Nate Brannen 3:35

That has been my argument for some time.

In fact I was all about sending the three (or with Pan Ams two) fastest regardless off how fast they are - well within reason.

But then AC added these ridiculous standards and poop hit the fan, at first, but then wadya know, we had three men go under the standard in the marathon. More recently Lanni Marchant took the women's national record and Krista DuChene is right behind her...and there are all sorts of other newish records, 10,000 men and women, by Levins and Wodak, half marathon by Marchant, steeple by Matt Hughes, who by the way is a lock for a medal and I am putting my money on gold. And the women's 800m is as strong as it has ever been. The women's 1500m is strong, just a little injured et al at the moment. Women's hurdles is very strong. De Grasse, need I say more? The future of the men's 1500m looks strong too.

But yes simplifying the qualifying process so the athletes only have to think about running fast would be a productive thing to do.

No one just can't take the top three. There needs to be a standard, but that standard should be the top priority. There needs to be more flexibility with the placings and the time to get those standards.

There is an issue with funding and Sport Canada and how much AC gets from performances. For example top three needs to be expanded to top five. In this way an athlete with standard can actually focus on the major world event and not peak six to eight weeks in advance.

Fitness is pretty easy to be objective about if place top 5 and have standard. This is more relevant to the distance events than anything. The current AC group does seem to get this, but there is still red tape from years past that, as the current leadership is finding out, is ridiculous.

As a Canadian, the issue I see here is not one of deadlines or times run or venues. A Federation is supposed to SUPPORT, GROW AND DEVELOP the sport.

AC however for years and years, as far back as Drayton days, puts obstacles in the path of athletes. It's hard enough for an athlete to fund, train, stay uninjured, make it to key races, but these damn bureaucrats in their air conditioned offices have no damn clue. Other Federations fight for their athletes.

I look at the depth in Canada these days. Yes, we have good depth in womens 800 (no thanks to AC) and some depth in Womens 10K, but no world beaters like we had with Chalmers, Lynn Kanuka (Wiliams) Leah Pells, Brit McRoberts, Sue Lee, Debbie Bowker, etc etc.

I look at the results in Europe, no Canadians there at all. Meanwhile, Draytons record is 40 years old.

This is a response that someone In PR from AC sent me when I complained about the Fiona Benson issue. Personally, I would fire the lot at AC unless they start having results. In the USA, there is a resurgence in running for both men and women. In Canada? Nothing

"Thank you for your note and for supporting the sport in many various ways over the decades, that’s great to hear.

In terms of Pan Am Games selection, Fiona unfortunately did not meet the entire criteria, which outlined the need to complete the appropriate declaration form by May 1.

The full selection criteria is available here:

http://athletics.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2015-Pan-Am-Games-SelectionCriteria-EN-0227151.pdf

In Fiona’s situation I believe it wasn’t a matter of not declaring for Pan Ams, but more a choice to not declare for that team, because her and her coach did not believe she had a legitimate shot at being one of the top two Canadian women in the 800m.

From that perspective the National Team Committee (the group that selects athletes to teams) has no choice but to not name her to the team. It is definitely unfortunate since she had a real breakthrough after the deadline passed.

Athletics Canada’s original intention was to have a Pan Am Trials at the upcoming Canadian Championships, however the COC imposed deadline to name the team was June 28. It’s an unfortunate set of circumstances which negatively affected Fiona, no doubt about that. But just because it’s unfortunate the National Team Committee can’t ignore the criteria and place her on the team, that’s going against following protocol.

We are looking forward to having Fiona represent Canada at the World Championships in August, and we will review policies and eligibility requirements to ensure this type of situation doesn’t repeat itself."

I have backed away from volunteering in the sport the way I used to I'll dedicated my time to where it helps.

I am going to defend AC on this one..sorta

I find many parallels with CPT, Nate, etc.. situation and Fiona's situation of which (as the person who has the privilege of guiding her training) I was directly involved

Although Fiona not declaring wasn't entirely what AC has assumed (but really fairly irrelevant) and both her and myself have IMHO taken full responsibility for our actions (I'd actually argue it has been others/media, etc.... who have taken on the torch for her. This is greatly appreciated, but we knew the rules going in and that 'declaration' conversation had occurred before the May 1 deadline, which also included FISU declaration.).

