Australian trials happen much earlier than most other countries during their summer. Dumb to not allow national champions to chase the standard after the trials. This stinks pretty bad particularly since she was also left off the Olympic team.
-
120
-
Raddison wrote:
2) (OK this is a bit conspiracy theorist) Section 5.5.3 is the same as Section 2 but with the words "prior to that trial and" added in the middle. Does anyone have access to an earlier version? Were these words in that version? It does look like a quick revision was done to get the result they required but someone bungled in that they revised Section 5.5.3 but forgot about Section 2.
I assume you meant Section 5.5.2, and just to nip this conspiracy theory in the bud, the Selection Policy archived here on 15 October 2021 has identical wording (i.e. with "prior to that trial"). So you can take AA at their word that it hasn't changed since October, and it's a terrible communication stuff-up.
70 -
Comments have been made about certain athletes finding the conversation around the selection putting pressure on their mental health.
Before signing a contract with Nic Bideau, you know there is a very high chance the relationship with him will end in confrontation and have a mentally stressful period. Almost everyone in the sport also agrees that he is not a positive personality and isn't promoting the sport as a whole, rather his athletes. With this all being public knowledge, I struggle to find sympathy for athletes who have voluntarily signed a contract with him, further promoting his oversized influence within athletics in Australia, and later ended up in a stressful situation. If you wanted to avoid that, you could have chosen a different manager or coach.
230 -
AussieAthleticsfan wrote:
And last year Abbey had better form over Georgia but Georgia was selected over Abbey for Olympics even though Georgia was struggling with injuries. And surprise surprise Georgia didn’t run well at all. Abbey should have been selected for the Olympics and now this year she’s been overlooked again.
It’s not like Georgia is consistently a 4 minute athlete. Up til this year she was sitting at 4:04-4:06. She had 1 perfectly pace run in Europe for 4:00. All other times are so similar to Abbey’s times.
No, Abby did not qualify for olympics. She had no times under the standard, and she was ranked 65 in the world at the time with a PB of 4:07.69, whereas Hull was ranked 15, Hall was ranked 21 and Griffith was ranked 47. Australia had no choice but to send Griffith. Now you sound crazy. I agree with you Abby should have been selected this year, but to argue she should have been selected to the olympics the previous year really undermines your credibility when you are claiming conspiracy theories.
112 -
Flat Stanley wrote:
Australian trials happen much earlier than most other countries during their summer. Dumb to not allow national champions to chase the standard after the trials. This stinks pretty bad particularly since she was also left off the Olympic team.
Left off the olympic team? She didn't have the standard or world ranking. She simply did not qualify for the olympics.
101 -
Choices wrote:
Comments have been made about certain athletes finding the conversation around the selection putting pressure on their mental health.
Before signing a contract with Nic Bideau, you know there is a very high chance the relationship with him will end in confrontation and have a mentally stressful period. Almost everyone in the sport also agrees that he is not a positive personality and isn't promoting the sport as a whole, rather his athletes. With this all being public knowledge, I struggle to find sympathy for athletes who have voluntarily signed a contract with him, further promoting his oversized influence within athletics in Australia, and later ended up in a stressful situation. If you wanted to avoid that, you could have chosen a different manager or coach.
Joining MTC and complaining about controversy related to Nic Bideau is the Australian equivalent of joining BTC in 2022 and complaining about the spotlight.
111 -
Of course wrote:
Lopez Lomong fan club wrote:
2022 National Championships in the 1500m
Caldwell: 1
Griffith: 0
Hall: 0
Hull: 0
Of course Griffith, Hall and Hull are going to have ran 4-5sec faster if they have had multiple opportunities since (to Caldwell's none) to be pulled along in Diamond League meets. Hence, underlining Caldwell's unjust treatment as a qualifier and national champion.
I agree that had Abbey been properly informed by AA that she could have had better opportunities to race, but for the record Linden ran her SB at a minor meet in Madrid. She also ran 3:59 domestically last year. But the issue at hand isn't times, it's (mis)communication and conflicts of interest. (The policy might also be a poor one, but that's a different matter again.)
70 -
There is literally zero point of having a national championship if the national champion with a world standard isn't selected for the team. To be fair, Griffith has run 4 flat this season, but I think Caldwell should go given that she beat Griffith (and Hall) for the win at the Aussie champs. The women's 1500 in Australia is REALLY stacked right now though...Hull and Hall are both sub 4 and Griffith just ran 4:00.1. Luckily Caldwell is still only 21 and has plenty of more time to make teams. Shame she got left off but at least she can hopefully run at the CWGs!
