Canadians: What is up with your crazy Olympic qualifying process?

Um, yeah wrote:

you need to be able to justify why beyond just saying 'posters on letsrun want to see B standard athletes on the track'

...

you need to make the argument to the nameless Sport Canada bureaucrats or the holders of the public purse at the federal level that there is something better there is something better to be had by sending a B standard track guy than a medal-threat boxer or diver.

Why are you consistently and misleadingly using the phrase "B-standard athletes"? Do you think that it helps your argument? I think that it just shows you to be anti-athlete.

I haven't read anyone here arguing that guys with just a B should be going to the games. Have you? No? Then drop your BS manipulations.

We are talking about A STANDARD ATHLETES (by the IAAF definition) who win trials but are kept out of the games because we need more funding to send 45 AC staff.

M.C. Confusing wrote:

So Canada will actually leave people home that have an A standard and finish top 3 at their championships if they arent top 12 in the world or also have TWO B standard performances along with their A?

Really Canada?

AC seems to think that someone with an A and top-3 in trials might have just achieved those things by fluke.

Gotta run the B to back it up. Twice.

Canadian spectator wrote:But what is going on with guys who have, for example, an A+ and two A performances this year, who STILL NEED TO GET A B-STANDARD?

hold the phone wrote:

Perhaps you're looking at Andrew Ellerton, who hit A+ in 2011 (not this year) and thus still has to hit B this year to prove fitness?

If his A+ is meaningless, why is it on the chart?

According to the chart, he has an A+ and two As. Why does he need a B??? If all of those repeated QTs don't count, get them off the chart.

M.C. Confusing wrote:

So Canada will actually leave people home that have an A standard and finish top 3 at their championships if they arent top 12 in the world or also have TWO B standard performances along with their A?

Really Canada?

AC seems to think that someone with an A and top-3 in trials might have just achieved those things by fluke.

Gotta run the B to back it up. Twice.

hold the phone wrote:

Perhaps you're looking at Andrew Ellerton, who hit A+ in 2011 (not this year) and thus still has to hit B this year to prove fitness?

liar liar wrote:

If his A+ is meaningless, why is it on the chart?

According to the chart, he has an A+ and two As. Why does he need a B??? If all of those repeated QTs don't count, get them off the chart.

You're reading the chart wrong. Draw a line horizontally from his name over to the "A standard" column, and you'll see that it's empty. That means he hasn't hit A standard, either last year or this year, other than his single A+ performance.

The A+ from 2011 is on the chart because it's highly relevant: it means he only has to "prove fitness" this year by hitting two Bs. If he hadn't hit A+ last year, he would have to hit A this year.

I'm really hoping he gets rolling soon and hits those standards. (Is he or was he injured this year or something?) Like I said above, my personal belief is that everyone who qualifies should go. But it doesn't seem totally crazy to insist that athletes at least show fitness by running a B standard in 2012.

in the know? me too wrote:

AC seems to think that someone with an A and top-3 in trials might have just achieved those things by fluke.

Gotta run the B to back it up. Twice.

Not that it'll change your opinion, but that's not true. You only need one B to back it up.

in the know? me too wrote:

AC seems to think that someone with an A and top-3 in trials might have just achieved those things by fluke.

Gotta run the B to back it up. Twice.

hold the phone wrote:

Not that it'll change your opinion, but that's not true. You only need one B to back it up.

Oh, then it makes GREAT sense. Thanks for the clarification.

in the know? me too wrote:

Nice try. But it's a bit different if YOUR LANDLORD IS THE SAME GUY PAYING YOU OR TAKING MONEY AWAY, isn't it? I appreciated your original analogy, but this extension of it is a total fail.

Um, no. The landlord is not the one paying you. Think of the landlord as any of the expenses AC has in any given year, including paying for training camps or national cross teams (not all of which are self-funded).

Oh, please. A 3:1 ratio of staff:athletes getting flown to the games while QUALIFYING ATHLETES stay home disgusts the general public and athletes alike.

Just curious if you can list any past teams (Olympics, World Champs, other) where there was a ratio anywhere near 3:1 of staff:athletes or if you just made up those numbers.

You're free to draw any conclusion you want. I use the phrase 'B-standard athletes' because I am specifically referring to athletes who have only achieved a B standard and not an A.

Provided there are no other Canadian athletes with standard in their event, those B-standard athletes would be eligible under IAAF criteria, but not under the more stringent AC criteria that requires an A standard.

Yes I have. Every time I read someone posting something about 'if you make the IAAF standards, you should get to go'.

Fundamentally that is the issue, whether AC should be justified in choosing to enact tougher standards than international minimums.

The Olympic team is funded by the COC. Because of their monopoly when it comes to the Olympic logo in Canada, they are not hurting for money and so are not being forced to hoard their pennies by cutting athletes to send staff (whether NSO or their own). I'd also be very interested to see if anyone can come up with a list of 45 AC staff.

in the know? me too wrote:

A 3:1 ratio of staff:athletes getting flown to the games while QUALIFYING ATHLETES stay home disgusts the general public and athletes alike.

Um, yeah wrote:

Just curious if you can list any past teams (Olympics, World Champs, other) where there was a ratio anywhere near 3:1 of staff:athletes or if you just made up those numbers.

Just curious if you can list the staff:athlete ratios of ANY past teams at all. 3:1 seems about right to me. You're welcome to prove otherwise.

Um, yeah wrote:

I am specifically referring to athletes who have only achieved a B standard and not an A.

