Bourgeois

[Shaker]

I don't why it happens every time and AC can get away with doing it, but why on earth is Bourgeois get special treatment and doesn't have to do what everyone else has to do?
Is there any chance of him being able to run 8:57? NO way in hell and 8:33 doesn't convert to a superstar that should get this amazing treatment. Why does no one say anything when this happens every year? I'd be pissed if I was pushed off the team for him. I'd be pissed if I had to run a 3km indoors for this opportunity and someone else didn't. How does this happen and why are the athletes not saying anything?? It's like it has become a common practice.

[Chris Moulton]

I think Joel made the team based on his accomplishments in Europe this winter on the cross country circuit over there, in addition to the fact that he was 4th at national cross 5 days after having run the 12k leg on the ekiden.

[Bomba]

..ok I'll jump in..(yeah I know you're really surprised). Let me preface this by saying that what i am about to say has nothing to do with Joel, as i have the utmost respect for him. I have every reason to complain or have an axe to grind as more than likely, a training partner of mine didn't make the team because of AC's selection process so.....

You want a reason ..ok here it is...don't blame Joel for any of this...it's not his fault! Every year that their may have been questions about his XC team selection he has performed well. IMHO that is one of the reasons the guy gets picked....his reputation and ability to deliver upon that reputation as a 'big game' performer are probably what get him picked year after year. Now if he has a poor perfomance then AC would probably facing a lot more heat for their choices, but he hasn't (and i doubt he ever will).

For various reasons AC has made a selection process that leaves them the flexibility to choose who they want for the team. Take a look at it. They have a lot of different ways to make their selections. Therefore, the selection process can be subjective. Until they make a 4km trials race (By the time they even decide to make a 4km race the 4km may no longer exist based upon some recent media reports), or AC no longer has an open ended and subjective selection process (ie a standard track indoor time or race) then these things will continue.

I know that Joel has made the team not based upon an indoor time before, but every time the guy has performed, so you can't blame him for his selection year after year. IMHO he deserves the benefit of the doubt. On the other side i see the argument for a more objective set of criteria for future teams. Whether AC wants to give up that sort of flexibility or decision making (see power to make their own choices) is what i think one should be debating.....not whether Joel deserves his selection ( I think he does based upon the AC criteria)

[ireid]

Bomba's made some good points about the subjectivity of the selection criteria. While possibly giving some flexibility, such ambiguousness leaves the process open to criticism, as evidenced here.

I don't think a seperate 4km Trials race is practical right now (either in conjunction with long course champs or in February) as we just don't have the critical mass of participation yet.

When I asked why the nationals distance was shortened from 12 to 10km last year, I was told one of the main reasons was to increase the top end depth of competition. While this past year was pretty strong up front, I don't know how much of that was due to them being held in Toronto versus Moncton as opposed to making it 2km shorter. Even then, we still had several top athletes not participate (eg Sullivan) who still sign up for World Cross.

My idea would be to have a two part qualification process for the short course (fully funded team). Since one of the goals is to encourage top guys to run fall nationals, make that mandatory.

First, create a pool of eligible athletes based on an indoor 3000 time standard (they do this already). Don't make rankings within the pool, just an all or nothing. Say the standard is 8:10 (so a 7:55 is just as much in the pool as an 8:08).

From this pool, pick the short course team based on order of finish at fall nationals. Not only does this help get the big guns to run cross in the fall, but it is also rather appropriate that those running cross-country for Canada actually race some cross-country in order to get there.

I guess there is some potential tweaking with respect to the track standard or even distance (maybe make it applicable from last year as well), but I really think they need to make the deciding factor purely the objective finishing place at fall nationals, which would eliminate the vaguaries in existence now (and why the selection criteria at www.athletics.ca/cmslib/general/2004%20World%20Cross%20Country%20Championships%20-%20Selection%20Criteria%20-EN.pdf are so confusing).

[coldneck]

speaking of critical mass, the recent english cross-country champs had 1500 finishers. And they complain that the numbers have gone down from 2 grand...

www.race-results.co.uk/results/2004/natsm04.pdf

By the way, Normington was 79th

[SI]

Actually Norminton was 79th. They get the spelling right over there about half the time. This time they did.

[ahutch]

I guess you have to decide whether AC should pick the best team possible, or whether it should try to serve some abstract goal of fairness and transparency. Currently, they're trying to get the best team at Worlds. So when Jeff Schiebler expresses interest in running the 4k at Worlds (eg. 99, 01), they put him on the team. No need to run a 3000m indoors, no need to race Nats XC -- and nobody bitching about it! Why? Because he's repeatedly shown an ability to perform at a level far above an 8min 3k.

So what about Bourgeois? Does he deserve similar respect? Well, let's start with some Mercier equivalents: his pb of 8:20 equates to a 7:38 3000m. Last season, despite being injured all spring, he managed a late season 8:33, which equates to a 7:49.

