Canadian Olympic Track Team announced

[krs1]

Maybe we should have just gone up to the press box and had the meeting over the PA system. Give me a break! The affected parties (and remember Eric was not the only one who was not selected or denied an appeal) were each told ALL of the reasons for their appeal being denied or not being selected. Les and/or Martin talked to each athlete/coach personally, and in Eric's case, Les suggested to DST to talk to me about the reasons he was not selected so that they could have all the facts so that they could better formulate their appeal. I attempted, as best I could, explain what the points for and against Eric's selection were that came up during the meeting.

Just because you WANT to know what went on in the meeting, you really have no reason, or for that matter right, to know.

And, since there continues to be speculation regarding the time line of the meeting, it was originally supposed to be from 4-6pm, and ended up stretching onto 7:30pm. One thing Martin made clear was that we were not going to rush any decision in order to get to the COC meeting which started at 6pm. Some appeals were pretty straightforward and really did not require much discussion at all as they were desperate attempts to get on the team. The injury appeals and rising stars took much more time and I would say the majority of our time was spent on those two areas.

Jul 10, 2008 8:42:11 GMT -5 HHH said:

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.

Jul 10, 2008 8:03:27 GMT -5 journeyman said:

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.

[journeyman]

Jul 10, 2008 11:03:47 GMT -5 krs1 said:

Maybe we should have just gone up to the press box and had the meeting over the PA system. Give me a break! The affected parties (and remember Eric was not the only one who was not selected or denied an appeal) were each told ALL of the reasons for their appeal being denied or not being selected.

But was Eric told BEFORE he raced the 5000m at nationals that his performance there would be one of the reasons he might not be selected? Was he told what he needed to do at nationals in an event he was NOT trying to qualify in, in order to make the team? If someone had said to you, Kevin Sullivan, after you finished second at nationals, oh, sorry, actually, we decided you need to come first, no Olympics for you, would you not think the process is perhaps flawed?

I think that is a fair question. I don't think it is throwing anyone under the bus to answer it, nor does it require revealing confidential information of any kind.

How does it come about that criteria are decided after the fact?

[pq]

In an attempt to look forward in a positive light, let me make a suggestion to the appeals committee, in whose hands the issue is now charged (and who, I assume, have all probably read this thread from front to back).

In the event you have the resources to do so, if I were you I would engage at least one (preferably three) external distance experts (think grey haired, maybe retired coaches with considerable international experience, from outside the country) to consider both the findings of the selection committee and any appeals submission to anwer the basic question: in your estimation, based on the information at hand, is there a reasonable probability that Eric Gillis will run an A+ 10k time in the next four years.

That's what I'd do, and I'd take their advice as the final word. Of course you'd need to be careful who you selected, but I don't think it would be that hard.

I don't think a six person committee composed of various T&F disciplines is really well suited to answer the Gillis question (or any other appeal from another discipline) on appeal, at least not without good external advice.

[krs1]

First off, I hope I am not coming off as anti-Eric or DST. I am in somewhat of a difficult position of trying to advocate for athletes while also being involved in a process that ultimately leads to disappointment for some athletes. I am a huge fan of Eric and DST and was excited as anyone watching him out at Stanford. My point in posting on this issue is to provide what insight I can into the way the NTC works and to dispel this notion that somehow AC is out to screw over their athletes. And as a side note, I think some of the comments directed at Martin Goulet and Les Gramantic on letsrun were totally uncalled for and you obviously do not know or understand the men and the difficult task that they expected to perform. Their job is much more complicated that simply making criteria and selecting teams. At the end of the day, they are the ones that have to stand in front of Sport Canada, COC, Road to Excellence and all our other funding partners and justify the results of the team and why we took X number of athletes when only Y lived up to the targeted goals. It certainly isn't anyone anonymously posting on this or any other message board that has to stand up and justify why we are taking over 30 athletes to the Olympics when some in the Canadian sporting world would think we should take less than 10. And it certainly isn't your job on the line if they fail to meet those objectives. I guarantee you that if they could, AC would go straight off IAAF standards but the nature of sport in Canada and the world has changed drastically in the last 10 years. Trying to validate arguments with the Olympic creed is pointless as the rest of the world moved away from this ideal a long, long, time ago and I don't see thing changing anytime in my lifetime.

Secondly, my situation was completely different as I fell into a completely objective part of the selection criteria. There was no subjective criteria for me or 23 others who met the non-Rising Star criteria. You are comparing apples-to-oranges.

