Canadian Olympic Track Team announced

[HHH]

Then I stand corrected and Linc now has a very good point.

Matt

Jul 13, 2008 22:20:40 GMT -5 krs1 said:

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:

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.

[jellison]

Congrats gilles on what would have been the 3RD fastest high school time last year!!! Yeah, that sounds like olympic material to me.

[slamer]

Jul 13, 2008 23:08:02 GMT -5 jellison said:

Congrats gilles on what would have been the 3RD fastest high school time last year!!! Yeah, that sounds like olympic material to me.

wow... Forgot to have your nap today?

I get that you are being sarcastic... but why insult Gillis; even if you don't think he deserves to go?

[Bomba]

..Linc....typical after a non taper down week IMHO.....your down week (egs nationals) kicks in a few days too late and you are tested up for a say Monday race (and the rest of the week as a result) rather than a Friday race (the night of nationals). Pretty common occurrence if you are training higher volume/load.....

[SI]

Of course he isn't changing things. Plus, maybe he is capable of something even faster. He wasn't surprised. To wit, here is what he said June 26:


"Raced a 1500m last night in London. A hard effort in unfamiliar territory was what I sought, and got in windy conditions not suitable for fast times. I'm confident after how I felt last night a new 15 PB is within my grasp July 11 in Halifax."

[sdrew]

Jul 13, 2008 19:36:40 GMT -5 Linc said:

If it's not possible to drop down and run a good 5km off 10km training, then how is this result possible???
Any thoughts?

It's called home cooking.

[coldneck]

Hey Linc, I wasn't going to respond to the whole peaking thing but I might as well point out a few things since the topic keeps getting pulled back up.

One; being Gillis' training partner I can tell you that his 3:45 Pb that he's held for the past three years is not indicative of his 1500m potential. I think when he ran 3:47 in Oordegem in 2005 he would of been a few seconds faster had he been in the first section. So just because 3:44 is a 'PB' it doesn't necessarily mean he is totally peaked. I would bet a peaked Gillis is more like 3:42 (especially if Scott Arnald is in that same race running 3:43, haha).

Also, he hasn't been doing much finesse work at all lately seeing as his main focus is the 10 000m and if he runs a 10 000m this summer (hopefully he will) it will be on Aug. 17th. So with the lack of sharpening work a 1500m, 5000m and another 1500m race in three weeks will get him much sharper, hence the PB in his last race.

Lastly, remember last year in May when we all ran the 1500m in Hamilton and you beat us all running 3:43 (or so). And then two months later I ran 3:40. And to think that Milne and I were running 3:51 indoors and you were sub 4 for the mile. I would say that our training is quite different in the sense of periodization. Indoors this year I ran 3:51, your training partner Finn was second in 3:51 and Milne was third in 3:52. So although I agree with you that you guys are always close to your PB's I have just shown you through numbers that our group can be quite far off our PB's during various training phases throughout the year. I can pull up some more numbers if you're not convinced.

[coldneck]

the whole point to my last post was just to point out that I have Milne's scalp in the 1500m.

[pq]

Jul 14, 2008 10:03:40 GMT -5 coldneck said:

the whole point to my last post was just to point out that I have Milne's scalp in the 1500m.

OK, that cracked me up.

Anybody know when the appeals committee will be making its decisions?

Oh - and a point about transparency.... I don't think we should necessarily by privy to the details of discussions held in the selections or appeals committee meetings at the time they occur, while decisions are in the process of being made. But I do think a formal record of these decisions, with details of arguments made for and against each decision (and perhaps a record of the numerical values of the "vote," if a voting process is used, e.g. 3-2 against - not necessarily naming who voted which way), need to be made public.

Future athletes/coaches in similar situations need to understand the process they will be up against and the way decisions will be made so that they can prepare themselves accordingly, with clear expectations for due process.

[Linc]

hahaha. Fair enough, I think he could probably go faster too...I did say earlier, that I agree there are times in the year when you can be pretty far off of your best though, I'm not arguing that.

So just because 3:44 is a 'PB' it doesn't necessarily mean he is totally peaked. I would bet a peaked Gillis is more like 3:42 (especially if Scott Arnald is in that same race running 3:43, haha).