Well, nobody else is. We're talking about the many athletes with a IAAF A QUALIFYING TIME who will likely place top-three at trials and still be denied selection because they don't have the arbitrary Canadian "A+". Are you saying we only send A+ support staff? Chiropractic medicine barely has an evidence base, and we send how many of those quacks? Seems like the selection process for support staff is a lot less transparent than the athletes', doesn't it? I'd rather pay my tax pennies for an A qualifier to go to the Olympics than a 45th assistant deputy logistics support management officer. You?

in the know? me too wrote:

Just curious if you can list the staff:athlete ratios of ANY past teams at all. 3:1 seems about right to me. You're welcome to prove otherwise.

2008 Olympics.

Athletes:

Staff:

Please explain how that in any way approaches 3:1 staff:athletes.

Well, nobody else is. We're talking about the many athletes with a IAAF A QUALIFYING TIME who will likely place top-three at trials and still be denied selection because they don't have the arbitrary Canadian "A+".

Other than Ellerton, who achieved A+ last year, but has yet to prove fitness this year (since AC criteria are about what you've done in 2012, not 2011), who will be denied making the team because they only have an A and not an A+?

Are you saying we only send A+ support staff? Chiropractic medicine barely has an evidence base, and we send how many of those quacks? Seems like the selection process for support staff is a lot less transparent than the athletes', doesn't it? I'd rather pay my tax pennies for an A qualifier to go to the Olympics than a 45th assistant deputy logistics support management officer. You?[/quote]

I have never heard an athlete come to the defense of the large size of typical support staff, aside from an athlete married to a member of the support staff. That said, I do believe that on some of the partial-funded trips, the support staff have to pay some of their bills too. I may be mistaken on that. Anyways, AC is an old boy's club who enjoy giving perks to friends in the sport. In that sense, it is like a poor USATF. People can complain about support staff size, but every track organization on earth does it the same way.

I just wonder if AC is going to pull anyone from the equipment line this year and tell them that they're not going to the Olympics after all. AC is going to have to cure cancer at some point to make up for that evil from '08....

"Exercise Physiology / Performance Nutrition Expert" ????

You, sir, are proving my point very nicely. If you don't have it figured out before you hit the village, there is no physiologic or nutritional tinkering you should engage in at that point, anyway. Even if the Expert Athletics Canada sent is related to a runner.

Glad to see you've finally agreed that athletes meeting the A standard will be left at home if they don't hit multiple Bs, too. Crazy, crazy rule.

Um, yeah = Kevin Sullivan?

I don't get the consternation. Thhe process is VERY simple - you would have to be a complete moron NOT to understand it.

Ellerton has A+ from last year - 2 B's or one A (not sure why two, but whatever) and top 3 put him on the team. It's not a matter of being a fluke, but being able to reproduce fitnss. B's (1.46) shouldn't be that difficult - College guys are running it. Genest did it for the Steeple, so he just has to get top 3 at trials.

The only people with a grieance are the female Marathoners, who have IAAF standard (2h37), but there is no "rising star" category for them. Additionally the men (3 of them) met the more stringent standard (2h11.30), which makes the women's case that more difficult to defend.

A better argument may be about top 3 - if Mo has a bad day (one or more of the marathoners runs the trials and beats him) and places 4th or 5th does he not go? The American system is 3 past the post (if all have standard), so it is really just copying that system. The female hurdlers (5 with A standard) will be the race of the trials as 2 world-class women will not be on the team - potentially even Priscilla and Perdita (Diamond league champ and previous world champs winner).

Unfortunately In the Know wrote:

I have never heard an athlete come to the defense of the large size of typical support staff, aside from an athlete married to a member of the support staff.

I've never been on a national team (so to the subsequent poster, no, not Kevin Sullivan), nor am I married to a support staffer.

Are the support teams too big? Maybe, maybe not. Most who complain seem to be those who are not on the team. How about some public statements from national team members who do think they had too much 'support'?

For the guy questioning Trent Stellingwerff, again, have any athletes on the team said he didn't provide value for his attendance?

There's been a few media articles on how athletes needed some expertise in dealing with the drastically different food situation in Beijing.

I'm still failing to see how those lists represent a 3:1 staff:athlete ratio.

I remember nicole stevenson running a strong Olympic A standard, Greece asked each country to send a marathon team to recognize "The origins of Marathon". Canada said no,it had an absolute "Canadian A Standard" for the marathon, but sent a sprint relay team of weak b standards. Glenroy Gilbert is back coaching another Olympic sprint team after his personal failures in 2004 and 2008. Trent Stellingswerf couldn't even keep his wife healthy , but Athletics Canada had extra money again this year. Why not name the girls who achieved the A standard ? Why the debate. Ken Read and his " own the podium life philosophy" didn't work for his Olympic career, and based on this , Canada should have never sent him to the Olympics with his poor performances.

Um, yeah wrote:

For the guy questioning Trent Stellingwerff, again, have any athletes on the team said he didn't provide value for his attendance?

You really are great, you know that?

Is, um, non-complaint by athletes a criteria for inclusion?

If so...

Do you think that if all the athletes making A-standard were allowed to go (instead of being kept home for not making the arbitrary Canadian "A+"), there would be athletes on the team who said they "didn't provide value" for their attendance?

I actually don't have that much complaint about the staff size, by the way, IF it is in the context of fair athlete selection. My problem arises when we starts denying Olympic competition to A-standard qualifiers who are top-three at trials, allegedly over funding constraints, while we have a platoon of chaperones. Married to the athletes or not, it doesn't look good.

in the know? me too wrote:

Do you think that if all the athletes making A-standard were allowed to go (instead of being kept home for not making the arbitrary Canadian "A+"), there would be athletes on the team who said they "didn't provide value" for their attendance?

Which athletes who have made A standard in 2012 and presumably will place top 3 at the Trials will not be selected because they haven't made A+?

I don't see any on either

or

For that matter, which section in the criteria at

says A standard and top 3 is not good enough if you haven't achieved A+?