That being said, as I said before, I do not know who told Eric that he had to run the 5000m at Nationals or if it was suggested he run the 5000m at Nationals. And there seems to be a huge assumption that he would not have run the 5000m except for the fact that someone suggested it. I also don't know if he was told it would be taken into account regarding his selection. But what I can say is that I think you are putting more into this 5000m than you should be. It was one point that was raised in a discussion. I don't know that it was the make-or break point. What Les said was it didn't help. He didn't say it was the deciding factor.

Finally Journey, I do find it somewhat ironic that you are complaining over the subjective nature of a selection criteria when you yourself noted that you selected a National Team in mountain running based totally on subjective criteria.

Jul 10, 2008 15:03:44 GMT -5 journeyman said:

Jul 10, 2008 11:03:47 GMT -5 krs1 said:

Maybe we should have just gone up to the press box and had the meeting over the PA system. Give me a break! The affected parties (and remember Eric was not the only one who was not selected or denied an appeal) were each told ALL of the reasons for their appeal being denied or not being selected.

But was Eric told BEFORE he raced the 5000m at nationals that his performance there would be one of the reasons he might not be selected? Was he told what he needed to do at nationals in an event he was NOT trying to qualify in, in order to make the team? If someone had said to you, Kevin Sullivan, after you finished second at nationals, oh, sorry, actually, we decided you need to come first, no Olympics for you, would you not think the process is perhaps flawed?

I think that is a fair question. I don't think it is throwing anyone under the bus to answer it, nor does it require revealing confidential information of any kind.

How does it come about that criteria are decided after the fact?

[SI]

What some of these people don't understand, and I have pointed it out either here or on TC, is that the athlete's reps are still AC board members and owe their fiduciary duty to AC not to the athletes.

[krs1]

I would disagree with that statement. Athlete reps are nominated by the athletes to be their voice on the board. In that respect I have a huge duty to the athletes.

Jul 10, 2008 16:58:41 GMT -5 SI said:

What some of these people don't understand, and I have pointed it out either here or on TC, is that the athlete's reps are still AC board members and owe their fiduciary duty to AC not to the athletes.

[pq]

Continuing in a positive vein, in the event appeals board members might read this board, I thought it might be productive to list factors in favour of Eric's selection. Other fans of Eric might think to help me out here.

First I thought it would be useful to marginalize the 5000 performance. First, I think it's important to note that while a strong run could only have been viewed in a positive light, the opposite is not necessarily true for a weaker performance. Any athlete can have a bad race for any number of reasons. Some possible reasons in this case include:
- it's not his primary distance, and he wasn't training for 5000
- it was a championship race, which don't tend to produce fast times
- it was not a strong international field, where you might expect a fast time

I don't think any reasonable board member should let that race carry much weight.

Next, consider his 10k progression. He went from 30:25 in 2003 to 28-high last year to 28:07 this spring. There's not even a remote hint that he's plateaued. I think any reasonable person would have to say 20 more seconds over the next four years is a very reasonable probability

Thirdly, consider his coaching. Coach Chisolm has an excellent reputation for early development of young (college age) athletes who later bloom at the international level (perhaps someone can post his credentials). Now, he's working with DST, who indisputably understands 10k training, given his club's success as well as Coolsaet's success and recent mark in the top 5 all time. Again, any reasonable person would have to conclude that given the early preparation under Chisolm and current guidance under DST, 20 seconds in the next four years is basically a foregone conclusion.

I hope that helps. Anyone else?

[SI]

Jul 10, 2008 17:11:53 GMT -5 krs1 said:

I would disagree with that statement. Athlete reps are nominated by the athletes to be their voice on the board. In that respect I have a huge duty to the athletes.

Jul 10, 2008 16:58:41 GMT -5 SI said:

What some of these people don't understand, and I have pointed it out either here or on TC, is that the athlete's reps are still AC board members and owe their fiduciary duty to AC not to the athletes.

You may have a huge duty to the athletes by I believe, legally, your ultimate duty is to AC. It would be interesting to see the actual definitions in the by-laws. We may be just talking semantics. Practically speaking, I think AC could ask you to resign if you came on here and slammed their decisions.

