Lanni Marchant 2:31 in 2012, 2:28:00 in 2013. Athletics Canada still defends denying "rising star" status and Olympi

Your thinking is a perfect example of what our sport needs to overcome. Lanni and Krista were not elites at 22 nor did they put their lives on hold. There are lots of other examples of why it is 'good' to keep people in the sport and how it doesn't have to put your career on hold.

But explain to me why our sport needs to overcome this thinking? What is the actual benefit of keeping sub elites in the sport?

asdfsdfsdfsdfsadfsadf wrote:The irony of the Dunning-Kruger effect is that one can never really be sure whether he (or she) is one of the incompetent ones - so I would not get too smug.

That's a fair point. Touche! :)

I certainly believe you were one of the many who believed at the time that AC was making a mistake in not sending the two women to London. (My personal view at the time, just for the record, was that the standards were badly chosen, but that it wasn't appropriate to change the standards at the last minute.)

As for whether this particular performance provides a suitable moment to say "I told you so!", I'd respect that if you were also posting after Moscow to say "Oops, I was wrong, AC was proven right about not selecting them for major championships." In reality, neither a bad performance nor a good performance proves anything.

In a sense, it's just like stock picking. Every time a stock goes up, there's a chorus of people who point out that they told us it would go up six months ago. And they're telling the truth -- they really did predict that the stock would go up. But celebrating these victories is utterly meaningless (from the perspective of making actual money) unless you keep rigorous track of all the predictions you make and the time-frames over which you predict they'll come true.

The same is true with Rising Stars. Was AC right that Gillis wasn't ready to compete in Beijing in 2008? Or was Gillis right that sending him to Beijing would pave the way for a successful Olympic marathon appearance in 2012? What about all the other Rising Stars over the years? Some have gone on to great performances, others have disappeared. It's not that AC was "right" about the Rising Stars who went on to great performances and "wrong" about those who didn't. That's hindsight bias. If you want to convince me otherwise, give me a list of athletes who will make their first Olympic appearance in 2012, and we'll see how good your "Rising Star" instincts really are without the benefit of hindsight!

Doh, make that 2016 - otherwise the test would be a little too easy...

What is the actual benefit of keeping sub elites in the sport?

We've hit an all time low.

Someone get Boyd on here to talk about depth and people grinding away pushing the best athletes to new heights.

One reason might be that some of them could become elite. Like ugghh said, Lanni and Krista were sub-elites until the last little while. They became elites by sticking with it. Cam Levins could have decided his best was going to be 14:10 for 5000m and there wasn't any point in continuing. Instead, he put in a couple years of hard work and came out the other side at an elite level. Reid Coolsaet wasn't really elite when he graduated university, but he kept at it and got down to 13:21, 27:56, and 2:10:55 so far.

There are dozens of athletes at national juniors every year who never even make it to a senior championship. They could have. Some of them could have been our next Cam Levins or Reid Coolsaet or Lanni Marchant or Krista Duchene. Talent doesn't go away, as the Brosjo like to say. But they don't bother and we never find out.

Another reason is that having depth might help push people to new levels. Having one hundred people at around your level to compete against could make you work harder to try to beat them, pushing you higher. Compare that with having two others at your level. At worst, you're third. And you can see this in record setting "arms races." Think Haile Gebrselassie and Daniel Komen and Bekele. Think El Guerrouj and Nyen. Think Chris Solinsky and Galen Rupp. Or Ritzenhein and Solinsky and Lagat and Tegenkamp and Rupp in the 5000m.

It's maybe not quite the same thing to put a qualification standard out there and say, "Okay, hit this." If you're too far away, maybe you just don't bother. If you have fifty others to beat maybe you decide you'll try to move up so there are only forty to beat, giving you some shorter term goals to aim for instead of just an empty space between you and a far-off standard.

I'm excited, because Lanni and Krista don't appear to be on the verge of quitting the sport, and Natasha and Dayna and Leslie are all on their way up. These are all sub elites who stuck with it, by the way. Natasha just ran her debut at #20 all-time on the Canadian marathon list. Leslie just went #10 all-time for eligible half marathon courses. Dayna's run under the half marathon record already on an ineligible course. They have somebody to compete against to push them forward, even if there are only five of them.