But Mercier equivalents are crap -- how has he actually performed? Well, he's medalled at Pan-Ams (2x) and FISU (2x), top 5 or 6 at Commonwealth (2x), finallist at WC, first one out of the finals at the Olympics (2x). More importantly, he's run every 4k XC race ever held at Worlds, and has been either 1st or 2nd Canadian EVERY time except once. That once was Vilamoura 2000, which was an atypical course (very flat and fast -- Sully's best finish): he was only 3rd Canadian at Vilamoura. He's beaten Sully, Schiebler, Kaley, and any number of other 7:50 3000m guys at Worlds.

So you can bitch about the selection criteria if you want, but if you think Joel hasn't earned a spot on the team, find me someone else with his record at championships. Oh wait, there is one guy: Sully, and he was pre-selected to the team too.

[Bubba]

Great points Alex. You're right, Bourgeois has proven himself and as long as he demonstrates current fitness at recent cross races he should be considered for the team. Not to mention his two performances in November at Nats and Ekiden. By the way does anyone have the results to his latest race which was; Sun 15 Feb Eurocross Diekirch (LUX)?

Bringing in steeple mercier scores to rank different events always poses discussion. Quadzilla, how do you feel about comparing steeple scores to other event scores? Bourgeois did hit the summer steeple standard to be eligible for consideration to the team.

[Chris Moulton]

10.2 k

1 0:30:34 CHEMWENO Wilson Kipkosgei KEN
2 0:30:41 MOHAMED Mustapha SWE
3 0:30:52 SAWE-KIPROTICH Elisha 1982 KEN
4 0:31:02 KALLABIS Damian GER
5 0:31:04 ERRAHMOUNI Tijan F
6 0:31:06 GUERMODI Icham MAR
7 0:31:09 BOURGEOIS Joël CAN
8 0:31:13 GUELIL Nuredine ALG
9 0:31:17 KRUCZOWSKI Dariusz POL
10 0:31:25 KRAUSPE Jan D
11 0:31:27 Schutgens Sander NL
12 0:31:29 STEEN Walter DAN
13 0:31:38 WANNAS Simo FIN
14 0:31:39 Hohl Stephan 1980 TV Huchenfeld D
15 0:31:44 BIEGALA Leszek POL
16 0:31:46 GERYCH David TZ
17 0:31:50 SANDSTAD Henrik NOR
18 0:32:16 SCHÜTZ Carsten D
19 0:32:29 HELLSTEIN Juha FIN
20 0:32:39 GREEN André D
21 0:32:47 BUHAUG Svein Inge NOR
22 0:32:55 Doroszynsky Grezqotz 1982 POL
23 0:32:56 KÖNIGS Roger 1975 Celtic Diekirch B
24 0:32:57 WOJTAS Marek POL
25 0:32:58 HÜBSCH Thierry 1975 Celtic Diekirch L
26 0:33:24 NOTHUM Vincent CA Belvaux L
27 0:34:28 MALEK Michael 1984 CZ
28 0:35:26 Georges Manuel 1975 P
29 0:35:28 Pagaimo Carlos 1973 Fola P
30 0:35:40 TRAMPERT Uwe D
31 0:45:14 Majerus Alain 1976 Celtic Diekirch

Just a little background on some of the guys Chemweno has run 28:46 this year all ready, Mohammed went 8:23 last summer, Kallabis was 4th at the World Champs in 99 pb of 8:09, 8;21 last summer, ERRAHMOUNI has run 13:37, Krauspe has run 8:04 indoors this year.

[ireid]

ahutch said:

So you can bitch about the selection criteria if you want, but if you think Joel hasn't earned a spot on the team, find me someone else with his record at championships. Oh wait, there is one guy: Sully, and he was pre-selected to the team too.

By no means am I suggesting that Bourgeois or Sullivan are not deserving of being our top guys on the short course team, but rather making the point - where do you draw the line? What current and past performance is worthy of being pre-selected?

If there were to be a thread here to pick the team, while the top 2 - 4 would be common to all teams, there would be a wide variety in names to fill out the team. How does whoever make the decision reach their conclusions? Athletics Canada must still be accountable to their membership and if top representatives of that membership are asking "why did so-and-so get picked?" then things aren't as clear as they could or should be.

I also support my suggestion of making running well at fall nationals mandatory because it was specifically explained to me by Athletics Canada that one of the main reasons for shortening the distance was to increase top end depth of competiton. It seems rather half-hearted to lop off some race distance in order to entice more middle distance studs, but then not provide them with any real incentive to race. How has adding the short course race at Worlds been towards getting the best 1500/steeple guys to show up?

[ahutch]

Ian said:

I also support my suggestion of blah blah blah...

Ian, that's great that you support your own suggestion. Would have been more funny if you'd been violently opposed.

