decisions than using a committee of five people representing a good cross section of T&F disciplines, armed with their own technical knowledge and whatever other data they'd been provided, I'd be interested to hear about it. I'm very happy to see that Eric himself isn't complaining about the process. |
|
dst
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by dst on Jul 9, 2008 15:09:00 GMT -5
Enough is being said to draw me out of my cave for a first-ever post on this board. Moulton will love it.
It’d be imprudent for me to comment on specifics. I would like to say, however, that any talk of back-room negotiations, who is “tighter” to whom, or that there was any political agenda by a committee is rude. The depth of the pool in Canadian athletics isn’t that large and I know the majority of the committee members personally. Each of them has been approachable and genuinely sympathetic through the entire process. Obviously there is a certain degree of emotion involved (as Kevin has posted, the talks we had Sunday night were pretty tough), but that shouldn’t colour the fact that the people involved are good folks. While it’s natural to speculate here, some of the conjecture is way off base and unfair. Any discussion has centred around a difference of opinion on technical issues, and it’s disingenuous to imply otherwise. I’d also offer the caveat to not take media reports too literally,
I type too poorly to make this a habit, but tangentially there’s been some interesting discussion on consistency of performances, sustaining peaks, and the difference between doing so for mid-d and distance runners. I have opinions on that. Maybe at nxc we can get a talk going.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 9, 2008 15:18:45 GMT -5
I have no doubt they spent a lot of time considering a lot of details from many different angles. Define a lot of time. Personally, I have no problem with the integrity of the people or the process or even the criteria themselves. I just think they made an honest mistake(which people do all the time) in the area of the technical issues as DST points out. And maybe the reason they made the mistake is because it actually looks to me like they didn't spend a lot of time. This is complete conjecture obviously. The meet was over at 4pm and the COC dinner was at 6pm. If they looked at 6 athletes, that would be 20 minutes per athlete. We plebes have now been arguing about this for a couple of days. I am not sure how 20 minutes can give justice to the decision. The committee members and the athlete reps were either competing or doing admin stuff throughout the three days of the meet so that looks like the window. |
|
|
|
Post by oldlegs on Jul 9, 2008 15:33:50 GMT -5
I have to back PQ up here. I have sat on several boards including one of our Provincial Athletics Federation for 3 years and the Board of Governors of a major university for 2.5 years. I have also chaired arbitration hearings, and even a union negotiation...I know that when doing so you have a fiduciary duty (look it up if you are unclear) to live up to your role on these boards and institutions.
The fact is that the selection committee was tasked with executing what was decided by the AC/ COC over several years of public debate and discussion. As Kevin has stated, the requirements and duty he was bound to uphold is all there in black and white for those to see. The NTC it seems to me made the decision it had to.
While I personally feel very badly for Eric Gillis, I can't be outraged (as many are) with the decision. The rules, while subjective, were clear. If we don't like them, then let's lobby to change them.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Jul 9, 2008 15:57:33 GMT -5
.... it would seem that of the group of five one could 'assume' how how things went down....so my question is do we really need a panel to decide things? Is this more 'lip service' to a democratic process of perception versus reality??? OK, I have to say I'm getting sort of tired of this kind of criticism. I don't agree with the panel's decision on this one, but it's unfair to lob this sort of unfounded crap at people who have been charged with making tough decisions on our behalf. Remember, they did let one distance runner in as a rising star, so you can't call them out for being anti-distance. How many of you have ever been in a similar position where you had the responsibility to make big decisions affecting people's lives? It's not easy, and I honestly doubt anyone on the committee would have taken any particular sort of pleasure in rejecting Gillis, OR made the decision lightly. I can only imagine it was very difficult for the committee to have come to this particular decision, and I have no doubt they spent a lot of time considering a lot of details from many different angles. I know many of you don't like the subjective aspect of these rising star decisions, but as Kevin said, there's no way there would have been ANY rising stars without some subjectivity in the process. If you think there's a better way to make these sort of decisions than using a committee of five people representing a good cross section of T&F disciplines, armed with their own technical knowledge and whatever other data they'd been provided, I'd be interested to hear about it. I'm very happy to see that Eric himself isn't complaining about the process. PQ, I think there is room to criticise the process as it has been presented. A subjective decision is tough to make, but to confound objective and subjective criteria makes it difficult for the people trying to be selected to know what to do. If Les's comment that the 5000m was not good enough is true, and if Eric and his coach did not know they had to achieve a certain performance in that case, then it's just not a fair process, is it? I have selected national team members for mountain