Also, since you don't seem to see it this way: Running is fun. Competing is good for you. Pushing your personal limits is an enjoyable experience. That's another reason for sub elites to stay in the sport. Because it's a good, healthy, fun hobby. They could spend hours a week on their fantasy hockey league and watching TV instead, I suppose.

What asdf and I are saying is not that sub-elites should quit, but rather that they might not offer benefit to the sport on a national level. For example, is it really worth it for a 23-yr old 3:49 guy to spend another five years grinding it out just to get down to low 3:40s or possibly dip under a bit? These are the questions that new grads face when considering running and for the most part, real-life starts to take over with increased responsibilities in other areas.

It is silly to say that Athletics Canada or Guelph "needs" to keep these guys/girls in the sport at a competitive level past graduation when common sense dictates otherwise.

Finally most of the examples of sub-elites transitioning to become "legit pros" are all for long-distance running aerobic development continues into the late twenties. It is extremely rare for someone to later make national level teams for middle distance and sprints if they have not done so by age 22-23.

not elite wrote:

Also, since you don't seem to see it this way: Running is fun. Competing is good for you. Pushing your personal limits is an enjoyable experience. That's another reason for sub elites to stay in the sport. Because it's a good, healthy, fun hobby. They could spend hours a week on their fantasy hockey league and watching TV instead, I suppose.

First off, I am not trolling. I love running. Out of patriotism I want Canadian running to be awesome.

However, once one is in the position of having to make a choice between career and or family, and running at a sub elite level, then I see running as being very binary. You either do it for fun and don't let it interfere with your new priorities, or you do it with an eye to earning income - in which case you better be really fast. We can argue whether this is an either/or choice, but typically international caliber athletes don't have a demanding full time job on the side.

Second, and this is a bit nihilistic, but it really doesn't matter if Canada (or any nation) has 10 3:30 guys, or none. On that basis, it is kind of irrelevant if they stay in the game past university or not.

I agree that the more role models there are, the greater chance that a few sub elites will hit an IAAF A standard now and then - but I don't see this as being so important to anyone other than the runner in question, and the ten or so people he/she might inspire, as to worry to much whether this happens or not.

Now I say this all as an observer of the sport, and not a coach, or athlete, so it is easy for me to say. But I honestly can't ask Canadian track clubs to find dollars out of nowhere to keep their 25yrs old rising stars in the game, and I can't expect government or private industry to do so either.

Lastly, I don't feel right pressuring some 25yr old to stay in the game any longer than doing so makes sense - and at this point, I would say it rarely does make sense (other than for fun or for the love of it - in which case see above).

Stop presenting running fast as some incredible burden that could be managed while in a demanding University program but somehow cannot be continued afterwards within the scope of a 'normal' life, that's bullshit and people are proving otherwise, as shown this past weekend.

You don't understand how someone can keep training hard after they graduate and make it work; that doesn't change the fact that people are doing it and it is GOOD for the sport that they are.

olympic champs only wrote:

Stop presenting running fast as some incredible burden that could be managed while in a demanding University program but somehow cannot be continued afterwards within the scope of a 'normal' life, that's bullshit and people are proving otherwise, as shown this past weekend.

You don't understand how someone can keep training hard after they graduate and make it work; that doesn't change the fact that people are doing it and it is GOOD for the sport that they are.

Of course I understand that, I continued to PR for two years after taking a very demanding job in finance. However, if you think the demands of Univeristy resemble the demands of having a career job, then you must still be in University.

I think you should stop pretending that one can be a world class athlete without sacrificing other areas of your life. A Canadian record in the women's marathon is nice, but it isn't really world class.

Don't worry, I don't think you're trolling. I was being a bit sarcastic, just because your posts come across in such a way that it seems like you don't even really like the sport. I do understand the points you're making, and I agree with you on some of them to a certain extent.

