Who names there team in early June?!!! Let her run!!!
Who names there team in early June?!!! Let her run!!!
Ath Australia names their team in June. The athletes knew the cut-off, and sadly she qualified after the date. If Ath Aus bend the rules for one athlete, then any athlete who qualifies now is going to expect to be taken to. As hard as it may seem, the deadline is the deadline. She competed in the trials and failed to get the time then, so being in Florida did not prevent her qualifying in the time frame.
It's sad and unfortunate, but a deadline and cut-off is there for a reason. She and her coaches knew the standard she had to hit and when she had to have hit it by. You had an entire NCAA outdoor track season of competing and failed to do so by the established deadline. Oh well, she's young, 4 years isn't too long off...
teamaus wrote:
Ath Australia names their team in June. The athletes knew the cut-off, and sadly she qualified after the date. If Ath Aus bend the rules for one athlete, then any athlete who qualifies now is going to expect to be taken to. As hard as it may seem, the deadline is the deadline. She competed in the trials and failed to get the time then, so being in Florida did not prevent her qualifying in the time frame.
Then they should bend the freaking rules. No one will remember the rules 20 years from now, they'll remember that Oz sent everyone who was qualified for competition, not organizing committees red tape.
The rules never apply to hot women, so they shouldn't apply here. The rest of the delegation probably look like scones, so this is a great way to improve the appearance of the average Australian woman who's competing in the Olympics.
Athletics Australia bent their own twisted interpretation of the IAAF rules for Melissa Breen (21 year old) who only had a B qualifier (abeit only off the A by 0.002) and was the 2nd ranked athlete in that 100m event (behind Sally Pearson). The board of selectors did this because of their 'Rio 2016 clause' which only got applied to her for some reason unknown (maybe because another former womens 100m sprinter is on that board- Melinda Gainsford-Taylor).
In taking this clause into account they neglected to send Australia's best hope at having an individual sprinter in the final in Rio in Steve Solomon who has ran 45.5 in the 400m the last two years and won the national title in both of those years. Oh yeah and he is only 19!!!
And last but not least the girl who beat Jordan Hassay at world cross country Emily Brikacek has the B standard (from Payton Jordan) and is ranked second in her event (5000m) but the first girl in her event (Eloise Wellings) is running the 10k and only has the B standard anyway! Brikacek is the same age as Breen (21) and she won both the 5000 and 10000m at the nationals... and she doesnt even rate a mention.
Back to LaCaze... they twisted the rules for stud Jeff Riseley at the last Olympics in a similar manner and would be complete hypocrites if they didn't bow to similar media pressure that she is/will receive (probably even more because she's hot) and add her to the team.
Athletics Australia have messed up their development potential with this team selection.. if their goal is 6 medals at this olympics like I saw on their website.. expect 1 or 0 in Rio...
There's nothing to prevent them from naming her, and they should encourage a young talent like that. Rules....so what?
get her on the team!
The head of the Aussie Olympic Comitee says this: “My understanding is that while there are cut-off times and dates, there is the opportunity for discretion to be used where someone is going to finish in the top eight or has the potential to do so in Rio (at the 2016 Olympics). “There is also potential for the Australian Olympic Committee to vary selection criteria at our absolute discretion.”
In his own words thats means: select LaCaze, Solomon, Brikacek - All 3 should go!
Do Aussie have the earliest cut-off? If Renshaw (OTC) gets the standard before the AOC date he should go too!
Athletics Australia thinks it is a superpower and has ignored development for decades now. So we get this situation where four years ago some idiot President with his head in the clouds announces a 6 medal target. We then get the historically disaster-ridden Hollingsworth (he destroyed the two previous institutions he worked for and i do mean destroyed) whispering like the snake charmer he has always been, in the aforementioned presidents ear and suddenly everything is sacrificed for a completely unrealistic goal.
http://www.news.com.au/news/ends-justifys-the-means-six-medals-a-must/story-fndpu6dv-1226395201236
She'll go because she's smoking hot and thats it... social media bandwagon here we go!
It might not be as simple as all that. Many countries have a double criteria for qualifying for events, like the Olympics, which cost the country a lot of money to send an athlete to. The first criteria is quite simple, and that is to meet a pre-determined qualifying time or distance within a pre-established time frame. That sorts out most people. Then the selection panel looks at those people who have met the standard and determines whether or not those people are realistically capable of finishing in a certain placing, often a top 16 finish is the aim. They don't want athletes finishing last. That identifies athletes who may have had one freak run to make the qualifying mark, but have shown no solid history that they are capable of repeating that performance. It also highlights athletes who have a history of meeting qualifying times at lesser profile meetings but then fail badly when the pressure comes on at major meeting. Athletics NZ excluded the EPO poster girl Lisa Hunter Galvin from the Olympic team in 2004 and again in 2008 based on that second condition. She had a clear history of performing well at events where there were only second tier athletes present, but folded when confronted with athletes of any calibre. In Lisa's case she threated with legal action both times and Athletics NZ, having very limited financial resources, decided it was cheaper to let her in than to fight the case in court. As it turned out, they were right with their initial assessment of her true ability. So anyway, meeting a performance time (which she didn't do within the well publicised time frame) may not be the only factor at work in the case of this Australian athlete. Smoking hot or not.
I totally understand your point, but bad analogy kiw.... Gen got 2nd at the Olympic trials (which double as an IAAF world athletics series meet) and 2nd at the NCAA championships... for a 22 year old steeplechaser that is a) form enough and b) shows her potential for future international success.
seems to be trending on twitter:
!/search/realtime/%23LetLaCazeGo
If they can't send her can they send the other ones?
P.s. will her good looks work for or against her?
Plus, she just dropped a 9:41 at the American Milers Series race the other night.
She is not taking anyone spot! let her go. there are two options stick to an arbitrary rule and send no one. Or slightly bend and arbitrary rule to the detriment of no one and let her go
AxC wrote:
She is not taking anyone spot! let her go. there are two options stick to an arbitrary rule and send no one. Or slightly bend and arbitrary rule to the detriment of no one and let her go
I think this is the most frustrating part. If there were already 3 athletes for the women's steeplechase than I would definitely see them enforcing the cutoff, but that simply isn't the case. SHE ISN'T TAKING ANYONE'S PLACE.
So instead of taking someone that could potentially do great things for them, they're sending NO ONE. Seriously, it's ridiculous. They're shooting themselves in the foot.
Go Gators ! Florida is one of the great Olympics medal teams in the NCAA. Kerron Clement went to UF.
Yes she is hot so she gets my vote.