Sorry if it seemed like I was saying he is peaked now. Thats not what I meant.

Also, he hasn't been doing much finesse work at all lately seeing as his main focus is the 10 000m and if he runs a 10 000m this summer (hopefully he will) it will be on Aug. 17th. So with the lack of sharpening work a 1500m, 5000m and another 1500m race in three weeks will get him much sharper, hence the PB in his last race.

This is what I was trying to show! Even though he has been doing 10km stuff, it IS possible to drop down and run well/close to your best in another event; even while "training throught it" as you have indicated he's doing.


Bomba, I would tend to agree with you...that you can run well the week after a down week. That could very well be the reason. I'm pretty sure people were saying that he didn't take a down week though, so that arguement wouldn't hold weight. Although, maybe he did(it was nationals?), I have no idea.

[pq]

Jul 14, 2008 10:54:31 GMT -5 Linc said:

... it IS possible to drop down and run well/close to your best in another event ...

Of course it is, but it isn't ever a given either. Plenty of reasons to be a little "off" in any single race. No such thing as a "false positive," however. Had he run 13:25-30 in that race (not sure how, without more competition potentially at that level), you would have to figure that in discussions. You can't race faster than you fitness, so that would mean he had ~ A+ 10k fitness. But it's easy to run slower than your fitness on any given day.

Suggestion - if we have reasons the Eric's appeal shouldn't be supported (or arguments that weaken his case), maybe we can air them after the appeal has been heard. No need to give the committee reasons to find against him. Remember, Big Brother might be reading...

[Bomba]

Pete this would also be my take on 'transparency' as well (and more along my idea of my 'slippery slope' comment to Kevin). Even the slghtest bit of having to make things publicly accountable after the fact would force people to possibly take a bit more time and take a harder look at various situations (once again I would also add that this is as much a general statement of human nature as anything else).

Once again I'll go back to the Liz Hunter Galvan situation in NZ where athletics NZ was forced to provide all details in her appeal and in the end her appeal forced athletics NZ to change their original decision. If they hadn't been forced to re-evaluate the decision in a more 'objective courtroom' she wouldn't have made the team and they would have stubbornly stuck to their original decsion.

It's interesting to notice that the only person (that I've seen) who has gone public with Eric's decsion is Kevin and i am sure that (despite whether one agrees/disagrees with Kevin or the selction committee) his amount of respect as a 'stand up guy' for 'putting his neck on the line' and not acting in a bunker sort of mentality has either been increased or at the very least been solidified.



"Oh - and a point about transparency.... I don't think we should necessarily by privy to the details of discussions held in the selections or appeals committee meetings at the time they occur, while decisions are in the process of being made. But I do think a formal record of these decisions, with details of arguments made for and against each decision (and perhaps a record of the numerical values of the "vote," if a voting process is used, e.g. 3-2 against - not necessarily naming who voted which way), need to be made public."

[pq]

Wanted to say a little more about that 5000...

I don't know one way or another whether/how that race factored in to the decision, or if he was told that a good result there would work in his favour.

First, the result's actually not all that bad. No, he didn't win it, but he came second to a guy who's arguably expected to be faster than him at 1500-5000. At least I would have expected MacKenzie to beat him anyway.

I've already written that the time should be taken as meaningless for a variety of reasons. But, if the committee (or one or more of its members) wanted a strong 5k result as some sort of current proof of fitness, or evidence of further potential at 10k, then they should have, in all fairness, done it much differently.

First, the Nats 5k race was clearly NOT the right race for that purpose. They should have asked him to run a fast 5000 and leave it at that. Then Eric/DST could have looked for a strong race where he could have run a fast time.

Look at Brannen as a case in point... he couldn't quite get there in spite of several opportunities in domestic races (which were much, much deeper than this 5k, with Sully and Milne in the mix, among others), but put him in a deep, strong international field, and he obliterates the A+ standard.

Again, I really think the appeals committee (or any thinking person with basic knowledge of distance training and racing) needs to totally ignore the 5k nats race and look closer at other factors that are more realistic indicators of his future potential to hit A+ or finish top 12/16 (whatever the magic criteria are - I forget the details). I think we've shown it's quite obvious he has very strong potential to reach the A+ mark in the next four (!) years, since it's only 20 (!) more seconds in a distance he's just begun to master.

