Eric Gillis left off Canadian Olympic Team

Somehow someone decides they have developed the auro of authority by choosing who goes and who doesn't, the ultimate ego stroke (to oneself).

fluffer wrote:

The Olympics are about taking part, not top twelve or top 16 placings.

That may be what you and I and Coubertin over 100 years ago believe, but that is not the reality today.

Take an honest look at the vast majority of the Canadian public, those who genuinely think certain sports are only competed in every 4 years when the Olympics roll around.

These people represent the biggest target of the major Olympic sponsors and whether we like it or not, they see a Canadian who finishes in the bottom half of the field and talks about 'just being happy to be here' as a 'tourist'. That does not look as nice to the big bucks corporate sponsors.

You may not like it. I may not like it. wetcoast and others may be completely unable to understand it at all. But that is the reality, by and large.

What then happens is that those big bucks corporate sponsors pass on to the COC (when they hand over their big bucks checks to the holder of the Olympic logo in Canada) that they want to see only competitive Canadians and not 'tourists'. They (and the ignorant public) don't care that the 1500 internationally is a little deeper than diving, all they are interested in is the optics of a Canadian getting completely outclassed. Hard to build a marketing campaign around someone 'just happy to be here'. To them a 5000 Olympic medal is really no different than a wrestling medal even if we know better.

So now the COC has to go to all of its member federations (with AC being just one of dozens) and tell them to come up with criteria that meets this objective of only sending Canadians who have a good chance at doing well ('well' being a subjective benchmark - top 12, top half, medalist potential, whatever).

AC, who probably given the choice, would like to send as many athletes as possible (and hence increase their stature amongst domestic organizations), must come up with A+ and repeat performance criteria that will select those who are more likely to do well.

Do you really, genuinely believe that AC, if left to their own devices, wants to limit sending Canadians to the Olympics? Assuming the worst of the conspiracy theories of bureaucrats at AC wanting to 'screw' athletes, how is that of any benefit to them? Surely they would have more power and prestige if they were to be tagging along to a 50 member team than a 25 member team (plus have the justification for including more non-athletes on the travel roster).

If anything, the whole 'Rising Star' thing looks to be a concession that AC managed to wrangle from the COC, provided though that there is some subjectivity to it and that only the better potentials of the eligible pool will be sent (instead of a blanket 'everyone with B standard who hasn't competed at Worlds/Olympics before 2007 can go').

Sure, it would be great if there was no subjectivity to Rising Star selection, but reality is that ain't going to happen, likely because of COC mandates and not wanting to take too much of a risk of being seen to send 'tourists'.

The alternative to complaints about this subjectivity and bureaucratic process is for AC not to have gone to bat for athletes and secured these 'bonus' spots from COC. Would have made their lives a lot easier not having to deal with appeals from athletes and complaints from the masses about unfair decisions. Simply go with the objective repeat performance and top 4 at Nationals criteria and there is no room for debate.

i find humour in mackenize essentially eliminating gillis by dominating him. once again windsor sticks it to guelph.

the stupid thing is, Gillis won't be competitive in beijing. the fact is it will come down to splitting 5k at near his pb and then doing it again to get through the heats.

they tried to train through canadian nationals, (at which he needed to prove fitness) so that he could compete at his best in beijing-understandable but not worth the risk when you are pegging to get on the team. in my opinion he could train four more years for the 10 k and still not be competitive, AND that is exactly why he is not going. this has been admitted by coach and athlete by discussing his future move to the marathon in hopes of being competitive in 2012. he has no future in the 10k on the olympic level - why send him as a rising 10k star?

I want to know what the votes were on gillis.

my guess:

forrester YES

LES g NO (who is an idiot)

SCOTT MAC- NO

MARTIN = nO

SULLY nO

4-1 NO. THE TRUTH IS IT WASN'T EVEN CLOSE.

The next problem is the guelph crew danced around and celebrated Gillis' selection months ago - their website stated he "punched his ticket to beijing" they were under full assumption that he was going, statements like that are offensive to the selection committee.

Asterix,

so k sully hit a+ but we know he will be extremely lucky to get out of the first round. (see 2004) (see commonwealth games 2006) (see nationals 2007/2008) why send him? the 1500 can be run two different ways, and while sully can still bear down and time trial an A standard, he isn't competitive in the heats.

also, is it really necessary to send 6 4*100 runners? 2 of them are just happy to be there. paris has only run 10.26 or so. 3 of them are consistent 10.30+ guys - DO THEY BELONG THERE MORE THAN GILLIS?

So let me get this straight: You GUESS at the votes, then, IN CAPITALS, PROCLAIM IT TO BE THE TRUTH!

IDIOT!!!

Your post is offensive to all who enjoy this sport.

And you know NOTHING about how that 5k went down. IT WAS A PACING JOB. AC then adds this hoop for Gillis, after the fact. "That 5k didn't help you." WTF?

Yeah yeah...the WR is 26:17 and all that. Let's just not participate at all if we aren't on Kenny's heels.