AC gets this rule (in 20/20 hindsight) is short sighted. I am sure it will be rectified in the future, but at the time I am not sure all possible unintended consequences were thought out. Fiona's situation is unique (as is CPT and Nate although their situation has occurred before. 'Those who don't know their history are apt to repeat it') and IMHO showed the issues that arrive when bureaucracy becomes an entity by itself (I always refer to the 'iron law of oligarchies' that an institution may not mean to become a self serving entity, but it often does due to said bureaucracy needs. These needs aren't always bad, but they can go into the realm of too much self preservation). I am sure even if someone from the outside had tried to change the rule it wouldn't have happened and instead takes an outcry of public, media, etc....after the fact to show the issues with many bureaucratic rules. The key IMHO is do these things change in moving forward. If they do not then I'd agree with the concept of 'throw them out' (it means things really have changed very little or not at all from previous years)

I've called it a 'silly rule', but if AC can (to paraphrase Doug Clement here) put the athletes first then everything else becomes quite clear. I do have faith that Rob Guy (and others such as Scott Macdonald) is an administrator who is sincere in making the best possible situation for athletes (and not the bureaucracy) and taking the attitude that Doug Clement has indicated will make AC a much better organization. For too long it had become an organization that needed 'to feed itself' and not the athletes. But that transition won't change immediately (the nature of bureaucracy). To make sure that AC stays true to Doug's idea it needs strong leadership that sincerely reflects on making it an as much of an athlete centered model as possible (and I'll reiterate I do see Rob Guy as very capable in his current role, but I am sure he also has to deal with elements that are more conservative both within and outside AC)

So to be clear I think the declaration rule and the current rule regarding Nate and CPT is/was ridiculous (irrelevant of whether I was/am directly/indirectly involved.), but also recognize that this was the rule. The rules, such as in Nate and CPT, Bunston, Reid, etc....have faced in the present and in the past, need to be changed and take on an attitude that creates the best possible situation to assist the athlete. I don't think AC intends to be malicious, but like any bureaucracy it can be constrained by itself and outside sources (nature of the beast).

Boohoo wrote:

It's insulting to the athletes and their coaches who achieved the standard before the deadline and qualified for Beijing to suggest that AC should make exceptions. And it would be especially insulting to the 3000m steeple chase, 5,000m, and 10,000m athletes going to Beijng who who used to run the 1500m but put the work in to move up in events. AC wants to send competitive teams to these events and the reality is that guys in 3:39 shape during qualifying period who recently ran the standard will be eliminated in the 1st round when the top runners in the world were running 3:35 in June and 3:30 now.

Well said. If you are peaking to hit the standard in July you are going to have trouble. If you make the standard in pre-comp season without peaking, then you are good enough to be peaking at world champs.

The standard is not the only criteria, nor is the purpose of these teams to send people who just make the standard. It's to send athletes who are ready to compete.

Now, yes, if you have people who run massive PBs early in the year because they needed to peak to hit that standard, they are for sure going to have trouble later, too. But again, that is not who the team is for.

I wouldn't call it insulting. I am not sure that is the correct word for it. If you are going and you know someone is faster and they could be eliminated in the first round, then so couldn't you who qualified earlier?

Personally, I'd feel guilty going if I ran a 3:36.19 early and nothing again later, until nationals, finished third in 4:0h-something and get to go and know that CPT is nearly two seconds faster closer to the event - a superior runner stays home. Especially when I got over there and got shot out the back real early.

No thanks.

May the fittest and fastest go.

yes wrote:

...

Now, yes, if you have people who run massive PBs early in the year because they needed to peak to hit that standard, they are for sure going to have trouble later, too. But again, that is not who the team is for.

With your logic, we should take away CPT and Brannen's Olympic qualifying mark. They will not medal at the Olympics, why bother sending them.

Actually, why does any Canadian bother running the 1500m. They will never medal. The very best in the history of Canadian sports (5 of them), required peaking to go sub 3:36...

We can shorten every Canadian track meet by not contesting the 1500m...

WiT wrote:

The Pan am Games is in Toronto Canada I'd think the Canadians are looking to showcase their best at them.

Merber gold

Brannen silver

Wheating bronze

JJ Esparza&CPT toss up for the tin medal

low 3:40s--- mad scramble to the line at least seven runners think their kick will win it

Wheating

Brannen

CPT

Diaz

Esparza

Bruno

3:41.41>3:42.88

six kickers within 1.5 seconds

Merber also finished- no kicking noticed and 7th