How does UKA select their team? Do the trials not mean much? Any guarantee of going either by winning or getting top 2/3?
why was Wightman left off the 1500 team? Two years out from WC gold..
Because Gourley and Mills both had the standard and were 1 & 2 at the trials (thus securing automatic selection)
Therefore, the choice for the remaining third spot was between Josh Kerr (reigning 1,500m world champion - who is in ridiculously good form) and Jake Wightman (previous world champion who is currently nursing a calf injury).
How does UKA select their team? Do the trials not mean much? Any guarantee of going either by winning or getting top 2/3?
why was Wightman left off the 1500 team? Two years out from WC gold..
Because Gourley and Mills both had the standard and were 1 & 2 at the trials (thus securing automatic selection)
Therefore, the choice for the remaining third spot was between Josh Kerr (reigning 1,500m world champion - who is in ridiculously good form) and Jake Wightman (previous world champion who is currently nursing a calf injury).
Who would you choose?
There wasn’t a choice - Kerr was going because he had the medal from last year.
I like that Amy Hunt has just posted a ‘Manchester memories’ on her Instagram stories of her finishing way ahead of Bianca Williams. She’s made no comment which is sensible but lots of people have on her Olympic post.
I agree with this entirely. Kerr and Hodgkinson shouldn't get to piss around at a national champs. Here's why: Kerr taking third in his 800 heat meant that Alex Botterill missed out on the final by finishing 4th. Botterill had a legit outside shot of making the team. Kerr had no intention of running the 800 at the Olympics, so all he did in Manchester was deny a legit contender a place in the final. And in an event like the 800, which can be chaotic, anything can happen and outsiders can make the team.
Also, if we want national champs to be legit competitions in their own right, then athletes should value winning the title in their primary event. UKA can still keep the discretionary spot even if they force athletes I to their main events.
Excellent point on the unintended consequences. Have they ever explained why they give a “bye?” It seems weirdly athlete-driven when their ruthless selectivity is at complete odds with that. But maybe it makes sense as it’s clear they really only want to cater to the stars.
Top 2 go plus one discretionary seems like a good system. If we did that we could have sent Athing Mu. Not sure I like that UK takes it on themselves to just not send qualified athletes based on rank though.
If you’d read anything about UKA recently including in this very thread, you wouldn’t think it’s a good system. The US does it best, best for the athletes and best for the fans who get to know what’s up as soon as the event final is over.
There’s a petition going round by Phil Norman to overturn UKA’s decision not to send qualified athletes to the Olympics. May not help. Probably won’t but as many people as possible should speak out about this. Completely discouraging the future GB athletes and they are no good for the sport.
I agree with this entirely. Kerr and Hodgkinson shouldn't get to piss around at a national champs. Here's why: Kerr taking third in his 800 heat meant that Alex Botterill missed out on the final by finishing 4th. Botterill had a legit outside shot of making the team. Kerr had no intention of running the 800 at the Olympics, so all he did in Manchester was deny a legit contender a place in the final. And in an event like the 800, which can be chaotic, anything can happen and outsiders can make the team.
Also, if we want national champs to be legit competitions in their own right, then athletes should value winning the title in their primary event. UKA can still keep the discretionary spot even if they force athletes I to their main events.
Excellent point on the unintended consequences. Have they ever explained why they give a “bye?” It seems weirdly athlete-driven when their ruthless selectivity is at complete odds with that. But maybe it makes sense as it’s clear they really only want to cater to the stars.
It's part of the overall "medals-first" ethos of UKA, and on a greater level UK Sport. They're making life as cushy as possible for their likely medallists. I think it goes too far. You can keep the discretionary spot so that if Kerr has a really bad day, you can still put him on the team. But the idea that you have to run the trials even if it's in an off event is silly and devalues the trials as a whole. But really, this is just all about protecting medals as far as possible. UK Sport is ruthless and a genuine constraint on UKA as it values efficiency (crudely, you can measure it as pounds spent per medal for each sport. It's not just UKA that are subject to this).
Excellent point on the unintended consequences. Have they ever explained why they give a “bye?” It seems weirdly athlete-driven when their ruthless selectivity is at complete odds with that. But maybe it makes sense as it’s clear they really only want to cater to the stars.
It's part of the overall "medals-first" ethos of UKA, and on a greater level UK Sport. They're making life as cushy as possible for their likely medallists. I think it goes too far. You can keep the discretionary spot so that if Kerr has a really bad day, you can still put him on the team. But the idea that you have to run the trials even if it's in an off event is silly and devalues the trials as a whole. But really, this is just all about protecting medals as far as possible. UK Sport is ruthless and a genuine constraint on UKA as it values efficiency (crudely, you can measure it as pounds spent per medal for each sport. It's not just UKA that are subject to this).
On the point I've made bold re UKS 'ruthless' etc, it raises the question on whether UKA senior management are constrained. That is, they apply for the job knowing the funding system and the policy and of course are interviewed on their approach to applying this, with a UKS bod on the panel. So even if Buckner or Beattie would on a personal level just love to have a team of 110 with the lowest ranked TJ or 3k SC guy included, they can't even entertain this preference. So I'd argue that UKA isn't constrained, it just does what it is funded to do and accountable for, the officers serve the organisational agenda.
Separately, I'd be curious to know what the red button viewing figures were for the Trials particularly at the time of the blue riband events - these are supposedly the sexiest events in the 'main' Olympic sport, in a nation which in last 12 years has hosted the Olympics and the World Champs.
You don't know her. Not one fellow GB athlete or UKA staff member has anything negative to say about her.
As for Hunt, yes she should've been picked over Williams really, it's a shame the UKA selection document is phrased such that it would be nigh-on impossible for them to not pick Williams first. This isn't made better by the fact that they didn't pick Hunt for the Europeans in the 200, when she clearly would've made the final and maybe even medalled and picked up the standard. UKA loves to shoot themselves in the foot.
I don't think the GB athletes or UKA staff members is somewhere you would find negative comments. They're all bound by contract to stay silent as nuns!
I think what the poster is referring to is her driving ban for failing to disclose the driver of a vehicle to police which was involved in traffic offences. She already had 11 points on her driving license at the time. Previously, she was involved in an incident where she and her partner were pulled over for driving on the wrong side of the road and failing to stop when indicated to do so by police. She successfully fought this in court, leading to the sacking of 2 police officers for racism for making up a claim that they smelled cannabis. The filmed incident went viral and she could be heard shouting and screaming and acting very distressed in it. All incidents occurred in London but the driving ban was a separate incident. She claims that she and her partner are regularly racially profiled while driving in London.
I'm curious about the chronology of the driving ban re the famous court case and the hugely inept police screw up. Is a driving ban a criminal offence? And if so, given that the famous court case was in a significant way about driving efficacy, was this not a relevant part of the content to disclose in media coverage in terms of public interest, even if it could not be disclosed before the verdict was given?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.