[SI]

Jul 10, 2008 17:17:56 GMT -5 pq said:

Next, consider his 10k progression. He went from 30:25 in 2003 to 28-high last year to 28:07 this spring. There's not even a remote hint that he's plateaued. I think any reasonable person would have to say 20 more seconds over the next four years is a very reasonable probability

That is the key. It is impossible to say definitively, in the face of that, that he won't get there.

[coldneck]

The way I see the remark about "the 5000m not helping" is that Gillis was on the bubble and a good 5000m could of put him on the team. Without a good 5000m he is still on the bubble, it didn't necessarily hurt him, but it could of helped out. I could be wrong about that.

Hopefully the appeal sheds some more light on Gillis' abilities and he's given the go ahead. We'll just have to wait and find out.

Thanks Sully for clearing things up on this board as much as you can. I think all the athletes appreciate the work Sully puts in as a rep and I hope the rest of y'all appreciate it too, I'm sure most of you do.

[pq]

OK, one more positive thought.

As a seasoned (if not accomplished) distance runner, I look at Gillis' age (28) as a positive, not a negative, in the context of potential for improvement at 10k and longer, and by extension for achievement of the stated goals for our "rising stars."

Yes, he's 28, but so far as I can tell (from following his progress loosely, as a casual fan, from a distance) he's only become serious about distances longer than 5k in the last couple of years.

This means we have an athlete with four solid years under Chisolm at StFX and a couple of years subsequently, as well as whatever he had in high school, building a solid aerobic foundation. Now, as he's passed his mid-20s, he's moved up.

What do we see as a result? HUGE gains. 30:35 to 28-high over a four year gap (very impressive on its own), then another ~ 50s in the last year.

Given that optimal performance at the longer distances takes several years of development, I think we're looking at at least another four years of improvement.

I suppose the naysayers might point at statistics and say the average LD runner peaks at so and so age, but when we consider a specific case, we need to consider the individual athlete, removed from the norms.

Let's remember, please, that McInnes, old man that he is at 33, just PB'd by the better part of a minute in the marathon. Surely it's reasonable to expect a younger man who's just moved up to 10k to improve another year or more by 20 seconds or more.

[ahutch]

Just got back from a week in the wilderness, and was disappointed to see that Gillis wasn't named to the team -- but not surprised. My expectation before the meet was that Metcalfe would be a Rising Star, but Gillis probably wouldn't, with the big difference being Metcalfe's prior international experience, in particular her national record at World Indoors this year. One part of the selection criteria emphasizes the ability to perform well at (not just qualify for) big meets. Metcalfe (and, for example, Mason) definitely did that this year.

It goes without saying that I think Gillis should go, and I hope his appeal will be successful. But, as usual in these discussions, I find it surprising how self-righteous and indignant people can get without making any effort to, say, read the selection documents. Statements like this are quite revealing:

"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..."

It's sort of like that cliche about teenagers being the only ones young enough to still think they know everything. It's very easy to see things in black and white when you've made no effort to understand the context which decisions are being made. Of course, understanding a decision doesn't mean you agree with it -- I disagree with the Gillis decision even though it was entirely predictable from the published criteria -- but it does eliminate the need to fabricate conspiracy theories about secret unpublished maximums and so on.

Having said all that, I agree with Mullet's point that this is a perfectly good time to complain and make some noise about rules we don't agree with. It was the public outcry after 2004 that led the COC to soften their "top-12" stance, which made the current AC Rising Star category possible. But that outcry shouldn't take the form of wild accusations and personal attacks on the people making the decisions. They're working within the system as best they can.

[pq]

Jul 10, 2008 22:34:12 GMT -5 pq said:

OK, one more positive thought.....

Not sure why everyone wants to bash the committee, but so far nobody's jumped in to help me out here. If we can't construct a solid argument in favour of him meeting the known subjective parts of the selection criteria, we really have no business complaining about the decision.

To be more clear on my previous point, the lengthy start to his career works to advantage because it involves a long, careful buildup of aerobic fitness over a number of years. He's only recently (last couple of years) tapped into that aerobic base to take on long distances. His rapid improvement year to year is no surprise, and further improvement should be expected.

[jaydolmage]

I just wanted to add a quick note about Kevin Sullivan here, in response to some of the heat I feel on this board and on the Letsrun thread (which I just saw today) directed at him.

This is in some ways separate from the issue with Eric Gillis (whose appeal I fully support--and whose case I probably hurt by running such a dogcrap 5k last Friday).

There is NO ONE more qualified to be our representative than Kevin. We owe him thanks for serving and serving us very well.