210 -
Another giver of +1 wrote:
Raddison wrote:
In reading the Athletics Australia Selection Policy: 2022 World Athletics Championships there is a clear contradiction:
2. Team Selection Summary
(Table) Automatic Selection 1st at Trail and World Athletics Standard in qualifying period
5.5 Automatic Selection
5.5.3 Any athlete who wins the selection trial and has achieved the World Athletics standard prior to that trial and within the qualification period will be automatically selected.
(Bold text my emphasis)
Under Section 2 she is an automatic qualified, under Section 5.5.3 she is not.
I have a couple of comments on this document:
1) It is undated and there is no issue number or revision number. To me that is unacceptable. Any policy document or regulations should have an issue date and revision number where applicable. Otherwise how would anyone know they have got the official copy and not some unapproved draft version.
2) (OK this is a bit conspiracy theorist) Section 5.5.3 is the same as Section 2 but with the words "prior to that trial and" added in the middle. Does anyone have access to an earlier version? Were these words in that version? It does look like a quick revision was done to get the result they required but someone bungled in that they revised Section 5.5.3 but forgot about Section 2.
As an aside: In the Boeing 737MAX MCAS scandal Boeing originally included details of the MCAS system in the Operation Manual but were told to delete it by senior management as it would highlight the differences between the MAX and the legacy 737s. The scribes dutifully did this, but forgot to remove it from the list of abbreviations. This became part of the evidence that Boeing was covering up the significance of the MCAS system.
Australia might be better served with a clear cut US style selection policy, 1, 2 and 3 at the national championships (trial) are automatically selected to the team if they have the WA standard prior to the date required.
There is no such thing as auto selection to the Olympics.
There is a budget and athletes are traded between sports.
You can have a trials place, and an A qualifier, and be left off the team due to a headcount trade with the boxing team.
The USA swamps the championships with trials 'winners'
Australia doesn't, even though they send way more athletes than when I was running..
And many are slower than when I was running.
30 -
Section 5 is not inconsistent with Section 2, it's just more detailed. It'd be inconsistent if Section 2 said you could get the time after the trials.
51 -
Agree re: point 1. If it's accurate, the metadata for the PDF says it was created November 24, 2021.
50 -
Final note: for what it's worth, you have the Section 5 provision numbering wrong. It's section 5.5.2.
And also, if you are motivated and go to archive.org, you can find the version of this document that was stored on the same website as of October 15, 2021, and the language is the same ("prior to that trial").
60 -
It seems ridiculous that someone who has won the trials and has the standard does not go. Just makes a mockery out of the whole thing.
Arguably, achieving the standard after the trials is a better indication of performance than achieving the standard prior to the trials, especially if the qualification window is large.
90 -
Also I'd be interested to know when the policy was changed re the qualification period (has to be before trials vs can be after trials).
30 -
One athlete selected was carrying an injury and hadn't raced 1500 in over a year .Plus Abbey was in the rankings at 42. It's still up on road to Tokyo if you want to check it.
80 -
How many MTC athletes actually get giving a contract to sign? Most of them just take Nic on his word and then help perpetuate the false narrative that they are on big contracts. Most get free kit and 10k per year, which is then put back in to the rent Nic charges them for staying in Teddington.
161 -
The real story wrote:
One athlete selected was carrying an injury and hadn't raced 1500 in over a year .Plus Abbey was in the rankings at 42. It's still up on road to Tokyo if you want to check it.
The rankings on Jun 29 was what counted. Sure the rankings continued on the road to Tokyo page but that isnt relevant. You can see the relevant rankings here.
01 -
AussieAthleticsfan wrote:
Not simple when people in AA couldn’t even understand their own change of policy. Not simple at all.
They made the pick. And didn't ask for advice from letsrun.,
Seems they lost no sleep, so yeah pretty simple.
The selection fit their criteria. You guys are like Britney Griner whiners. The rules in different countries are... different.
220 -
That's actually the world rankings you're talking about, not The Road to Tokyo.
00 -
Yep, they made the pick after sharing incorrect information. It's not about being whiners as you put it, but about having a clear, fair selection policy and a fair level playing field for all.
80
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun