Eric Gillis left off Canadian Olympic Team

RU serious Goulet is a penis with ears.

T-bag

turku wrote:

1) Sully is on the committee, so of course he can't come out and say the truth.

2) Linc didn't even make it to the Trials, did he? I wonder if he is bitter...

3) Gillis ran the time, won the Trials, he's on the Team --- if not, come up with a damn good reason why, AC.

4) Martin is a good man - not his fault.

Turku, Yes, I did make trials. But, no, I didn't make it to the line if that's what you mean. Bitter?? no...maybe depressed though.

I would like to clarify that I have never intended to make it seem as though Gillis doesn't deserve to be on the team. He's a good guy and has worked very hard to get to where he's at. My comments were not meant as an attack on Gillis; rather, some kind of rationale as to why he wasn't selected. My apologies to Gillis if my words were misconstrued.

hyhyhy wrote:

RU serious Goulet is a penis with ears.

T-bag

I don't see how insulting penises is going to help this situation.

I feel bad for Gillis as he seems to be a very hard working and decent guy, but come on, after reading what Kevin Sullivan has posted about what the specific Athletics Canada rules were-- and what the terms of reference he had and the selection committee had to consider--they had no choice but to keep him at home. That his coach was "stunned" by the decision is laughable. Did he not read the rules? A B standard simply was not enough, and it is clear a day.

Next time they should just state all B standards in events that had no As were eligible. But they didn't, so this year Gillis is on the short end of the stick. Bummer, but true.

They are going to put Jamie Gillis in place of Eric Gillis.

With regards to the 5000 at the trials Gilles ran 100+ miles the week of the race and agreed to pace McKenzie for the first part of the race. He did not assume the 5000 would play into his selection to Bejing, since the 10 000m selection race was held a month earlier and a race he won easily. It is all here in this article,

http://www.cbc.ca/olympics/athletics/story/2008/07/08/f-olympics-athletics-gillissnub.html

It is also worth noting that to run the Olympic B-standard in the 10 000 he basically had to split the same time he ran in 5000m at nationals. I think it is safe to say had he been taking the 5000m at Nationals seriously, rather then just using it has training, he would have ran much faster.

Well, bearing in mind he was not on the team yet, perhaps taking the 5k at the championships as a "training run" (which I find ahrd to believe) was not the brightest idea.

The rules were clear.

I have a read the rules. The 5000m should have nothing to do with selection for the 10 000m, the rules do not say anything about times in one event having anything to do with times in another. The selection race for the 10 000m was a month ago. Gillis should not even have had to run the 5000m. Would you pick a 1500m runner based on there performance in an 800m.

The fact is the bottom line of the "rising star" criteria reads - IMPORTANT NOTE: Being eligible for “Rising Star” does not guarantee selection

Maybe we can have a bake sale or car wash to raise money so he can go next month to Rio instead.

08/10/2008 Athletics 2008 IAAF World Road Running Championships

http://www.olympic.org/uk/news/calendars/calendar_sports_uk.asp

By the way, his time at Stanford in May was 28:07.19

http://www.sml1.com/recordtiming/stanford/pjc08/080504F021.htm

The whole "rising star" criteria needs to be revamped, as it is far too subjective. Problems like this (the Gillis situation) were predictable given the wording - and it is made VERY clear that just getting the B and winning the nationals event isn't necessarily enough. When things are left to interpretation, then there are bound to be differences of opinion. I hope that Gillis is allowed through, just because he seems to have been caught up in a misunderstanding. In future, either the RS rules need to be better spelled out in advance or get rid of it entirely

One thing that puzzles me is that (at 28 this year) this is supposed to be preparation for the marathon down the road. Why is it that guys like Hall and Ritz can take to the marathon at earlier ages while the Canadians want to wait until they have mastered the 10000m, or something. I assume that Bairu is now moving up, and perhaps Coolsaet as well - maybe these guys can actually make the tough AC marathon standard.

