Lanni Marchant 2:31 in 2012, 2:28:00 in 2013. Athletics Canada still defends denying "rising star" status and Olympi

asdfsdfsdfsdfsadfsadf wrote:

If AC can't find a way to support the current Canadian record holder in an event, then what exactly is it good for?

Now THAT is a good question.

another one wrote:

I'm a big supporter of sending as many qualified athletes to major championships as possible. But I'm also a big believer in the concept of temporal causality: you can't qualify for a 2012 race based on a time you run in 2013.

You don't seem to understand my point. Please see above.

Frankly, Moscow shows that AC was right about both of them. Total embarrassment.

Canadian observer wrote:

Northern Realist wrote:

One race and she should have gotten a paid vacation to London?

We *NOW* know Lanni & Krista can run competitive times. In 2012 that was not at all clear.

Paid vacation? That's pretty rude of you, as well as being utter rubbish. I see nothing about either of them to suggest that they would train and compete at anything short of a 100% effort.

You seem to be missing the point of the "Rising Star" criteria. If they ran the IAAF A standard in any other event and were 20 year-old girls, they would have been selected.

Because AC doesn't understand athletic development in the marathon (a fact proven by this weekend's record runs), they were denied the opportunity to compete and develop in the Olympic environment. Canada's loss.

Hardloper wrote:

It definitely wasn't "very hot..." The problem is people compare it to the bubble-like conditions of Rotterdam - cold weather, no wind, perfect tarmac, perfectly flat - where those guys set their PRs.

Uh, comparing it to the "bubble-like conditions" where they set their PRs was exactly my point. Some pinhead pointed out that they ran 4 minutes slower than their PRs at the Olympics, and suggested that it was somehow AC's fault. I explained that the Olympics had conditions that -- compared to where they set their PRs -- were highly unfavourable (i.e. conditions hot enough to slow them down, and a course with lots of turns).

another one wrote:

I'm a big supporter of sending as many qualified athletes to major championships as possible. But I'm also a big believer in the concept of temporal causality: you can't qualify for a 2012 race based on a time you run in 2013.

Canadian observer wrote:

You don't seem to understand my point. Please see above.

I understood your point, I just don't agree with it. There are many obvious problems with arguments based on hindsight; one of them is that you get to pick your endpoint arbitrarily. If we'd evaluated AC's Olympic decision after Moscow, we could have "proven" that they made an excellent decision, given how horribly both women ran at Worlds. If we evaluate it right now, we can "prove" that they should have gone to the Olympics.

Neither of those lines of argument is valid. Decisions have to be made without knowledge of future events, based on the facts at hand. Even if you assume that AC was willing to revise its criteria on the fly (as they assumed for the purposes of the appeal), the conclusion they reached was that Marchant and Duchene's performances in Rotterdam weren't comparable to the performance standard demanded of Rising Stars in other events.

The funny thing is that much of their appeal argument was based on the idea that you can just insert your PB into previous championship results to figure out where you would have placed. (Thus they claimed their 2:31 would easily put them in the top 16 of the all previous Olympics.) Hopefully their experience in Moscow will have helped them understand why the appeals board rejected this argument.

How much money do the dipsh*ts on the appeals board get paid

The employees of AC are stealing the athletes money. They are getting paid good, and the athletes are scattering for left over scraps. AC needs to cut employees and undergo a large overhaul, but that is only plausible if the greed deteriorates within the AC board.

I don't believe people are trying to argue by hindsight. I think those of us that follow the sport had a pretty good sense that both these women were the real deal. This weekend proved that. If we could see it, then why could AC not see it?

Is this response serious? asdfsdf has clearly pointed out a logical fallacy in that you cannot evaluate the quality of a decision using future information that was unknown at the time, yet you claim that "this weekend proved that". This IS trying to argue by hindsight. For example, if you are playing poker and go all in preflop with AA, that IS a good decision whether or not you win the hand.

If trolling, 8/10: I bit.

Frabbit wrote:

asdfsdfsdfsdfsadfsadf wrote:

I don't believe people are trying to argue by hindsight. I think those of us that follow the sport had a pretty good sense that both these women were the real deal. This weekend proved that. If we could see it, then why could AC not see it?

