LRC note: If you want more of the back story, there is a longer 8 page thread that has been going on for week talking about the selection controversy for 2 weeks. That thread (which has been locked to new posts) is here: https://www.letsrun.com/forum/...
Selection aside. Consider Weightman’s statement and the alleged bias and poor governance it suggests from AA. None of which was addressed in their statement. How can you win your appeal and it make absolutely no difference in the process? What is the point of having this process in place? Their reluctance to accept the feedback from the NST highlights the bias/poor governance and lack of transparency in place further fuelling the notion that the conflicts at play were influential. Joke of an organisation
‘Despite winning an appeal at the National Sports Tribunal (the NST) against my non-nomination for the women’s marathon team, the NST returned the nomination decision to AA for re-determination. The NST was critical of AA’s handling of this nomination decision including its failure to properly understand or apply its own nomination criteria. Notwithstanding the NST’s recommendation for AA to convene a new and independent selection committee to re-determine the matter (i.e. to avoid the risk of potential bias), AA’s original selection committee simply re-affirmed its original decision.’
‘Much of the dispute before the NST involved an interpretation of AA’s own nomination criteria for the marathon. The nomination criteria was so unclear and ambiguous that the NST observed that AA did not even properly understand how to interpret or apply it.’
‘AA failed to provide its reasons for forming this belief until the actual appeal to the NST and, even then, failed to provide its reasons in the correct evidentiary form. The NST was critical of AA’s conduct and afforded it an opportunity to present its evidence in the correct written form: AA failed to do so.’
‘It gets worse. AA’s Head of Integrity sent AA’s written submissions to the NST which included information supporting AA’s reasons for my non-nomination. However, this information was incorrect and, ironically, would have supported my claims for nomination. Upon realising his error the Head of Integrity sent an updated and corrected version of AA’s submissions to the NST outside of the agreed deadline, without disclosing details of the changes. The NST was again critical of AA’s conduct and noted that the revised submissions further indicated AA’s “uncertainty or lack of clarity in respect of (its) real reasons” for not nominating me. As noted, the NST upheld my appeal and referred the decision back to AA with a recommendation that a newly convened Selection Committee should make a fresh nomination decision taking into account all of the submissions made by the parties and that upon accepting this responsibility that it “must observe the principles of natural justice”. AA doubled down in its refusal of my nomination to the AOC.’
For the American audience it’s hard to grasp the importance of the Comm games.
For funding athletes, athletic Australia basic decision is based on can you be top 8 at a worlds/Olympics and/or top 3 at comm games.
Overlooking a Comm games gold in the same Olympic cycle would be like not selecting someone who placed somewhere between 3rd-8th at the 2023 worlds.
Sure you’d do that if that gold medalist didn’t have a standard or the other competitor ran significantly faster. But when there’s not a big difference, they’ll go with the winner. The Hoare example is perfect. Or in the UK no one would be surprised if Whitman is selected over Gourley even though the latter has a faster seasons best.
I don't think this is true for the marathon. Look at the field for Jess's commonwealth win. That result can barely be worth more than her 2.24. Also note Lisa was excluded from that race by selection decision.
For the American audience it’s hard to grasp the importance of the Comm games.
For funding athletes, athletic Australia basic decision is based on can you be top 8 at a worlds/Olympics and/or top 3 at comm games.
Overlooking a Comm games gold in the same Olympic cycle would be like not selecting someone who placed somewhere between 3rd-8th at the 2023 worlds.
Sure you’d do that if that gold medalist didn’t have a standard or the other competitor ran significantly faster. But when there’s not a big difference, they’ll go with the winner. The Hoare example is perfect. Or in the UK no one would be surprised if Whitman is selected over Gourley even though the latter has a faster seasons best.
I don't think this is true for the marathon. Look at the field for Jess's commonwealth win. That result can barely be worth more than her 2.24. Also note Lisa was excluded from that race by selection decision.
I get it's not the most loaded field but she beat a 2:19 runner (3rd) by a minute, a 2:23 runner by 30 seconds, the australian record holder (Sinead) by 4 minutes, another 2:25 runner by 4 minutes (Welling), and many other 2:25-2:28 runners by between 4 and 10+ minutes.
I think everyone is giving Sinead a free pass as she ran 2:21 in December 2022. Since that race here are her results: In 2023 32:48 for 10k 1:09:29 for a half and the last race that she has run in past 10 months is in September 2023 she ran a 2:31 marathon. She has no results listed on her IAAF page since then. No sign of current fitness except a bunch of strava workouts she has posted. Seems strange AA hasn't said confirm your fitness before we make a decision.