And, as an athlete, we shouldn't just admire and cheer for him, we should realize that we owe him a lot.

Without Kevin, we might quite well be looking at a very different AC, a very different environment for middle distance and distance runners in Canada. What may have stopped AC from an even further early-Y2K clampdown on the distance events? What may have stopped AC from going in the direction of a Bailey-fueled exclusive sprint focus? Kevin Sullivan's repeated stellar performances for us.

Reading the bashing of Kevin on the Lestrun board made we want to blow chunks.

Let's not forget that Kevin can medal for us in Beijing. I am sure that is his focus right now.

Jay

[SI]

I believe it has been said that a lot of time was spent on the Brannen issue. Anyone who was against him getting an extension was clearly WAY off base.

[journeyman]

Jul 10, 2008 16:30:13 GMT -5 krs1 said:

Secondly, my situation was completely different as I fell into a completely objective part of the selection criteria. There was no subjective criteria for me or 23 others who met the non-Rising Star criteria. You are comparing apples-to-oranges.

But what I can say is that I think you are putting more into this 5000m than you should be. It was one point that was raised in a discussion. I don't know that it was the make-or break point. What Les said was it didn't help. He didn't say it was the deciding factor.

Finally Journey, I do find it somewhat ironic that you are complaining over the subjective nature of a selection criteria when you yourself noted that you selected a National Team in mountain running based totally on subjective criteria.

I thought you might say that your situation is different, but here's why I disagree. I hope that this can maybe fall towards the positive end of the discussion as pq has been trying to push things. If you view the 5000m as part of subjective criteria, then it's fair game. The problem I have with that is that it seems as though it was used in an objective way. Using a race as a criteria for selection implies that there was a specific level of performance that would have been satisfactory. That's objective. That's why I compared it to the objective criteria someone with A+ standard would be subjected to. That this potentially objective criteria was not communicated to the athlete seem to me to be unfair. That not all of the committee knew about it also seems to point to an unfair process.

I think subjective criteria are fine, and I'm sure that some of the other subjective criteria, that have not been disclosed, could have been reasonable. It's just that the 5000m issue seems objective to me.

That it was just one part of the discussion is important, for sure, but in an appeal, their more likely to look at procedural mistakes than they are to review subjective decisions, so it seems to me the 5000m issue is the most relevant.

By the way, in mountain running we're going with a straight trial (July 19th in Vancouver!) to pick all but one of the team spots, with the last spot being selected subjectively. We had to go subjective previously because there weren't enough people involved at a high enough level to make a trials race relevant. Hopefully this year that changes. Objective selection is more fair, but I don't have a problem with subjective selection, if the alternative is, as you've suggested, no selection. I do have a problem with shifting objective standards masquarading as subjective selection.

I don't know Les Grammantik, but I do know Martin, and I understand the pressures he's under and how much he gets around and gets things done. I underscored Scott's involvement before because I have the impression he's been a part of good things. This is not really personal at all. I just think that the process was not well-managed, and that's frustrating. No matter how good people are, no one likes to admit that they are wrong, and when faced with that, many good people will dig in their heels and make excuses and rationalizations. Even if it was a close decision, in the end, it is in or out.

Congrats to Nate Brennan on his A+.

[krs1]

Jul 11, 2008 20:53:42 GMT -5 journeyman said:

Jul 10, 2008 16:30:13 GMT -5 krs1 said:

Secondly, my situation was completely different as I fell into a completely objective part of the selection criteria. There was no subjective criteria for me or 23 others who met the non-Rising Star criteria. You are comparing apples-to-oranges.

But what I can say is that I think you are putting more into this 5000m than you should be. It was one point that was raised in a discussion. I don't know that it was the make-or break point. What Les said was it didn't help. He didn't say it was the deciding factor.

Finally Journey, I do find it somewhat ironic that you are complaining over the subjective nature of a selection criteria when you yourself noted that you selected a National Team in mountain running based totally on subjective criteria.

I thought you might say that your situation is different, but here's why I disagree. I hope that this can maybe fall towards the positive end of the discussion as pq has been trying to push things. If you view the 5000m as part of subjective criteria, then it's fair game. The problem I have with that is that it seems as though it was used in an objective way. Using a race as a criteria for selection implies that there was a specific level of performance that would have been satisfactory. That's objective. That's why I compared it to the objective criteria someone with A+ standard would be subjected to. That this potentially objective criteria was not communicated to the athlete seem to me to be unfair. That not all of the committee knew about it also seems to point to an unfair process.