Bubba, I agree that Mercier comparisons of steeple are pretty bogus -- I only cited them because they support my argument! Usually I'm arguing the opposite side, saying "No damn way Milne is that fast."

Quadzilla's orginal post complained that Bourgeois was receiving "superstar" treatment that he didn't deserve. What several people have pointed out is that he was selected exactly in accordance with the selection criteria, which have been posted on the AC website for months. No special exceptions were made for Bourgeois.

Ian said "If there were to be a thread here to pick the team, while the top 2 - 4 would be common to all teams, there would be a wide variety in names to fill out the team." I agree. And I think that if you look back over the last 5+ years, almost all the "automatic" and "subjective" selections would be in those top 2-4 people who everyone agrees on. The last couple of spots are almost always objectively selected by fastest indoor 3000m time. This year is no exception: Coolsaet and Cantin grab the last two spots based on 3k times.

[ireid]

ahutch said:

Ian, that's great that you support your own suggestion. Would have been more funny if you'd been violently opposed.

Ok, it actually is a rather stupid idea. How does picking a team based on their performance over 10km reflect on their capabilities over 4km? Why don't we pick our 5000m guys based on their performances over 800 while flushing out the 800 team by those running the 110H? If anything, a 3000m steeple is the closest approximation one can get to 4km cross-country if you aren't going to actually have a 4km Trials race. The flat 3000 time standard is just a weaker attempt at the same approximation.

Furthermore, why should we be making the best of our best get peaked for a long race at the end of November? Often these are the guys representing us (and representing us quite well, as evidenced by Sullivan's performances) at World and Olympic championships, often held in August or even September. How can we expect them to come back from that long season to get ready for the end of November, only to have them peak again in March at World Cross, then expect a repeat performance at the following summer's big championships? It's even more heavy handed than the three peaks we complain about kids being subjected to at the NCAA level.

Whoever thought of that idea to MAKE our best race well at fall nationals if they want to go to Worlds, obviously has no concept of what it takes to make it on the international stage. He probably couldn't make the national team for the International Backwards Running Uphill championships.

Ian said "If there were to be a thread here to pick the team, while the top 2 - 4 would be common to all teams, there would be a wide variety in names to fill out the team." I agree. And I think that if you look back over the last 5+ years, almost all the "automatic" and "subjective" selections would be in those top 2-4 people who everyone agrees on. The last couple of spots are almost always objectively selected by fastest indoor 3000m time. This year is no exception: Coolsaet and Cantin grab the last two spots based on 3k times.

Wasn't there a bit of a hullabaloo a few years ago about picking the women's team? Weren't there several who had made the requisite time standard and other specifications, yet were overlooked in favour of someone else? Or am I just getting too schizophrenic?

[davidson]

Ian said:

Ok, it actually is a rather stupid idea. How does picking a team based on their performance over 10km reflect on their capabilities over 4km? Why don't we pick our 5000m guys based on their performances over 800 while flushing out the 800 team by those running the 110H? If anything, a 3000m steeple is the closest approximation one can get to 4km cross-country if you aren't going to actually have a 4km Trials race. The flat 3000 time standard is just a weaker attempt at the same approximation.

Furthermore, why should we be making the best of our best get peaked for a long race at the end of November? Often these are the guys representing us (and representing us quite well, as evidenced by Sullivan's performances) at World and Olympic championships, often held in August or even September. How can we expect them to come back from that long season to get ready for the end of November, only to have them peak again in March at World Cross, then expect a repeat performance at the following summer's big championships? It's even more heavy handed than the three peaks we complain about kids being subjected to at the NCAA level.

Whoever thought of that idea to MAKE our best race well at fall nationals if they want to go to Worlds, obviously has no concept of what it takes to make it on the international stage. He probably couldn't make the national team for the International Backwards Running Uphill championships.

Ok, you said a lot.

1) 3k Steeple should not be compared to 4k... but that doesn't mean Joel should not go. Some people lose less time with the barriers than others would (from a straight 3k). The same argument goes for Mercier tables. Mercier tables don't show what you should run if you run something else, it shows what equivalent performances are.

2) You're right about Nationals being in the fall. But unfortunately, you cannot move nationals to February. The only place that could really accomodate (I mean climate wise) that would be Victoria. That would likely cause a lot of participants to not go to Nationals, and while it might for a few years work out, in the long run, having the national championship as far West as the country goes right in the middle of most people's indoor track seasons would cause a huge drop in participation. A possible better solution is to divide the trials. Keep the November championships and it's movement around the country, and let that be the team selection for the long course races. Then, have a race in Victoria (or somewhere else that has better weather) in January or February to select the 4k team. Make this race mandatory for those who want to make the team. Make it a second National Championship (short course Cross Country). That to me is the best solution....

as for the original topic. I think he should go

[EL Presidente]

I think Bourgeois should be considered a superstar. He is a brigth spot in track and field and will bring the bright lights back to our sport.