And Stenson beat Sinead at the 2022 commonwealth games! I'd still pick Sinead but seems like everyone's super keen on pointing out head to head results. This is Stenson's most recent head to head matchup with an Australian, I believe. This whole 7-1 record thing, pretty much all of those results are very old, and so quite irrelevant. Not saying Aus should have picked anyone. But people are making it out to be like the 3 picks are obvious. None of them realliy are obvious. You've got 6 women in the low to mid 2:20s with pluses and minuses. Thats why a trials would be better.
Large pool filled with jelly, 6 woman Royal Rumble. Last 3 women left in get selected. Jess Hull and Abby Caldwell as guest referees. Two piece Australia bikinis are mandatory. Simple really. Or option B, keep letting Nic Bideau pick the team
I guess the decision came down to which state the selectors are from. And when the next election is.
And deciding if giving another jersey to a middle aged person who has never medaled, is better than going for someone else.
I'd rather pick someone trying to medal, than one trying to set a record for longevity. But that's just me. Marathon selectioneering is a crapshoot at best
I don't think this is true for the marathon. Look at the field for Jess's commonwealth win. That result can barely be worth more than her 2.24. Also note Lisa was excluded from that race by selection decision.
I get it's not the most loaded field but she beat a 2:19 runner (3rd) by a minute, a 2:23 runner by 30 seconds, the australian record holder (Sinead) by 4 minutes, another 2:25 runner by 4 minutes (Welling), and many other 2:25-2:28 runners by between 4 and 10+ minutes.
I don't think that proves anything, because the pbs you quote are either from after the race or multiple years before. To give a near accurate assessment of a race's worth by evaluating the form of other competitors, you have to look at the form they were in when the race was run. Note that Sinead had not run the australian record at this point so your argument is not historiographically correct. Using your logic, I could say I beat a 2.08 guy when i beat mona when he was 50, or that I'm better than the world age group record holder because i beat cam myers in a little athletics race (I know this is way more extreme but I'm just showing the logic is flawed). I'm only writing all this because it demonstrates how the selectors should provide reasoning for their selections that is cross-examined.
I get it's not the most loaded field but she beat a 2:19 runner (3rd) by a minute, a 2:23 runner by 30 seconds, the australian record holder (Sinead) by 4 minutes, another 2:25 runner by 4 minutes (Welling), and many other 2:25-2:28 runners by between 4 and 10+ minutes.
I don't think that proves anything, because the pbs you quote are either from after the race or multiple years before. To give a near accurate assessment of a race's worth by evaluating the form of other competitors, you have to look at the form they were in when the race was run. Note that Sinead had not run the australian record at this point so your argument is not historiographically correct. Using your logic, I could say I beat a 2.08 guy when i beat mona when he was 50, or that I'm better than the world age group record holder because i beat cam myers in a little athletics race (I know this is way more extreme but I'm just showing the logic is flawed). I'm only writing all this because it demonstrates how the selectors should provide reasoning for their selections that is cross-examined.
Don't be ridiculous. The point was to show the caliber of athletes she beat. Nearly all those quoted PB's are from within +/- 1 year of the commonwealth games. For example, Divers record was 5 months later. Johannes (2:19) was from 1.5 years before. Wellings from 4 months before. Muriuki's PB less than 1 year later. And on and on. So no this isn't like you beating Mona when he was 50. This is like you beating Mono in 1989 when he'd already run 2:09 instead 1990 when he ran 2:08. Either way, we'd say, hey you beat a pretty dang good runner!
Either way, it's not relevant to the original point, which is Athletics Australia decides their funding for athletes based on two main criteria 1. Can you be top 3 (top level) or top 8 (2nd level) at a world or Olympics 2. Can you be top 3 at the Commonwealth games (2nd level funding).
I'm simplifying, but that's their criteria for all events, even if a commonwealth games event is a little easier than another.
You can argue if that's fair or not, but it's how their system has been set up for years.
So when it comes to selection, they use that criteria as well. That was the point. And it stands.
In research we avoid subjectiveness, given inherent, unavoidable personal bias. "Discretion" by @AthsAust selectors must also be avoided when objective data are available, especially when discipline nuances prevent well-informed predictions. @lisaweightman has been hard done by.
In research we avoid subjectiveness, given inherent, unavoidable personal bias. "Discretion" by @AthsAust selectors must also be avoided when objective data are available, especially when discipline nuances prevent well-informed predictions. @lisaweightman has been hard done by.
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.