FISU XC at Kingston

[Gunner]

Anyone know who is running for Canada in the FISU XC ? Any big names from the US or overseas ?

[101010]

M. Brunsting - Guelph
K. Boorsma - Guelph
K. Wiebe - Regina
D. Weston - Windsor
A. Brett - Guelph
M. Pierterson - Victoria

im not sure about this year but the US has not sent teams in the past.

[heintz]

G-d bless america NO usa team

[ronb]

Apparently, Ronald McDonald will be representing Team USA, and Mr. Oldster will be drivng a bulldozer around the finish line, in a vain attempt to keep those who have ever dared to consume a Big Mac or a Double Cheeseburger, from crossing the finish line, because what do they know, eh ?

[limestonemiler]

Gosh. There's so much hate on that thread it seems to have spilled over here.

Back to business. O'Neill's in for the injured Pieterson.

Remarks?

[oldbones]

ronb should get a life and get over it ...

[oldster]

Mar 25, 2010 7:08:57 GMT -5 oldbones said:

ronb should get a life and get over it ...

That, or at least sharpen up his humour. A banana has more edge.

Pieterson is definitely out (recovering from a sacral fracture).

[ronb]

Mar 25, 2010 7:08:57 GMT -5 oldbones said:

ronb should get a life and get over it ...

I am trying to get a life, oldbones --- thanks for your encouragement.

[rl]

Mar 25, 2010 10:26:40 GMT -5 oldster said:

Mar 25, 2010 7:08:57 GMT -5 oldbones said:

ronb should get a life and get over it ...

That, or at least sharpen up his humour. A banana has more edge.

Pieterson is definitely out (recovering from a sacral fracture).

So that means Russel Christie is in?

[eagle1]

No actually. From 5 posts above, you will see that Kyle O'Neill was selected as the replacement. Russel did get 7th at CIS cross, but it would seem that current fitness and the most recent performances were taken into account.

[kid]

Obviously biased here, but I think subbing in O'Neill is a great choice - he's been running his best this year, and unfortunately fell at CIS cross, hindering his performance. I'm not saying he would've beat Christie, as who knows how it would've played out, but Kyle's performance indoors this year show he's fit and ready to go.

[rl]

Mar 25, 2010 14:53:48 GMT -5 kid said:

Obviously biased here, but I think subbing in O'Neill is a great choice - he's been running his best this year, and unfortunately fell at CIS cross, hindering his performance. I'm not saying he would've beat Christie, as who knows how it would've played out, but Kyle's performance indoors this year show he's fit and ready to go.

Not trying to take anything away from Kyle, I've never met him but I'm sure he's a great guy and he's been running really well. But why would they bother calling CI's the "trials for FISU" if they can just turn around and hand a spot to the guy who was 10th over the guy who was 7th? I'd also like to see the selection process in writing. If one of the top 6 decides not to go, how is it that Christie is A) not going, and B) not able to appeal? Or, am I off and he can appeal?

[mpd]

This seems a little too suspicious...

[MattMc]

As an impartial observer I would say that the selection should have gone to the next place at the trials. It is the most transparent and least controversial method. Anything else opens things up to accusations of corruption and favoritism. If you are going to deviate from simple rank there needs to be a devastating AC-style selection document.

Good luck the the team-- looks like a very strong one.

MM

[pmac]

Timeout. Has anyone confirmed that Russell Christie and the other men who finished ahead of O'Neill weren't asked and simply declined?