I think subjective criteria are fine, and I'm sure that some of the other subjective criteria, that have not been disclosed, could have been reasonable. It's just that the 5000m issue seems objective to me.

That it was just one part of the discussion is important, for sure, but in an appeal, their more likely to look at procedural mistakes than they are to review subjective decisions, so it seems to me the 5000m issue is the most relevant.

By the way, in mountain running we're going with a straight trial (July 19th in Vancouver!) to pick all but one of the team spots, with the last spot being selected subjectively. We had to go subjective previously because there weren't enough people involved at a high enough level to make a trials race relevant. Hopefully this year that changes. Objective selection is more fair, but I don't have a problem with subjective selection, if the alternative is, as you've suggested, no selection. I do have a problem with shifting objective standards masquarading as subjective selection.

I don't know Les Grammantik, but I do know Martin, and I understand the pressures he's under and how much he gets around and gets things done. I underscored Scott's involvement before because I have the impression he's been a part of good things. This is not really personal at all. I just think that the process was not well-managed, and that's frustrating. No matter how good people are, no one likes to admit that they are wrong, and when faced with that, many good people will dig in their heels and make excuses and rationalizations. Even if it was a close decision, in the end, it is in or out.

Congrats to Nate Brennan on his A+.

If you mean that ther was some specific 5000m time that was being looked for, there obviously couldn't be, as it was a championship race. That takes all objectivity out of the 5000m as you have to look at the performace relative to the conditions and the way the race played out. That, I am afraid is subjective, end of arguement.

If the importance of the 5000m was not relayed to Eric, then I agree, that was a mistake on whoever suggested he run the race. However, on the flip side, if someone did suggest that Eric should run the 5000m at Nationals, maybe that person assumed that it would be understood that by making the suggestion it should be inferred that the 5000m performance at Nationals was going to be considered in the selection process. Not knowing how the coversations between the two parties played out it seems that there was either a lack of communication and/or understanding. If that is the case that is something that needs to be addressed as AC is committed to be open and transparent to the athletes about issues such as selection criteria and carding. But, I will say again, I think you are putting much more weight in the 5000m issue than you should be. And, you are still assuming that other athletes non-primary events were not considered in their rising star decisions.

[ronb]

No matter how the Gillis appeal plays out, here's a few things we can learn (or re-learn) from this experience:
1) It seems clear that Gillis is a "Rising Star", regardless of his age or his potential place in Beijing or any other factor. Here is a guy who only started taking the 10K. seriously in the Spring of 2007, and quickly improved to 28:52 and then 28:42. And then he came out in the Spring of 2008 and ran 28:16, and then 2 weeks later 28:07. Some skilled mathematician can plot the improvement curve, and figure out that Eric could be very, very good within the next few years. Actually, you don't have to be skilled, it's obvious. I don't think the discussion about whether it's the 10K or the Marathon, or maybe even back in the 5K, is particularly relevant to the discussion.
2) Events such as the 10K. and the Marathon are treated differently for obvious reasons, and that needs to be respected by All in the Selection Process. One of the criteria is "International Success". For anyone who understands the Event, where is a rapidly developing young 10K runner supposed to go to achieve that International Success?? There are no Indoor 10K's, there are no early Europe 10K's, and the Trials were on June 4th.
3) So Gillis got his ass down to California, the only place that International Level 10K's happen at that time of year, and he ran huge pb's in April and early May. And then
got ready to win Nationals, which he did.
At that point, the Selection for the 10K. should have been closed and Eric should have been selected. The same as the Marathon selection was closed on May 25th, and athletes were either named to the Team or not. To do otherwise is to ignore the unique characteristics of the distance events, particularly the longer events, in terms of seasons, and peaking, and racing opportunities, etc., etc. I thought we had put those battles behind us in the 1980's!
4) Finally, I don't think the COC is any more at fault than AC. I could be wrong, but I think the problem is more with AC feeling a need to treat each event as if they are equal, which of course they aren't (as alluded to above). I believe there is lots of money within the greater Canadian distance running community, if there is a perceived need to help fund one of our runners. Enough for now...

[Bomba]

Ronny...the best post yet..

Kevin careful with this one... it goes down a slippery slope.... not the specifics, but more along the lines generalities and the importance of 'perception over reality'. Over the years this would be the one big complaint thrown at AC and any predecessor, whether or not things are or aren't 'kocur'.....