running (an event where even less people care than the 10000m!). The process was entirely subjective. It's tough to do, but you hope you get the right picks, especially when you have limited numbers. Here, it doesn't seem as if numbers were limited, so it's really a case of is this guy good enough or not, and the question of what is good enough seems to have been clearly muddled by the committee. I don't think that is unfair criticism at all. It's not a matter of anti-distance. If the discussions were, as DST suggests, technical, then it's only fair that the person in question, distance runner or otherwise, knows what the technical criteria are. Maybe the mistake the committee made was being too nice to Eric in trying to find a reason why they decided he shouldn't go. I think if they had said we don't think you'll make top 24 and that's what we're looking for, and left it at that, I would be less inclined to be critical, but when you have one of the members saying it was the 5000, when that wasn't something Eric knew about beforehand (did he? Can this be confirmed?), well, the process is flawed. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Jul 9, 2008 16:04:27 GMT -5
This is complete conjecture obviously. Yes, obviously. And conjecture and speculation are neither helpful nor constructive. It only serves to get upset people even more upset. Three of the people closest to this situation (Kevin, Eric and Dave) have given us a very clear indication that the process is fair and balanced (if perhaps some may feel an error has been made, which is a possible outcome of any such process). Now the appeals process is available to correct any such error. Let's let them hear the appeal and see how things work out. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Jul 9, 2008 16:07:10 GMT -5
PQ, I think there is room to criticise the process .... Of course there is, but we're criticizing based on what we would like to THINK has happened (primarily via rumour and speculation), not what we know has happened. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Jul 9, 2008 16:46:28 GMT -5
PQ, I think there is room to criticise the process .... Of course there is, but we're criticizing based on what we would like to THINK has happened (primarily via rumour and speculation), not what we know has happened. Based on what has been in the newspapers (Les's comment and Eric's race plan), which may not be too far from rumour and speculation, but still must hold some authority, no? Especially when the people involve insist that we don't need to know/get to know what really happened. |
|
|
|
Post by Bomba on Jul 9, 2008 17:03:24 GMT -5
..my take is not backroom negotiations...let me clarify my position as opposed to having people interpret it for me (much like i would like to occur in regards to the decison on not tkaing Etic). I am for the record not saying any backroom decisons were made and if said parties have taken it that way then my sincerest apologies...to the contrary......I am more interested in the actual process My take is how much (more % points) of the decision making power is equal??? egs Does Kevin (or any atlete rep for example,)have a legitimate say in the final decision or are his concens simply given and then the ultimate final decisoon rests with 1-2 people? How do the final decisions come around to 'democratic versus dictatorial' egs a vote versus points being made and the final decision ultimately lays with 1-2 people.....that is a question moreso than comment. I think these are legitimate questions to ask in regards to the decison making process ...in this regards a lack of transparency in regards to how the final outcome is made is as relevant as to the final outcome itself... ...mine is not saying yeah or nay, but rather are these decisions somewhat made ahead of time (biases). Egs if a vote was put to the group then is this a final decison...was it a discussion and then the final decision is left to a 1-2 people, etc.....was it a vote??? ...I am quite close with info regarding the situation of liz hunter galvan in New Zealand....a few people made a decison that was ultimately overturned. The decision on her appeal as that athletics NZ had given her the criteria she met and then made a decision that did not allow her time to further prove her abilties. In this respects her situation is similiar to Eric's situation....did him running national 5km hurt his chances and then he did not allow him to 'fix' his situation....did he have to run the 5km at nationals? ...right now at least IMHO there are more questions than answers in regards to decison making processes that lack transparency. This would not be the first time this has been said about any type of body whether it be athletics, governments, etc..... |
|
|
|
Post by Mullet B. Miler on Jul 9, 2008 17:06:50 GMT -5
Even if my speculative ponderings don’t all ring true (although journeyman also picked up on my Brannen example), at least they served a purpose if it motivated krs1 to come on here and provide some insight. Much appreciated. Still frustrating the decision isn’t completely transparent but I know Sully’s hands are tied. 5 person National Team Committee: Martin Goulet Les Gramantic Scott MacDonald Kevin Sullivan (athlete rep) Nicole Forrester (athlete rep) Not every decision was a unanimous decision. Most decisions have disenting opinions within the committee Sounds like consensus isn’t required and Gillis didn’t get it – as Bomba alluded to, we can probably guess how Kevin voted given his efforts to get ‘rising star’ criteria in place to begin with, his willingness to share with us and the fact he was in touch with DST immediately regarding an appeal. Assuming the other athlete rep went the same way that would mean the admin majority of the committee would have all been in agreement not to send Gillis. Unless someone on that committee has some veto power. 