I didn't get to finish my thought earlier, but one other thing I was going to say to your point about football guys not continuing, etc. is that if you go out to the local soccer field on your lunch break or in the evenings when there aren't any league games going on you're likely to see recreational leagues playing. Those are the sub elites who didn't quit, or the guys who played as kids and wished they could still play. If you go to your local arena around 11pm you'll see the same thing. And all you have to do is look around your office and there are twenty guys who have a fantasy football or fantasy hockey pool. They're the ones who wanted to stay involved in their sports because they enjoy some aspect of it. Those guys are having kids, and those kids are going to get involved in soccer and hockey and football. And often at the games the guys playing recreationally are going to be the ones in the stands cheering. Or the ones watching it on TV.

It is my opinion that the sub elites are the ones who are better known, who draw people into the sport, and are the faces of our sport. People see them around, they talk to them, they "know" them. Seeing them run at a local elite level inspires those people to work harder, to go run that 5k or half marathon or marathon. And those people are then more likely to watch local races, join local running clubs, and have their kids participate in the sport. And they are also the ones who buy the running gear, which puts money in the pockets of the sponsors, who provide some support for the elites and the sub elites. Without those people, whose connection to the "competitive" running world is the sub elites, there isn't really a sport. They're the fan base.

That being said, I agree that it really doesn't matter, overall, whether we have one elite or ten or one hundred. It would be nice to have a lot, but I'll still be happy watching just the one if that's all there is.

I think I'm talking about something different from you when I talk about sub elites. I'm not talking about a 25 year old rising star who's being supported by a club or a sponsor and only runs, as a "professional," trying to make it to the next level. I'm talking about a 25 year old runner, talented or not, rising star or not, who has a job and a life and supports himself or herself. I'm not suggesting that clubs and sponsors pay for these runners. It is not at all about money or support in that sense. I just think they should be encouraged to continue to be involved in the sport as they age and go about their lives because it improves it for everyone, and some of them will be motivated to keep trying to improve and might make that step to the next level or help get someone else there.

I like running, and I think it's more fun when there are lots of other people at races for me to race and cheer for, whatever level they are. You can train at a very high level while working if you have the motivation. And if not, you can still stay in shape, satisfy your urge to compete, make some friends, support the running community, and set new goals for yourself.

I'm also not talking about pressuring anyone to stay in the sport. If they want to quit, they want to quit. All the best to them. I'm talking about fostering an environment where they don't want to quit in the first place because they enjoy it and don't have to be pressured for anything.

asdfsdfsdfsdfsadfsadf wrote:

[A Canadian record in the women's marathon is nice, but it isn't really world class.

I should edit, as I do not mean to take anything away from the performance, and the effort it took to get there.

My point is that we don't see the current crop of 2:03 guys being lawyers, doctors and bankers. We don't see Galen Rupp and Jenny Simpson holding down full time jobs.

If you are going to run to be the best in the world, you run full time. If you are not going to be among the best in the world, you are going to have a limited earning potential, and for a short period of time. You cannot deny there are sacrifices to remaining in the sport.

If people want to make those sacrifices, that is great, but I remain unconvinced that there is some compelling reason why people "should" do so.

Anyway, it seems I am not making my point very well, and that is likely my fault, not yours, so rather than beat a dead horse, I will try not to continue in this vein.

Some excellent points here.

It seems like we agree. Cool.

Good Lord, you can't just insert 'world class athlete' when convenient to try and prove a point nobody is disagreeing with: that to be the very best in the entire world, you cannot work a demanding full-time job. Do you see no middle ground? Jeremy Drayton worked 35 hours a week and still holds the Canadian record - that speaks volumes!

No one is saying that you can train hard at a provincial/national level in EVERY job, just that you obviously can in some of them, because we have examples right in front of us, this past weekend.

Presenting the sport as being for a limited few beyond university, is really bad for our sport. If a group that trumpets themselves as the best in Canada is teaching this kind of belief directly or indirectly then we'd probably be better off if more Canadian stars went to other cities.

Just to be clear, I am in no way affiliated with Speed River, or UoG - I don't know what they are teaching people. These are just the views of a guy who when he was 18 thought running was the most important thing in the world, but now at 50 thinks things like retirement savings and being able to pay the mortgage are somewhat more important.