[Steve Weiler]

Just asked Kyle and this is his understanding. The team was selected as they crossed the line at CIS. Remaining All-Canadians were considered in the selection pool as possible replacements. Pieterson got injured. Late in the CIS indoor season the 3 coaches (Bob, DST, Rory) finalized the team using current fitness, selecting Kyle to race and Nigel Wray as an alternate. I know nothing about the Womens selection, so won't comment.
When I was originally told he made the team I asked 'how' and subsequently looked for selection criteria online - couldn't find any. I agree with Matt and hope that the above (can use remaining all-canadians as a selection pool then decide based on current fitness coupled with XC experience) is outlined somewhere official. If that's the case, then the selection of Kyle - who not only fell but was then shortly after tripped (by his own freaking teammate!) at CIS, but then showed fitness by running 8:13 - is pretty damn easy. If that's not the case, then anyone who was 7-9 at CIS XC and feels they deserve to be on this squad should have their coaches appeal the selection of Kyle and Nigel over themselves.

[andrin]

Steve has captured it in a nutshell. Kyle has proven not only that he can produce time and time again, but that he is improving as the season goes along.

What matters most in determining any runner's ability is most recent and most consistent results. Just as anyone can have a bad race, anyone can go out, have a good race, and drop a big PB. But it is only the well-trained athletes who can come back and do it again next week.

[lambert]

I think it goes without saying that you want to have the fastest and fittest guys run the race. However, I think it's somewhat problematic to have a somewhat arbitrary selection criteria based on some conception of 'current fitness'. There are a few potential problems:

1) For one thing, 10k XC fitness and 'current' 3000m fitness are not the same thing. Even if XC and track times are given equal weight, you need to keep in mind that an 7th place finisher at XC with a 8:50 PB has proven himself to be FASTER than an 8th place finisher at CIS with a 8:20 PB although you might think "current fitness" would favour the second.

2) Whenever there's discretion involved, there's always the potential for coaches to be biased one way or another. It is human nature for a coach to unconsciously favour athletes he or she knows better, especially those he or she coaches.

3) You need to take into account that everyone should have been peaked and ready to go at CIS, whereas some athletes may not focus on indoors to the same extent. For example, Kristjan Hunter didn't do FISU in 2006 because he wanted to focus on the 3000m and he didn't think he would be able to train adequately for both.

That said, I want to be very clear that I'm not saying that O'Niell is the wrong choice or that any of these factors are relevant to his selection. He's definitely sounds fit and ready to go, and certainly he's been running well. It just seems to me a worrisome change in policy that could be problematic in the future.

Also, a disclaimer: I may be biased because because I was once a 7th man who was selected for FISU based on the old (unwritten) criteria and I was someone who never performed well on the track.

[journeyman]

Mar 25, 2010 21:30:27 GMT -5 MattMc said:

As an impartial observer I would say that the selection should have gone to the next place at the trials. It is the most transparent and least controversial method. Anything else opens things up to accusations of corruption and favoritism. If you are going to deviate from simple rank there needs to be a devastating AC-style selection document.

I disagree with this. The trials race was in November. We are in March. A whole lot can happen over the winter, and if the goal is to have the best time toe the line, then you have to take current fitness into account. However limited an indicator indoor 3k might be, you still have to use something. The Hunter example is a good one. If the 7th runner doesn't make the team, and has not been working towards it, their 7th place finish distinguishes them less and less from the 8th runner, even if that person has also not necessarily been training for FISU.

With respect to charges of bias (I assume the idea being that Bob is from Western and Kyle is from Western), keep in mind there were two other coaches involved in the choice. Also, it makes sense for a coach who may see an athlete on a regular basis to rank him or her higher than someone with similar times, but who they only see "on the scoresheet" so to speak.

I have no doubt this was a fair process. There were probably a couple guys who could have done the job. I think the presumption needs to be that it was done fairly and if anyone is going to say otherwise, they should have a definitive reason for saying so.

Who are the members of the women's team?

[MattMc]

Let me clarify something; I am not accusing anyone of bias. What I am stating is that anything but a 'next in line' method of selection requires a clearly stated methodology prior to the selection race. If such a methodology was in place-- fine. If not-- I think the wrong decision was made and Christie should have gone.

I know that in '00 I sacrificed my indoor season (not that I was a good indoor runner) to be in shape for 12k XC. I was in pretty bad 3k shape (ran only 8:36 indoors) but I was in great XC shape. Unfortunately I got injured on the way over to the race and never got to show it....