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 The increasing # of rising stars over the past few years is interesting, it suggests the rising star criteria has started to work well in fulfilling its purpose. But with this years record number it looks like it’s starting to work too well for AC/COC’s liking. Has AC ever in the past used their subjective trump card to block a potential rising star? I would guess not… and to me it looks like the only reason it happened this year is because we had so many. So while there may not be a hard cap the athletes know about (or even one given to AC), I still think the COC is wary of sending too many rising stars - otherwise there is no reason for the ‘subjectivity’ clause! So I still don’t think these were entirely independent decisions. Each athlete was held to the same standards, and the same factors were looked at for each athlete. So far from what we have heard about why Gillis wasn’t chosen, two of the subjective standards that all athletes were evaluated against were age, and performance in an event you are not qualifying for. If Gillis’ future top-8 potential is in the marathon, it’s even more ridiculous to punish him based on a 5000. Also ridiculous that one committee member can request an extra hoop out of Gillis the rest of the committee know nothing about – really sabotages the whole process especially since that additional request not only factored into him not being selected but was in contradiction with being as prepared as possible in Beijing. Very disingenuous since the way Gillis was misled could not have happened to anyone else that had already dotted their I’s and crossed their T’s. Gillis was alone in that, because for every other potential rising star as soon as they fulfilled their outstanding objective criteria that was it - end of qualifying and time to name the team! For example, we are not going to revoke Muir’s Olympic berth if within the next month she runs something less than world-class in a tune-up at some different distance. So Gillis was put at a disadvantage because of AC’s policy to hold the 10km champs 1 month before the trials – not only for the reasons he mentioned in one of the articles (the committee didn’t “see” him win 10k nationals but “saw” him in Windsor… as if that should make a difference, his results speak for themselves), but also because in the balance of the evaluation period after he fulfilled all his criteria, more was asked of him. 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. Haven't read Gillis' blog yet but I sympathize how awful it must have been to give and receive that news. It's also a shame the additional emotional/psychological distraction of this mistake will likely further negatively affect his lead-up to the games (assuming the appeal is successful). |
|
|
|
Post by Bomba on Jul 9, 2008 17:11:58 GMT -5
..and to add....good people can make decisons incrrect based upo their preceptions, biases and experiences. In this regards i am not saying anyone went out of their way to consciosly 'screw' Eric around or that people are evil. But biases (I am not saying at a conscious level) will impact decsions. In this regards knowing the full process, at the very least, allows fo a full understanding egs someone not fully appreciating Eric's grand plan for Beijing and say how he reacts to training could impact the perception of his nationals 5000m.....
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 10, 2008 4:10:24 GMT -5
This is complete conjecture obviously. Yes, obviously. And conjecture and speculation are neither helpful nor constructive. It only serves to get upset people even more upset. The conjecture is about whether or not they spent enough time on each athlete and I don't think that there is anything out of line commenting on and discussing that. How long the meeting could have potentially lasted with ALL facts on the ground available is NOT conjecture. That was two hours. Maximum. Period. Full stop. Keep in mind that the committee would have also have had to deal with all the time extensions. We are now up to at least 11 athletes. You tell me how many they could have discussed reasonably and have been fully briefed on when two of the committee members had other things to do during the week-end? If any of them disagreed with the Gillis decision, how much time would they have had to present their case? Not a lot, it would appear. They would have all gone into that meeting reasonably well prepared, I suspect, and could have made many of the decisions very quickly but I just don't think that there was a lot of time to discuss the contentious ones. Keep in mind that Brannen had been told that he HAD to run standard. So, either he was misled or the committee was persuaded otherwise and, if he wasn't misled(which has to be the default position unless Brannen misunderstood what he had to do), then someone would have had to have their mind changed and how long would that have taken? I realize that a lot of well meaning people can disagree on this issue but I don't think those well meaning people have had a chance to fully air their cases yet and I guess that is what is happening now. If the appeals committee confirms the decision, I won't have a problem with that with the caveat that I would be interested to see who the individuals on the committee are. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Jul 10, 2008 5:13:44 GMT -5
SI, I guess the difference in our opinions comes from the fact that I don't like to form a judgement about something without having full knowledge of a situation, including the subtle context surrounding whatever facts we happen to know. I don't mean this as a criticism of you - I'm often criticized for being to slow to take a side. I think it's fair to take either your position or mine.