"Just because you WANT to know what went on in the meeting, you really have no reason, or for that matter right, to know."

[slamer]

Jul 11, 2008 10:40:24 GMT -5 ahutch said:

But, as usual in these discussions, I find it surprising how self-righteous and indignant people can get without making any effort to, say, read the selection documents. Statements like this are quite revealing:

"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..."

It's sort of like that cliche about teenagers being the only ones young enough to still think they know everything. It's very easy to see things in black and white when you've made no effort to understand the context which decisions are being made. Of course, understanding a decision doesn't mean you agree with it -- I disagree with the Gillis decision even though it was entirely predictable from the published criteria -- but it does eliminate the need to fabricate conspiracy theories about secret unpublished maximums and so on.

Hutch, now I think I understand the point you are trying to make, and for the most part I agree... but please do not take what I said and completely distort it to prove something entirely different then it's original intent.

Specifically, the discussion was about why COC/AC standards are harder then the IOC's. And Sully responded as follows...

Jul 8, 2008 23:48:57 GMT -5 slamer said:

Jul 8, 2008 22:24:45 GMT -5 krs1 said:

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.html

If you read what I said, it was that I do not have time to look at every single country (all 212 countries) and do a comparative study as to who does and who does not have harder standards. But I did my best to find those that I could, given the time I have. My whole point was simply to ask why Canada has put in harder standards. (why we have A+ standard for instance)

I actually haven't commented about Gillis being robbed. I personally was there at 10k champs (as you know), and even then I was surprised that people thought he was a lock to make the Rising Star criteria. Not that I thought he wasn't, but the talk as if it was a given.

[ahutch]

Hey Slamer, you're right -- I sort of cherry-picked that quote from your post, which wasn't really fair. You actually made an effort to find the standard documents and understand the rationale, which is very commendable.

I guess I think that asking "Why do we have tough standards?" and "Who is this Les Gramantik character?" is a way of venting moral outrage and feeling good about it, but isn't very productive. The answers are easily available, even if we don't agree with them. The more pertinent question is "What steps do we need to take to make changes?" And we need to ask that question in the real world, not the one where we can line up all sports bureaucrats against the wall and shoot them, then ask some magical friendly corporation for $100 million. And when you ask that question in a serious way, I think what you find is that you get involved in a grassroots way, say with your local club, and work to make changes. And then maybe you end up at Athletics Canada, and continue working to make changes -- like Scott MacDonald has done.

[bystander]

Jul 12, 2008 10:59:17 GMT -5 ahutch said:

Hey Slamer, you're right -- I sort of cherry-picked that quote from your post, which wasn't really fair. You actually made an effort to find the standard documents and understand the rationale, which is very commendable.

I guess I think that asking "Why do we have tough standards?" and "Who is this Les Gramantik character?" is a way of venting moral outrage and feeling good about it, but isn't very productive. The answers are easily available, even if we don't agree with them. The more pertinent question is "What steps do we need to take to make changes?" And we need to ask that question in the real world, not the one where we can line up all sports bureaucrats against the wall and shoot them, then ask some magical friendly corporation for $100 million. And when you ask that question in a serious way, I think what you find is that you get involved in a grassroots way, say with your local club, and work to make changes. And then maybe you end up at Athletics Canada, and continue working to make changes -- like Scott MacDonald has done.

Well said Alex - that's the journalist providing a succint analysis of the situation.

Following on Ron's lead - there are a number of contentious issues. What are they (ennumerate them) then decide what to do in order to rectify them - if possible?! Sully has come on here to defend the process, which certainly has some subjective connotations, in what many see as an objective sport. Which means that the decision-making process isn't as easy as it may sometimes appear. The other thing is that there isn't consensus on what issues should take priority - which are more damaging to development and opportunity? That may depend on individual (event area) perspectives.

Issues:
1) Timelines - that AC (as representative of the sport) allows a shortening of the IOC guidelines. Hosting Nationals before the deadline (July 23) helps create this situation. Having Repeatability timelines (April 1, May 15, etc.) that impact on training/racing schedules and reduce the overall qualifying window even further.
2) Standards - that AC accepts the A+ (as representing a top 12 performance) as a preferred level (especially if a single performance), and that a somewhat complicated A and B level (again based on repeatability) in the number of times Standard has to be met. The Marathon and it's higher level beyond the IAAF Standard.
3) Repeatability and Top 4 at Nationals.
4) Rising Star and how this is defined - beyond merely obtaining B standard and winning an Event at Nationals. While this is explained, it is still difficult to grasp entirely, which is why there are differences of opinion.