[journeyman]

Mar 26, 2010 10:11:49 GMT -5 MattMc said:

Let me clarify something; I am not accusing anyone of bias.

No, that wasn't directed at you. There was another post that said something about how it seemed suspicious. I was only taking issue with your point that the trials should be the only deciding factor. Even if there isn't a clearly set out selection process outside of that, I don't think it makes sense to ignore current fitness completely.

[limestonemiler]

www.xc2010.ca/wp-content/uploads/Team-Canada-Profiles.pdf

[trackster101]

That picture of Moults is not very flattering...

[oldlegs]

Rachel Cliff was also named to the team ahead of other girls who beat her at CIS XC champs . Again, clearly the right choice, but obviously this leads to questions. I know several coaches were upset with the process, and brought it up with the team coaches. Not a clear definition it seems.

How did the teams do? Or is it tomorrow?

[heintz]

you are DAMN right as to rachel cliff being chosen w/out ANY courtesy to one who was a spot ahead.an e-mail was received and was windy and long but did not emit anything but arrogance;yes

[journeyman]

The girl ahead of Cliff was Jodi Souter. Cliff 9:20s consistently indoors, Souter 9:42 at CIS.

Christie was 8:28 this year. O'Neill 8:13.

So if anything, the women's choice was easier, if you are looking at most recent fitness.

[MattMc]

10k XC is very different from 3k on the track. Matt Bruntsing is getting worked over on the track by guys he tooled at Fort Henry.

Keep the selection to the trials race and leave backroom dealing out of it. It is against the essence of sport to have people over-ride race results. It is not like this is a hugely meaningful team race. It is a huge carrot for the CIS guys to go after that team and I can't imagine the crushing blow it would be to get selected off the team.

I am not saying those involved with the process are biased-- just that the process is the wrong one.

[ahutch]

Mar 27, 2010 21:26:45 GMT -5 journeyman said:

Christie was 8:28 this year. O'Neill 8:13.

Of course, Brunsting and Wiebe both had seasonal bests of 8:26, so presumably they should be bumped off the team by Boorsma (8:15 at CIS), Wray (8:19) and Aguanno (8:19). Unless the team was selected on the basis XC performance -- in which case it's pretty hard to justify excluding Christie, who got it done at the Trials (CIS XC) and whose track performance was only two seconds behind two of the other guys on the team.

To be clear, I have no personal stake in this. I'd never even heard of Christie until I read this thread. But I agree with McInnes that the selection criteria should either be clear and explicit, or should follow a simple descending order.

[ronb]

Just another consequence of not having a National X-C Trials/Championships in early February. Of course, with the World X-C appearing to be on the last legs of a great run, that won't be happening again...

[journeyman]

Mar 27, 2010 21:56:14 GMT -5 ahutch said:

Mar 27, 2010 21:26:45 GMT -5 journeyman said:

Christie was 8:28 this year. O'Neill 8:13.

Of course, Brunsting and Wiebe both had seasonal bests of 8:26, so presumably they should be bumped off the team by Boorsma (8:15 at CIS), Wray (8:19) and Aguanno (8:19). Unless the team was selected on the basis XC performance -- in which case it's pretty hard to justify excluding Christie, who got it done at the Trials (CIS XC) and whose track performance was only two seconds behind two of the other guys on the team.

To be clear, I have no personal stake in this. I'd never even heard of Christie until I read this thread. But I agree with McInnes that the selection criteria should either be clear and explicit, or should follow a simple descending order.

I have no personal stake either. But I'm talking about decisions that are made after the team has been selected at the trials, and then people dropped out later,. not selecting the entire team based on 3k times. So assuming none of the "alternates" have been preparing specifically for 10k cross, might as well use their most recent race time.

The difference for the women was 2sec over 5k, and 20sec over 3k. That seems significant enough to me.