[journeyman]

Jul 11, 2008 22:15:38 GMT -5 krs1 said:

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.

Ok, thank you for this fair and straightforward answer to my question. Regardless of the weight of the 5000m on the final decision though, the uncertainty in what was demanded should be enough to overturn the decision on an appeal, more so than revisiting any of the other subjective criteria and revising the reasons of the first committee.

Edit: I just read PQs comparison to Brannen, and I think it is a good one. If you want a good performance, nationals is not the place, necessarily. The 1500 was WAY more competitive than the 5000, and even then, putting the guy in an international field got him about 4 secs. A solid international 5k might have netted Gillis another 15secs, conservatively, if he was gunning for it. It's clear that if you give athletes the chance to run fast they will, but as coldneck pointed out, runners are not always ready to drop a PB. 6 weeks before the biggest race of your life is not the time to run a great time at half that distance. So it just seems the idea of using the 5000m is flawed. I know I know, not the only factor...but it's the only one that we know about, so what can we do...?

[krs1]

Jul 14, 2008 10:27:12 GMT -5 pq said:

Jul 14, 2008 10:03:40 GMT -5 coldneck said:

the whole point to my last post was just to point out that I have Milne's scalp in the 1500m.

OK, that cracked me up.

Anybody know when the appeals committee will be making its decisions?

Oh - and a point about transparency.... I don't think we should necessarily by privy to the details of discussions held in the selections or appeals committee meetings at the time they occur, while decisions are in the process of being made. But I do think a formal record of these decisions, with details of arguments made for and against each decision (and perhaps a record of the numerical values of the "vote," if a voting process is used, e.g. 3-2 against - not necessarily naming who voted which way), need to be made public.

Future athletes/coaches in similar situations need to understand the process they will be up against and the way decisions will be made so that they can prepare themselves accordingly, with clear expectations for due process.

Minutes were taken at the meeting so there is a record of all the for and against arguements.

[pq]

Jul 14, 2008 14:24:46 GMT -5 krs1 said:

Minutes were taken at the meeting ...

When the dust has settled, will these be available to the public?

[krs1]

Jul 14, 2008 11:01:49 GMT -5 pq said:

Suggestion - if we have reasons the Eric's appeal shouldn't be supported (or arguments that weaken his case), maybe we can air them after the appeal has been heard. No need to give the committee reasons to find against him. Remember, Big Brother might be reading...

Interesting. You want to know all the committees reasons for and against, yet you (and others here) wouldn't put out your own reasons against the selection.

[krs1]

Jul 14, 2008 14:00:07 GMT -5 journeyman said:

Jul 11, 2008 22:15:38 GMT -5 krs1 said:

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.

Ok, thank you for this fair and straightforward answer to my question. Regardless of the weight of the 5000m on the final decision though, the uncertainty in what was demanded should be enough to overturn the decision on an appeal, more so than revisiting any of the other subjective criteria and revising the reasons of the first committee.

Edit: I just read PQs comparison to Brannen, and I think it is a good one. If you want a good performance, nationals is not the place, necessarily. The 1500 was WAY more competitive than the 5000, and even then, putting the guy in an international field got him about 4 secs. A solid international 5k might have netted Gillis another 15secs, conservatively, if he was gunning for it. It's clear that if you give athletes the chance to run fast they will, but as coldneck pointed out, runners are not always ready to drop a PB. 6 weeks before the biggest race of your life is not the time to run a great time at half that distance. So it just seems the idea of using the 5000m is flawed. I know I know, not the only factor...but it's the only one that we know about, so what can we do...?

Journey, you are saying there was uncertainty in what was demanded of the 5000m without actually knowing exactly what AC told them about the importance of the 5000m.

The 5000m factor is not the only factor you know about. It is pretty easy to figure out what subjective factors were discussed if you read the selection criteria, you just CHOOSE to focus only the 5k.

[krs1]

I have no idea

Jul 14, 2008 14:29:15 GMT -5 pq said:

Jul 14, 2008 14:24:46 GMT -5 krs1 said:

Minutes were taken at the meeting ...

