Aussie female Marathon selection fiasco

You nailed it with your analysis. They picked the women with more upside potential than the one who probably deserves more (but Stenson's pregnancy also makes the 'deserves' it more a little dicey).

I'd like to know if their published documents talk anything about what they are supposed to do, but I do agree that Stenson has more upside (although Covid-19 diagnosis for Weightman for Valencia makes it interesting). I'd also like to know what Australia's laws say about age discrimination. I mean a huge part of my analysis is Weightman is 45 and Stenson is 36 because I would 100% plead guilty to age discrimination when deciding who has more potential.

PS. Should picking on potential apply here? Let's be honest. None of these women are medalling. They aren't remotely close to a Molly Seidel situation. Seidel had just started running long distance and pbs of 15:15/68:29 heading into Tokyo. Stenson has run 16 marathons and has pbs of 15:52/70::59

PPS. Picking on potential is not uncommon - in fact - it's something I almost did to Steve Soprano - Employee 1.1 when he ran for me at Cornel.

A few years ago, and he graduated 10+ years ago, he was telling Jonathan how he made it to conference in xc (top 12) but just missed out regionals (top 7) as he was passed in the final 100meters of conference to move from 7th to 8th on the team. I finally had to tell him, "Dude I don't think I was taking you to regionals regardless of what happened."

The guy who edged him out was a huge recruit, was a freshman, etc. If Steve was a scoring 5th man at regionals, we'd have zero shot of doing well/going to NCAAs as he wasn't talented enough and that would mean others had had a bad day. If Brett (who side note regularly finished right next to Jonathan Gault in the 10,000 on the track) was in our top 5, there was a chance.

the most upside potential of any of the ladies is Izzy Batt Doyle. She the youngest of all and ran a SUB 15 min 5km a few months ago. None of the other ladies would touch her over the shorter stuff. She could be close to a breakout performance at the marathon, a distance even she acknowledges she is more suited to her than the track.

Funny how nobody mentions her...

Six women making the qualifying standard is incredible though.

That’s the most per capita in the western world.

The equivalent of 75 US women running faster than 2:26.50.

Why am I getting College Football Playoff Committee vibes?

Forget who deserves it and earned it, let's go with who we like and believe in!

(And we never have to answer questions when the team or person we picked on potential actually lays an egg).

God, I do hate selection committees that either don't articulate the criteria, or ignore the criteria when they feel like it.

What is the deal here? Personal vendetta?

Just for correctness. If "the period" referred to is the qualification period, the World Athletics qualification period for the marathons for the Paris Olympics was 6Nov2022-5May2024 and the Athletics Australia qualification period for those marathons was 1Nov2022-30Apr2024.

The 2022 Commonwealth Games took place during 28Jul-8Aug2022.

So, it appears that Stenson did NOT win the Comm Games marathon within the qualification period for the marathons for the Paris Olympics.

This is always the way with the Aussie selections. The ‘A’ standard athletes are generally clear and not disputed. However, they play favorites with those on the fringes. ‘Networking’ and having a coach or manager (eg Bideau et al) in the selectors’ friend circle really helps. In the last 30 years, this hasn’t changed a bit. It is very corrupt and 3rd-world-style of doing things. Much as they’d protest otherwise. I feel very sorry for Lisa Weightman - her dedication, discipline and sacrifice have gone down the drain, virtue of selectors bias.

It's never good when the people with the power are also the people with the power to change how much power they have (to place checks on themselves, or to go to strict metrics, etc.). Why would people with power actively reduce their own power, suggesting they shouldn't have been entrusted with it in the first place?

If it was Ollie Hoare (who’s coming off of injury) selected for the 1500m Australian team over someone who has ran faster strictly because he won the commonwealth games nobody would be complaining about the decision. Can’t play both sides

This doesn't look like a super easy decision to make. People are taking sides and pretending its obvious.

The super obvious decision for 2028- Hold a trials race.

Start a gofundme or whatever. People do it for far less important reasons.

Christ you are a narcissistic boring khunt

For the American audience it’s hard to grasp the importance of the Comm games.

For funding athletes, athletic Australia basic decision is based on can you be top 8 at a worlds/Olympics and/or top 3 at comm games.

Overlooking a Comm games gold in the same Olympic cycle would be like not selecting someone who placed somewhere between 3rd-8th at the 2023 worlds.

Sure you’d do that if that gold medalist didn’t have a standard or the other competitor ran significantly faster. But when there’s not a big difference, they’ll go with the winner. The Hoare example is perfect. Or in the UK no one would be surprised if Whitman is selected over Gourley even though the latter has a faster seasons best.

it reminds me of the BCS college football days. you can argue all day and find a reason to let one in over another and vice versa.

just run a trials and it's all sorted. unbelievable and unnecessary drama.

is anyone surprised? aussies completely lost their minds during covid and it doesn't seem like they will be returning. they were violently handcuffing people for walking in a park without a mask on, you think they care about fairness in sport? lol. should have stayed as a prison colony, rubbish country.

I understand picking for potential in a team sport, in which you are picking from your own team and considering the good of all your athletes (which is very different from being a selection body like the College Football Playoff Committee or this group in Australia).

If I had two guys on a cross country team and one can be 6th or 7th and the other can be 4th to 7th, I'm taking the latter, as you did. As a coach I had similar decisions to make and chose the athlete with more upside.

But in this case, there is no team (saying it is "Team Australia" is a massive stretch) and neither is likely to medal, so shouldn't they be picking strictly on "earned it" and not on "potential"?

I mean, are they picking (and making a dubious pick) because one MIGHT have a better chance to get a top-20 finish?

Check the Comm games marathon field. Of course an Australian won, nobody else even competed. It's meaningless.