Journeyman, careful about relying on newspaper articles too much... I note that DST himself told us to be careful what we believe from the news media on this topic. My own personal experience has been that newspapers, well-meaning though they might be, always colour a story based on the biases of the reporter (no matter how fair and balanced he/she might try to be). The facts in a story may be presented in a different context than intended, or given a subtly different shade. This can have a profound influence on how the story is interpreted (this may or may not be true in this case, I don't know).
DST, thanks for posting. I was thinking about starting a discussion about peaking etc, and I think I still will, but I'll wait some time until the dust settles on this appeal. I expect I may again be an odd man out in that discussion (seems to happen in every thread, including, almost, this one) if it manages to get any traction. Hope you'll contribute.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 10, 2008 6:56:51 GMT -5
One thing that would be interesting would be to find out at some point how the appeals process works. Typically, someone will make a decision and the party affected will appeal and then both sides will present their case to an appeal body. In this case, there may have been some disagreement amongst the people that made the original decision. Suppose the "vote" was 3-2(not saying that it was, it may have been 5-0). Is that information available as evidence and will the dissenters comment because it certainly would be relevant or does the group who made the original decision have to remain united and present their side accordingly? Or is that even how it works? I realize I won't get an answer to these questions right now but maybe it's fodder for a future discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Jul 10, 2008 8:03:27 GMT -5
Journeyman, careful about relying on newspaper articles too much... I note that DST himself told us to be careful what we believe from the news media on this topic. Come on, Pete, don't be so condescending. I read Dave's post, I know what he said. I have also been a journalist, so I know that the story is not always the full story. But from the media we can gather that Gillis was told his 5000 wasn't good enough and that he wasn't told he had to run fast in Windsor. That's a quote, not a comment from the journalist. It's a quote from DST, quoting Les, so not quite from the horse's mouth, but still. I don't think it is wrong to take this quote at face value. “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.’ Eric’s a 10,000m guy. We said, ‘We are not peaking for a 5000m and nobody told us he had to run fast in Windsor. If you are telling us that the time wasn’t fast enough, that’s subjective and somebody should have told us what time was fast enough.’”All this seems pretty straightforward to me. |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Jul 10, 2008 8:42:11 GMT -5
Seems very straightforward to me Journeyman. You can't change the hoops someone has to jump through at the last minute, that is a joke. And I do think the board should be more transparent for the general public. All this behind closed doors stuff is BS. AC represents the athletes and should 100% transparent to the people they represent. Journeyman, careful about relying on newspaper articles too much... I note that DST himself told us to be careful what we believe from the news media on this topic. Come on, Pete, don't be so condescending. I read Dave's post, I know what he said. I have also been a journalist, so I know that the story is not always the full story. But from the media we can gather that Gillis was told his 5000 wasn't good enough and that he wasn't told he had to run fast in Windsor. That's a quote, not a comment from the journalist. It's a quote from DST, quoting Les, so not quite from the horse's mouth, but still. I don't think it is wrong to take this quote at face value. “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.’ Eric’s a 10,000m guy. We said, ‘We are not peaking for a 5000m and nobody told us he had to run fast in Windsor. If you are telling us that the time wasn’t fast enough, that’s subjective and somebody should have told us what time was fast enough.’”All this seems pretty straightforward to me. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 10, 2008 10:53:14 GMT -5
The criteria were subjective-that was clear to all. A committee of 5 said that they didn't think he should go. There is an appeals process. The committee may very well have made an error for whatever reason and that will sort itself out soon. I don't think anyone can fault the process here. Whether a B should go period or whether the rising star criteria should be more objective are two completely separate issues.
|
|
Is this more 'lip service' to a democratic process of perception versus reality??? 