[SI]

Gillis appeal is supposed to be decided.

edit-check that

[Linc]

I don't want to seem like a jerk by bringing this up again, but, I would like to know what people have to say about this issue.
Event 12 Men 1500 Meter Run
================================================================
Name Year Team Finals
================================================================
1 Mckenzie, Ryan 78 Independent 3:41.04
2 Robison, Grant 78 Team Usa 3:42.32
3 Gillis, Eric 80 Speed River 3:44.89
4 Arnald, Scott 82 Speed River 3:45.65
5 debardi, stephen 78 Fleur de Lys 3:48.46
6 Kellar, Adam 84 University o 3:49.76
7 Poulin-Cadovius, James 85 Montreal Oly 3:54.89
8 Brett, Allan 88 Ottawa Lions 3:59.17
9 Gertzen, Brian 85 Independent 4:01.26
-- Finn, Ryan 87 Independent DNF
-- Corbit, John 85 Speed River DNF

Just last week people claimed that Gillis was in the middle of a hard training block, getting ready for a 10km, and that dropping down to run a good 5km wasn't even reasonable given his training. Yet, this week, he goes out and runs a 3:44.89(a pb I think?, and congrats!)... If it's not possible to drop down and run a good 5km off 10km training, then how is this result possible???
Any thoughts?

[SI]

I am not sure what your point is. Obviously he could have run faster if he aimed for it. It's just more grist for the mill and more support for his case.

[Linc]

Jul 13, 2008 19:40:14 GMT -5 SI said:

I am not sure what your point is. Obviously he could have run faster if he aimed for it. It's just more grist for the mill and more support for his case.

My post wasn't meant to be about proving/disproving his case. I don't argue that it could be more support for it though.

I wasn't trying to make a point. I was asking a serious question(if it came across differently, then I apologize) pertaining to peoples opinion's on training/"training through it"/peaking referenced earlier in the thread.

I think this helps show that it's possible to still run fast/close to your best while "training through it", as I suggested previously. However, when I did so, people seemed to jump all over me like I was crazy for even suggesting the possibility...I wouldn't mind hearing some thoughts on how these people think he ran such a good 1500m if what they were saying before is true.

[ronb]

Linc,
Here's one possibility. Going into the Nationals, EG thought he was on the team. This would be supported by verbal reports that he worked out a mutual pacing plan with RMac for the 5K., and that he was in attendance at the Olympic Team function. So, it's quite possible/probable that Eric was not fully tapered or rested for Nationals. And now, with the appeal still pending, as far as I know, he may have rested up a bit more for the 1500 m., just to prove that he is still fit and ready to go. I have no inside information, but don't you think that's a possible scenario?

[HHH]

Jul 13, 2008 20:20:44 GMT -5 Linc said:

I think this helps show that it's possible to still run fast/close to your best while "training through it", as I suggested previously. However, when I did so, people seemed to jump all over me like I was crazy for even suggesting the possibility...I wouldn't mind hearing some thoughts on how these people think he ran such a good 1500m if what they were saying before is true.

I very much doubt he is 'training through' anything right now. What would be the point as he has already been left off the team? Might as well run a few fast races and see if that can help his case.

[krs1]

Actually HHH, Eric and DST publically said they are going about training/racing as if Eric is on the team. It wouldn't wouldn't make sense to change things up until the appeal is finished.

Jul 13, 2008 21:25:59 GMT -5 HHH said:

Jul 13, 2008 20:20:44 GMT -5 Linc said:

I think this helps show that it's possible to still run fast/close to your best while "training through it", as I suggested previously. However, when I did so, people seemed to jump all over me like I was crazy for even suggesting the possibility...I wouldn't mind hearing some thoughts on how these people think he ran such a good 1500m if what they were saying before is true.

I very much doubt he is 'training through' anything right now. What would be the point as he has already been left off the team? Might as well run a few fast races and see if that can help his case.

[im]

For a guy who has been through an emotional roller-coaster this past week, going from thinking your on an Olympic team, to not being on it, and then having to worry about putting an appeal together and all, it shows the kind of athlete he is and his strong character... how many people could go out and run a PB after all the crap he has to and is still, dealing with.

Good for you Gillis!