When the dust has settled, will these be available to the public?

[pq]

Jul 14, 2008 14:29:24 GMT -5 krs1 said:

Interesting. You want to know all the committees reasons for and against, yet you Iand others here) wouldn't put out your own reasons against the selection.

Kevin, the committee has me at a bit of a disadvantage in this regard, since I'm not part of their discussions, and don't have access to all of the information they have. By contrast, this forum is open, and anybody anywhere can read what I write in real time, so my mind is an open book. I therefore need to be a little bit more careful then them in expressing my views in this debate, lest my words be used in ways I don't intend.

I can see merits in the opposing arguments, but I feel quite strongly that, based on the information available to me, Eric's appeal should be supported. If I had the opportunity to discuss this case directly with the committee, I would be happy to also discuss any aspects I don't think work in his favour, but I don't have that luxury, or the opportunity to counter any of the committee's specific arguments. So I'd rather not make their case for them, or help them rationalize it.

If someone wants to entertain a broader dissection of the case after the fact, I'd be all for it. But I don't see how we do anybody a service by arguing (even only a little) in favour of Eric's non-selection at this time. It's clear the committee already found enough technical rationale to not select him, so they don't need my/our help on that side of the discussion.

Recall - I'm not asking to know the committee's reasoning NOW. I don't think that's appropriate or fair. But I feel it's right to insist it be available after the fact, to ensure accountability, like Bomba has suggested. So really, I'm not asking anything more of the committee than what I'm prepared to give them, I don't think.

I'm not sure but you might be mixing up my comments with some of the more critical ones. In this thread (and elsewhere) I have written/spoken in support of the selection criteria and the committee approach to deciding these subjective cases. In the end, if the appeals committee agrees with the selection committee and keeps Eric at home, I will disagree but I will accept the decision.

BTW - in the event the details are never made public (which I suspect may be the case, unfortunately), does anyone know if AC is subject to Access to Information requests (I sort of doubt it, but you never know)?

[pq]

Jul 14, 2008 14:36:26 GMT -5 krs1 said:

I have no idea

Well, if not, then I will join with the rest of the critics in vocally denouncing the selection process, so I hope they are. I don't think AC wants to lose the one Canadian T&F "athlete" who actually defends their selection criteria, do you? ha

[pq]

I just finished a bit of research and I think that the answer to this one:

Jul 14, 2008 14:41:13 GMT -5 pq said:

... does anyone know if AC is subject to Access to Information requests?

is "no." AC is a private corporation, so I don't think they have any specific obligation of transparency to the public. Mind you, I assume they have an obligation of transparency to their member associations or individual members. It might be possible to simply ask for a copy of the minutes Kevin referred to. I fact I will ask, and let you know the outcome. **EDIT - I've just emailed Martin Goulet asking for a copy, so I assume I'll find out one way or another if I'll be able to get them eventually.

In the end, if people here remain unhappy with either the execution or transparency of the process, or its outcome (or both), I think the only way to get your point across will be to make your displeasure known formally through your member association (so they can represent your views at AC annual or technical meetings), or to contact the Board of Directors members personally (by letter or email) to express your opinion and ask that they consider your views for future operations.

I note that the athlete representatives (Nicole and Kevin) are non-voting members of the Board, so you can tell them your concerns in the hope they'll have a strong voice in meetings, but in the end only voting members have decision-making authority.

I couldn't find anything on-line outlining the rules or procedures for NTC or appeals committee operations, unfortunately.

