|
|
Post by pq on Jul 15, 2008 16:48:43 GMT -5
Moving this from the other thread to keep that one positive. I think the reasons given against Eric's selection would likely be laid out nicely in the Respondent's submission, and it seems like that is available, so you could get what you are looking for that way. John, I'm not so much interested in knowing the details of the NTC's submission as I am knowing whether the whole process is open and transparent, which some people on here suggested wasn't the case. We know the NTC's decision obviously, and we know what was recommended to them by the appeals committee, but we don't know why, specifically, the NTC chose to reverse the decision. Since the answer was favourable to everyone on here, maybe nobody is interested in knowing that the details are accessible, but had the decision remained unchanged, I'm certain people would want to know why. My only possible criticism of how this whole thing was handled would only have been that the process might not be completely open and transparent. I I'd still like to know if it truly is. That's the only lingering question in my mind. A lot of people were pretty upset with the process, and talked about having it changed, and criticized the NTC members (quite rudely, I think). I think it's fair now to explore whether any of that criticism was in fact justified, and if not, I would expect a few people to make some apologies. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Jul 18, 2008 13:47:32 GMT -5
OK, I've just received a reply from Martin Goulet, in response to my request for a copy of the NTC minutes:
"We will forward to you these minutes as this is consistent with the Association approach of being transparent and confident in our operations; all Board of Directors minutes are also public (on our website under “Governance”) including all motions. However since there are still four (4) appeals that have not been completed I will not be able to send these minutes until this whole process is completed.
Send me a reminder on July 23rd, by then it should be alright."
So, it seems quite clear that the process is entirely transparent, so far as I can tell. This is consistent with what we heard from Kevin, Eric and DST during this discussion, as they all made it quite clear that, in their eyes (whether or not they agreed with a decision), the process itself was all very fair and balanced.
If you were overly critical of the process during this discussion, or if you criticized specific individuals on the NTC for their role in the initial decision, either on here or LetsRun, now's the time to "man up" and make an apology.
|
|
oasis
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by oasis on Jul 18, 2008 13:59:10 GMT -5
don't know if this was ever discussed but if the 10000m champs were run at the trials instead of earlier and the results were the same (Eric G wins) then all this controversy over selection might have been avoided
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Jul 18, 2008 14:02:49 GMT -5
The converse was discussed, namely that the 10000 metre selection could have been made after the Trial for that event (June 4th).
|
|
|
|
Post by Mullet B. Miler on Jul 18, 2008 14:04:05 GMT -5
Awesome! Obviously very happy to hear Gillis is going. Hate to revive this topic only to beat my own point to death, but I agree with others that we should use this opportunity to continue the discussion (as AC supposedly will be looking into the ‘grey areas’ of their selection critera – the SUBJECTIVE areas??) After reading the Gillis article on CBC.ca, the first user post there really hit home to me – it seems like the committee originally were really looking for reasons NOT to send him. I tend to agree, especially with the (partial) job description Sully provided for the AC bureaucrats. 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. Even if you can justify bringing each potential rising star individually, in hopes of future success - the higher the # of rising stars AC takes, the greater the risk AC takes funding-wise, since they are rewarded based on squeezing better and better performances out of a smaller and smaller group. With a record # rising stars, in this an Olympic year, it must be that much harder “to justify the large team” to funding partners when the overall team goal is still “In line with the Strategic Plan, 40% of the team achieving top 12, and 65% of the team to finish Top 16 or achieve a seasonal best.” So it makes sense to me they picked what they thought was the easiest target to keep home to help minimize some of that risk (or at least show they tried). Interesting to hear from Bruce Deacon that it is not the COC that insists on these tough standards (and he should know). I apologize for pulling dribs and drabs from various places into this post but with the recent discussion of the Olympic athlete 'tourist' label on track-canada (and people trying to stick it to Eric), that reminded me of something else Sully posted here: But I don't ever see AC going back taking single B standard athletes...I have been on those teams and it becomes less performance oriented and more "experience" oreinted for lack of a better explanation. Was there a perception that if Gillis went he would tip the scales and change the whole complexion of the Olympic team to “experience”(tourist)-oriented? AC should not be worried about any type of slippery slope resulting from this... It’s not like with Gillis going AC is reverting to allowing all IOC-permissible B’s… you can still only qualify once under rising star and still only in events where no-one else has an A. But I'm still a little confused by the exchange between SI & pq – do we know whether the athlete reps (Sully & Forrester) had equal votes in the NTC meetings or not? |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Jul 18, 2008 14:14:28 GMT -5