Is this response serious? asdfsdf has clearly pointed out a logical fallacy in that you cannot evaluate the quality of a decision using future information that was unknown at the time, yet you claim that "this weekend proved that". This IS trying to argue by hindsight. For example, if you are playing poker and go all in preflop with AA, that IS a good decision whether or not you win the hand.

If trolling, 8/10: I bit.

I take your point. I guess I disagree with asdfsdf then. I believe the quality of the decision can be evaluated with future information - at least in this case where there was a lot of present information that already pointed to this future result.

AC's decision making in this regard requires them to predict the future a bit, and most of us in the know believed that these women were going to be very successful in the future. AC make a decision/prediction about the future that seemed silly given the present information. Now that we have the future information, we can confirm that their decision was a poor one.

Yikes. Regardless of your personal bias, the number of talented athletes that have left DST in the past 2 years is massive.

Congratulations Lanni, you broke the marathon equivalent of a Juno....

asdfsdfsdfsdfsadfsadf wrote:

AC's decision making in this regard requires them to predict the future a bit, and most of us in the know believed that these women were going to be very successful in the future. AC make a decision/prediction about the future that seemed silly given the present information. Now that we have the future information, we can confirm that their decision was a poor one.

First of all, you cannot "confirm that their decision was a poor one" using future information. As pointed out, this is a huge fallacy - though not uncommon. One can only evaluate the "correctness" of a decision based on the information available at the time.

Now as to whether most ppl "believed that these women were going to be very successful in the future", I don't think it's that clear. Wasn't one of them running less than 70miles per week at that time? That would perhaps indicate lack of durability, though I do not know much about marathon training.

yiKees wrote:

Yikes. Regardless of your personal bias, the number of talented athletes that have left DST in the past 2 years is massive.

This is interesting if true. I'm wondering what is going on at speedriver. A couple of years ago it seemed they could do no wrong, now I see track meets in October and Watson running 4 marathons in 1 year. What went wrong?

Rob Watson left Speed River, his comments in a recent interview were respectful yet very telling. He is racing better now, under coach Pete Watson. He raced hard in 3 marathons this year, plus 1 relatively easy pay day. His small PB on Sunday showed it was a bit much, but that overall his move to leave Guelph is working well for him.

another one wrote:

I understood your point, I just don't agree with it. There are many obvious problems with arguments based on hindsight; one of them is that you get to pick your endpoint arbitrarily.

No, you really DON'T seem to understand my point.

I am NOT saying that their 2:28 results this weekend prove that AC was wrong in 2012.

I AM saying that their performance in 2012 proved that AC was wrong in 2012.

Their national records only FURTHER show that they were indeed rising stars in 2012, simply undetected as such by AC when it mattered. But anyone understanding the marathon should have got that AT THE TIME.

Any child reading the Globe and Mail could now accurately state that LM and KD should be on the national team. Is this the expertise we are paying AC for?

No hindsight necessary to make the right decision. I am just hoping that those who lacked foresight can learn from this hindsight.

Doesn't sound like they want to, though.

asdfsdfsdfsdfsadfsadf wrote:

I don't believe people are trying to argue by hindsight. I think those of us that follow the sport had a pretty good sense that both these women were the real deal. This weekend proved that. If we could see it, then why could AC not see it?

(Gets it.)

Not excusing AC, but both COA (Canadian Olympic Association) and OTP (Own the Podium) undoubtedly have an influence on the standards, based on whatever their little calculators come up with. Regardless, good for Lanni and Krista. I would be interested in reading their training programs - anybody?

Couple of points:

In regards to athletes leaving one coach for another, it appears that it could be as simple as a desire to live in Vancouver where year 'round training is favourable and some athletes that went to Guelph Uni, are from the Vancouver area, so it is common to want to go home. The west coast is a desirable place to live. Granted Richard Lee is a well qualified coach.

In regards to AC needing an overhaul, well they just replaced the top-three people. Firstly they need some time and there seems to be a different and more positive attitude now, already.

Marchant doesn't reveal details about her training here, mind you she wasn't asked to go over them, but she indicates that she likes high mileage and has run up to 110 miles:

http://athleticsillustrated.com/editorial/lanni-marchant-is-not-done-yet-kenya-commonwealth-games-and-chiba-ekiden-next/