Thanks to the eloquence of "not elite", I don't have anything more to add about the importance of building in the middle an lower ranges of our sport here in Canada. He/she has said it all succinctly and movingly. Ours appears to be the only sport where people who have no chance of being among the best in the world are encouraged, even expected, to abandon their involvement as soon as they no longer have a school team to contribute to, or have failed to demonstrate world class potential. The fan base of almost every sport is made up of thousands of people who continue to do their sport recreationally on some level, often quite seriously. Think about golf for a second. Or what about the countless other often very time consuming non-sport hobbies people routinely pursue while meeting all of their other duties. Serious recreational runners seem to be the only people who have to endure the question "are you STILL running" from well meaning friends and family (imagine someone saying "are you STILL golfing?").

That members of our OWN TRIBE could be encouraging the view that there is a time when runners should "move on" (and that time is after they graduate university!) is very discouraging and, I think, unwise. Young runners, don't listen to these people! They are careful, boring people, who have it all backwards.

I'm 50 now too, and I can tell you that things like making money and paying a mortgage are not "life" any more than eating, sleeping, and shitting are life. For all but the most uninteresting and uninspiring people, these are mere necessities, after which life-- i.e. the business of real self-actualization-- begins. This is a universal truth. Poor people everywhere don't just want food, shelter, and general economic security for their own sakes; they want these things so that they and their children can have actual LIVES beyond this realm of simple necessity.

I know literally dozens of people who continued running well beyond school, some of them very successfully, others less so. Decades later, I can't think of a single one who regrets his/her decision, no matter how rest of their life turned out; yet, I know many who wish they had continued, or who have begun to run seriously again much later in life, when they have even LESS time than they had in their 20s. Sure, serious running has had some impacts on the jobs, income, and parenting of the serious runners I know (but most are far better citizens and parents than the non-runners I know); but, it also made their lives much more interesting and fulfilling, just as the lifelong pursuit of ANY passion does. If you are one of the lucky ones for whom your means of paying the bills is also your life's passion, then great. For most people, however, happiness requires finding something beyond the quotidian that fires the belly and the imagination, and that brings them into contact with others outside or work or the simple cash nexus.

If love running and racing, then do it! Try to be the best you can be, but don't ever worry that if you're not as fast as other people, you're somehow wasting your time. You're only wasting your time if you're NOT doing the thing you love the most. News flash: we will all be dead soon anyway. If training to race makes you feel more alive, then RUN! Chances are you will make do, and likely still be a solid citizen and parent some day (or at least no worse than if you hadn't run); and, I promise you, you will never regret it.

another one wrote:

Frabbit, I appreciate your attempts to explain why saying "These results prove that Marchant and Duchene should have been on the Olympic team" is an example of hindsight bias. Sadly, I don't think the people who disagreed are any closer to understanding the flaws in their reasoning. It's the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action:

asdfsdfsdfsdfsadfsadf wrote:

I would not be so quick to dismiss us. When they were denied rising star status, I found it to be a ridiculous decision - at the time. There was no hindsight at all.

This weekend is just a cherry on the I told you so sunday. Entirely independent of this weekend, I believed then, and continued to believe (even after Moscow), that AC should be supporting these women.

Again, asdfsdfsdfsdfsadfsadf gets it ^

Not selecting them off of their A standard debuts was a mistake. I said so at the time, and I am saying so now. It has nothing to do with hindsight. I am only pointing out the double Canadian record in case anyone forgot how wrong AC was AT THE TIME. The 2:28s don't "prove" anything to me since I think this was already known.

If the birds start singing before dawn and I tell a small child, "the sun is about to come up," the child may not believe me, being ignorant to the phenomenon. When the sun rises and I say "look, the sun rose after the birds starting singing," I am helping him to understand something. Not holding it up as "proof" of anything. Get it?

Please pay attention: In my opinion, not selecting a marathoner with an A-standard debut in an Olympic year for "Rising Star" status makes a farce of the "Rising Star" concept.[b/]

End of statement regarding 2012.

I do not think that their 2:28 results "prove my point" because the point was correct in the first place: anyone with a clue could identify these two as rising starts in the event. "With a clue" notably not including the people we pay to do so.

SB, you added considerably and meaningfully to the eloquent words of "not elite". I hope these opinions show up somewhere in the latest version of AC's definition of what Athletics could/should look like in Canada.