FACK YOU!

What has Sully got to do with any of this? He has met all the objective criteria. The fact he has been a proven international competitor (fifth places at both Olympics and World Champs) is just a bonus.

I'm not saying I agree with the standards, criteria or whole Rising Star thing, just trying to explain the possible reasoning for the way the whole thing came about. A lot of the self-righteous complaining could be reduced if people were able to understand WHY things are the way they are and to where they should focus their energy if they want to change things. Bitching and complaining about AC trying 'screw' athletes just makes the complainer look silly and ignorant and serves no real purpose.

Again, what has the 4x100 team that has legitimately qualified according to IAAF/IOC criteria have to do with the domestic Rising Star issue?

This right here is a prime example of people complaining without demonstrating a fundamental understanding. Sully's qualifying is irrelevant. 4x100 team qualifying is irrelevant. How the US picks their team is irrelevant.

Understand WHY we have the situation we have (you don't have to agree or like it) and only then can you be in a position to make a difference with your complaints and protests and calls to action.

It'd be nice to say I'm some muckety-muck at Athletics Canada or the Canadian Olympic Committee who can read your rants and realize the presumed folly of their ways, but I'm not. Just a fan of the sport.

You went out of your way to make a point that the COC wants top level athletes only and that anyone finishing poorly hurts us. and true sully has standard, but it is known that he isn't the sully he used to be. for the sake of arguing, (did you see his last 200 at nats?) why send him then if we know he won't make it through round 1.

We get far too caught up in standards. sully is just an example on the other side of things. as we speak today, i'd argue ellerton would have a better chance at making it past heat one at the game than sully, even through he is trained for the 800. you need speed and sully just doesn't have it anymore. check out the lagat video on the letsrun homepage, can you honestly say that sully can go 51 to close?

Again, you are demonstrating a complete missing of the point. It really does not matter what your opinion of Sully today versus the Sully of 2000 is. He met the primary objective component of the qualification criteria. This was how the vast majority of the team was selected. No committee, no debate about potential or being over the hill. The point of those repeat performance criteria was that anyone who can meet them has a reasonably good chance of doing well. If anything was guaranteed, then they wouldn't need to hold the Olympics and could just mail out the medals. I note that the 2007 list leader in the 1500/mile will not be in Beijing.

But Ellerton doesn't have any standard in the 1500 and with Reed and Tadili in the 800, he would need an A standard in that event to get an IAAF invite. But aside from that, you are not grasping the point that your opinion (or mine for that matter) does not make a bit of difference since there is absolutely no subjectivity in how Sully qualified.

If there was a selection committee that weighed some unstated factors before picking him, you'd have a case. But there wasn't and you don't. So why keep demonstrating ignorance by harping on something so completely irrelevant to what the true issue actually is?

Comparing Sully's close to Lagat's? You do realize that as the defending World Champ in both the 1500 and 5000 (and holder of the 2nd fastest 1500 of all time) that pretty much by definition no one can close like Lagat? (If they could, they would have the gold and not him.)

Yeah. Sully only closed in 52-something last year at Worlds SF, just missing the Final.

Find a day job Sully. If you can't run 3:28, what's the point?

FACK there is a lot of idiocy in this thread!

Okay buddy, after a quick search of the board i see you are the kind of person who posts and posts.

my point is. gillis is not competetive in the 10k, nor is sully in the 1500. the system is flawed, and no one has the balls to openly say that sully doesn't deserve to be there.

the objective of the standard system is to send competitive individuals and to establish objectivity in selection.

unfortunately, it is flawed. sure sully can make a top 12 time which, theoretically according to AC makes him a potential for a medal, but in reality we know he has no chance.

you need to send athletes that have the tools to do well in CHAMPIONSHIP meets. sully had those tools back in 1995 and 2000. he no longer has that kick. likewise gillis doesn't have the tools to make the final in the 10k. my argument about ellerton for example is that he has the wheels, and while he isn't an A standard guy, he would likely do better than sully. you stated yourself, that mr. webb isn't there. true he can run fast in a time trial, like sully, but he doesn't have the speed to make it through the heats or do well in a final. (yes i know he went 1:43 last year, but again it was a rabbited race without pace changes, just like his 3:46).

i remind you of athens, and rui silva running 1:46 for his last 800 to finish 3. and a 51 last lap isn't that fast when you're running 3:42, and i think it was the pack that went 51 not lagat. 2004 sully went 51 last 400 at trials, to run 3:53, and was knocked out in the 1st round. he is arguably slower now, i rest my case.

Wow you are a tool. Do you work for AC?

Sully has done a 3:35 this year. He was 3rd at Nats, probably training thru, and pacing Brannen a bit.

By your logic, (and ACs), who the fack would actually show up to the olympics?

In that tnf north thread, Sully talks about secrecy wrt the committee of 5. ie Who voted what, and why.

THIS IS BS KEVIN, all due respect.