I'm still a little confused by the exchange between SI & pq – do we know whether the athlete reps (Sully & Forrester) had equal votes in the NTC meetings or not? I think SI and I were talking (writing) in two completely different directions, hence the confusion. I mentioned that Kevin and Nicole are non-voting Board members because if anyone wants to lobby to change the process, the Board of Directors might be one place to start. But the athlete reps don't vote in Board meetings, so one might choose to contact Board members with more pull. I think it's quite clear that Kevin and Nicole were equal members of the NTC and would have the same voice/influence as the other MTC members. We don't know how the decisions were made (e.g. formal vote versus reaching consensus, etc), or if maybe the committee chair had a stronger voice than other committee members, but I would assume in all probability each member had the same voice (including Kevin and Nicole). If someone wants to see the NTC minutes (eventually), I can share them. I've told Martin I don't actually want them (I just wanted to know if I COULD have them), but it's easy to change my mind. Or you could contact him directly. His email address is on AC's website. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 18, 2008 16:12:40 GMT -5
But the athlete reps don't vote in Board meetings Has that been confirmed? |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Jul 18, 2008 19:15:30 GMT -5
If you were overly critical of the process during this discussion, or if you criticized specific individuals on the NTC for their role in the initial decision, either on here or LetsRun, now's the time to "man up" and make an apology. I think a lot of the appeals findings more than justify a lot of the criticisms of the initial decision to leave Eric off the team. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 20, 2008 6:26:32 GMT -5
You can't see how this could have gone either way?
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Jul 22, 2008 17:19:18 GMT -5
I believe today is the dreaded date of final inclusion or not for Olympic team entries. And I assume that those not on as of today, are off. I'm sure I post for many, wishing those who "just missed", our support and our "luv", and best wishes for the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by notcanadian on Jul 22, 2008 19:10:54 GMT -5
Haha... you'd think that because the team is announced by COC tomorrow that today would be the last day. However, Kunkel has petitioned for a one day extension to his injury extension. I don't know if it's granted, but if it is, he's still alive for his race tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Jul 22, 2008 20:46:43 GMT -5
If you were overly critical of the process during this discussion, or if you criticized specific individuals on the NTC for their role in the initial decision, either on here or LetsRun, now's the time to "man up" and make an apology. I think a lot of the appeals findings more than justify a lot of the criticisms of the initial decision to leave Eric off the team. I think that the press release quote from Martin acknowleding the need to re-think the process for Rising Stars justifies our criticism in that we were correct in finding the process flawed. Good for him (and the committee) for owning up to the fact that a mistake was made. SI: it's true it could have gone either way, but the process, if fair, maybe should not have let that happen. Certainly those making direct personal attacks (I looked briefly at the LetsRun thread, which only justified my infrequent reading of that board...but anyway) should apologize regardless, but I certainly don't feel the need to apologise for questioning what has been shown to be an incorrect decision. |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Jul 22, 2008 22:23:03 GMT -5
Certainly those making direct personal attacks (I looked briefly at the LetsRun thread, which only justified my infrequent reading of that board...but anyway) should apologize regardless, but I certainly don't feel the need to apologise for questioning what has been shown to be an incorrect decision. Totally 100% agree with you Journeyman. But I don't think anyone should take anything said on Letsrun too personally! |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jul 23, 2008 19:54:54 GMT -5
When I was looking up some stuff on McCloy, I came across his story from 1984 from his coach:
"In 1984 I got embroiled in a very public battle over the COA Standards.
Paul McCloy (only 20 years old at the time) had made the IOC standard
in the 10000. I believe the standard was 28:15 - Paul had run 28:12. I
think COA was 28:08 or some such number. The publicity did nothing.
The thing that really rankled was that Nick Rose (GB) had just squeaked
the IOC standard that year - I believe he was actually slower than Paul
on paper. Rose went on to finish third in the final in LA (later
upgraded to second).
I'm not suggesting that a 20 year-old would necessarily even had made
the final - but Paul was not barred because of age or inexperience -
just on time. A very bitter experience all round.
They were also trying to send developing athletes. Not sure why McCloy wouldn't have qualified given his x-c successes.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jan 21, 2010 8:10:46 GMT -5
Bump.
|
|
I think the reasons given against Eric's selection would likely be laid out nicely in the Respondent's submission, and it seems like that is available, so you could get what you are looking for that way. 