[SI]

It's all in here:

tinyurl.com/5pkeuk

Specifically, with respect to the appeal:

"140.11 Appeal Decision
a. Within 14 days of concluding the appeal, the Panel will issue its written decision, with
reasons.
b. In making its decision, the Panel will have no greater authority than that of the original
decision-maker. The Panel may decide:
1. To reject the appeal and confirm the decision being appealed; or
2. To uphold the appeal and refer the matter back to the initial decision-maker for a
new decision; or
3. To uphold the appeal and vary the decision but only where it is found that an
error occurred and such an error cannot be corrected by the original decisionmaker
for reason of lack of clear procedure, lack of time, or lack of neutrality;
and
4. To determine whether costs of the appeal, excluding legal fees and legal
disbursements of any of the parties, will be assessed against any party. In
assessing costs, the Panel will take into account the outcome of the appeal, the
conduct of the parties and their respective financial resources.
c. The decision will be considered a matter of public record. A copy of the decision will be provided
to each of the parties and to the Designated Official.
d. In extraordinary circumstances, the Panel may issue a verbal decision or a summary written
decision, with reasons to follow, provided the written decision with reasons is rendered within the
timelines specified in section 11.
e. The Appeal Process is confidential involving only the parties, the Designated Official and the
Panel. Once initiated and until a written decision is released, none of the parties or the Panel will
disclose confidential information relating to the appeal to any person not involved in the
proceedings."

The above should be read VERY CAREFULLY.


I don't know where you are getting that the Athlete reps can't vote:

tinyurl.com/6px3d3

They are Directors is my read and they can all vote.

[pq]

Jul 14, 2008 16:27:50 GMT -5 SI said:

I don't know where you are getting that the Athlete reps can't vote

I thought for sure I read in the by-laws that the athlete reps are non-voting board members. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll check again.

[SI]

None of the directors can vote at a Members meeting.

[pq]

I was talking about voting at Board meetings.

[SI]

I understand that. I just thought you read that and thought they were talking about Board meetings.

[Bomba]

This is an intriguing concept of AC being a private corporation. It seems as though it would allow the best of both worlds as a siginificant portion of its funding is from the public/gov't funding, while at the same time it can act independently from any gov't criteria.

In reality the gov't has quite a bit of power over it, so it can choose to leave AC 'drifting in the wind' or assert significant power. It's quite easy to see how the political/bureaucratic process can impact AC. IMHO the most relevant aspect would of course be funding, but i's interesting to note how AC has to compete against those sports that really have very little in common with athletics. How can one compare the depth of say synchronized swimming, BMX racing or even some AC events that lack depth to say sprinters where it's so competitive. In some respects i ahev argued that some modern problems of duning/teams, etc.... with AC has a correlation with the increased implemetation of more X Game style sports or sports that have and still lack a high level of both quality and quantity in competition. This doesn't alter my perception of 'transparency' but I also feel it's a relevant discussion point when analyzing AC, team selection and gov't funding. Kevin you may know this (or someoene else), but how much funding does AC (% of budget) get from private corporations for their operating budget.

Having said all fo that I would still go back to a 'perception' discussion being as relevant as reality. For egs here in BC Brian McCalder is in charge of BCA and not only do we see him at tons of events we also see him actively involved in the 'trenches'. The same can be said of Peter Ogilivie in Alberta.

[bthomson]

www.cbc.ca/olympics/athletics/story/2008/07/14/perdita-beijing.html

[journeyman]

Jul 14, 2008 14:35:18 GMT -5 krs1 said:

Journey, you are saying there was uncertainty in what was demanded of the 5000m without actually knowing exactly what AC told them about the importance of the 5000m.

The 5000m factor is not the only factor you know about. It is pretty easy to figure out what subjective factors were discussed if you read the selection criteria, you just CHOOSE to focus only the 5k.

Ok, I know I am getting on your case, but you're misunderstanding me. I AM choosing to focus on the 5k because from what I can tell, it's the only factor that is really debateable. The other factors that I know about (age, potential at this Olympics and the next) are so subjective that it doesn't really make sense to allow an appeals committee to turn them over. We also don't know the reasons the committee might have decided on one or more of these factors (maybe they don't think he's too old, maybe they don't think he'll get smoked in Bejing, maybe they don't think he'll make it in 2012--or some combination thereof).

What I am saying is that it seems to me that Eric Gillis' best case is to get it turned over on process, not on disagreeing with subjective decisions already made. That second option would undermine the whole process, even more than not being clear about what is asked of athletes who are trying to make the team.

EDIT:
Also, what I know about what was demanded was that Gillis didn't know what he was supposed to do. I only know that from what I've read in the papers (see quote above from Gillis' coach in the CBC story), so it may be the CBC and I have got it wrong...