Since when should that be a secret? The votes for and against should be known, and the committee members should be available to publicly state why they voted in the method that they did.

This isn't facking Bre-ex.

wetcoast wrote:

Somehow someone decides they have developed the auro of authority

What exactly is an "auro"?

Take off, eh? You Hosers.

At tnfnorth, Sully said:

"Maybe we should have just gone up to the press box and had the meeting over the PA system. Give me a break! The affected parties (and remember Eric was not the only one who was not selected or denied an appeal) were each told ALL of the reasons for their appeal being denied or not being selected. Les and/or Martin talked to each athlete/coach personally, and in Eric's case, Les suggested to DST to talk to me about the reasons he was not selected so that they could have all the facts so that they could better formulate their appeal. I attempted, as best I could, explain what the points for and against Eric's selection were that came up during the meeting.

Just because you WANT to know what went on in the meeting, you really have no reason, or for that matter, right to know.

And, since there continues to be speculation regarding the time line of the meeting, it was originally supposed to be from 4-6pm, and ended up stretching onto 7:30pm. One thing Martin made clear was that we were not going to rush any decision in order to get to the COC meeting which started at 6pm. Some appeals were pretty straightforward and really did not require much discussion at all as they were desperate attempts to get on the team. The injury appeals and rising stars took much more time and I would say the majority of our time was spent on those two areas."

Kevin, dude, I have immense respect for you. So please don't read this and think I'm just trying to cause trouble.

Wow! 3 and a half hours! C'mon man....that's not a lot of time for all those cases. As evidenced by the "5000m fiasco". How could this hoop suddenly appear?

And why shouldn't the public have a right to know what went on in the meeting? Give me one good reason why this kind of thing should be a secret? Remember Coe-Must-Go?

Athletics Canada is not a private business.

********** wrote:

my point is. gillis is not competetive in the 10k, nor is sully in the 1500. the system is flawed, and no one has the balls to openly say that sully doesn't deserve to be there.

You apparently do! Well known and respected Mr. **********.

the objective of the standard system is to send competitive individuals and to establish objectivity in selection.

unfortunately, it is flawed. sure sully can make a top 12 time which, theoretically according to AC makes him a potential for a medal, but in reality we know he has no chance.

Let me get this straight, you are arguing that Canada should scrap the objective selection criteria that makes use of IAAF A and B standards in some defined combination of repeat performances, and switch to a subjective, committee-based selection model whereby people like you get to argue that people like Sullivan are no longer championship kickers even though they ran championship times?

Yeah, that sounds like a great improvement to the system! No one will ever have any reason for starting message board threads debating who made the team.

And why stop at Ellerton? Since you apparently aren't concerned about having actually run an IAAF qualifying time at the distance (Ellerton hasn't), why not argue for Tyler Christopher to enter the 1500 since surely he could close in 50 or better?

would you like to bet on sully making the final?

********** wrote:

would you like to bet on sully making the final?

I'll ask yet again, what relevance is this to anything related to the issue under debate?

People are not arguing about the objective, make-the-standard(s)-and-you-are-on-the-team criteria, but rather the subjective aspect of the Rising Star part.

Sullivan not only has met the IAAF single performance standard, but also the AC repeat performance criteria.

And yet you apparently want to create a committee to do the Olympic team selection where they will have to subjectively decide if a non-IAAF qualifier like Ellerton can kick a better 400 off 3:40 pace than Sullivan? Or determining that Sullivan can probably only do a 52.6 closing 400 off 3:40 pace (52.3 if it is 3:44 pace) where he would need 52.2 (3:40 pace) or 52.1 (3:44 pace) if he is going to make the semis or final?

Are you for real?

What would he need to be capable of if the heat is on 3:38 pace? 3:40 pace off a 60 second opener or 3:40 pace off a 55 second opener?

I suppose you also have a grand scheme for how this committee will be picked (appointed by a committee of letsrun posters?) and a sure-fire way to ensure that no decision they make could possibly be questioned as being stupid or bone-headed?

If so, then I've got a bridge to sell you!

********** wrote:

would you like to bet on sully making the final?

Sully hasn't made a world final in years - so what's your point? How does that make Gillis any more eligible? Sully continues to make teams because he makes the A+ standard, when he can no longer do so then either he will move up to the 5000m - something I would prefer that he do, but it's not (of course) my decision - or he will retire. This is HIS choice NOT yours or mine, or Athletics Canada's either.

Now perhaps you'd prefer a system where AC decides what event athletes should participate in - like the Communist countries of a different era?! Maybe Ellerton should have moved up if he felt that he had a better chance of making the 1500m standard than the 800m, but he didn't, regardless of what Sully does. Equally I believe that Benninger is wasting his time in the 1500m, and that the 5000m (or above) is his future - like Gillis in the marathon. But as long as these guys choose to compete in these shorter events, and NOT make the A standard then they risk not making teams.

Thankyou Asterix for making cogent points to diffuse the idiots who simply refuse to "get it".