By the way, this decision by the board was in a meeting that stretched from the end of the meet (a little after 4:00pm) until the middle of the COC meeting with athletes (about 7:00pm). In those three hours, they decided 6 Rising Star cases and 12 (or more?) Medical Exemption Appeals. Do the math and figure out about how long they discussed each issue.

How would this would have been tough?? All the medical exemptions except Brannen were A+ athletes, and all the Rising Stars times and places were understood weeks before the meeting. This was an easy meeting except for two athletes--Brannen and Gillis.

I want business cards like Martin...

his title is Athletics Canada’s chief high performance director!

So, "the seven-member National Team Committee (NTC) had decided he was not deserving of a place on the Olympic team".

http://iaaf.org/statistics/standards/newsid=43175.html

The way we see it there will be lots of NTC and AC people who will be in Beijing, but are they deserving?

As required by Athletics Canada’s criteria, Gillis won the Canadian 10,000m Championships in Toronto June 4.

He set the "B" standard, won the national championships and...

Gee, that is going to inspire a lot of future Canadian runners.

Hey Spirit of Goulet,

SPOT ON!

WHO THE HECK WANTS TO RUN FOR A COUNTRY WHERE they have to work their asses off forever, win the national championships and accomplish the Canadian B standard and not be able to go AND find this out at the last minute?

WHo?

No one!

There is already a very small population of runners, because there are so many other choices in life. WHAT A joke.

And on top of that, I think other athletes are affected by deadlines and criteria. Let's take Diane Cummins for instance. She needed to run around her Canadian 800m record now, to qualify for Beijing.

NOW?

Are the people at AC confused?

Diane has the record, could probably run it again, but then what does she do ride the wave of peak early until the finals in the Olympics?????

OMG!

Like HellooooooooOOOOOOOoooooo.

>>Canada is sending 143 disabled athletes and about 120 medical staff and other support staff to the Paralympic Games in Beijing this September.<<

120 medical staff and other support staff.

I know different budget. Come on COC and AC ges the funds from the private sector or be better with the Feds...then send some athletes.

Diane has been running well over 2 min this year (has she even run a B standard). She didn't even win the trials. The A+ standard in the w800m was 1:59.97, only .03 faster than the IAAF A standard. That is hardly an outrageous standard, and considerably slower than her 1:58 Canadian Record.

None of the canadian standards are outrageous except the walks and the Marathon. All the others are right in line with the IAAF standards.

Side note: Athletics Canada's primary function should be to send Canada's best in each given event who attain an IAAF standard into the applicable meet, Olympics, Worlds, Common weath, Pan Am's, PERIOD. There is no grey area and no way around it. This should be the only function of AC.The focus should not be on money or top 12 or top 16 performances, AC and the COC commenting on what they think the general public want to see is irrelevant as well. If the COC and AC are leaving athletes home because of money and arbitrary mission statements then their function to send canada's best is failing, The COC and AC are failing as institutions and they need to be replaced by people and a new organization committed to sending Canada's best with IAAF standards. The people who work for AC and the COC don't matter if worthy canadian athletes do not get to the meets that they deserve. The Olympics are about taking part, not top twelve or top 16 placings. And before we get some nut job on here talking about competitveness, there are plenty of contries and athletes that will not be competive at the olympics, if competitiveness was one of the points for the olympics then we could just hold a games that is reserved for the top 20 ranked people in all events regardless of country. And I think that we would all agree that that would be b ull s hit! The olympic come about every 4 years to get every countries top athletes together in an athletic event to take part period!!

When the Hell did we lose sight of that!

Exactly - Here we lost site of the creed.

THE OLYMPIC CREED:

Pierre de Coubertin got the idea for this phrase from a speech given by Bishop Ethelbert Talbot at a service for Olympic champions during the 1908 Olympic Games. The Olympic Creed reads:

"The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well."

The creed and motto are meant to spur the athletes to embrace the Olympic spirit and perform to the best of their abilities.

To Huh?

You are right, she was running slower but I beleive she felt not fit and needed time in Europe to get sharper...deadlines come and deadlines go....I guess that was fair...but that is a problem with peaking. Peak ing should happen on the week of heats and finals, not before.