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/...
If Sinead was to run a marathon today in the shape she’s currently in she wouldn’t qualify for the Olympics.
You don't know that. By that logic the same could be said of Robinson. Reece Edwards is 5 weeks out from Gold coast mara looking at setting a big pb and he ran 1:09:41!
It was a solid hit out for the win 10 weeks out from the main event and that's all she would have wanted from it.
Seems like it was cold on course at Launnie today, but not windy. So 72 for Sinead is fairly average. She ran 71 low in 2022. But I guess this doesn't matter? She's not injured so they're greenlit to announce on Monday? To be fair, the stress of the build-up for all of them has to be a factor here.
By any rationale consideration of past performance, Australia got this decision wrong.
However, I think folks are kind of missing the point of Australia's Sh&^%t show of a decision process. I don't think Australia cares about being fair. The cynical person would say most of the dodgy selections are due to conflicts of interest. I don't necessarily disagree. Australia have left deserving athletes home over ones with ties to those in power quite frequently.
However, there is some rationale for selecitng Stenson if you look at it through a different angle. If Australia's interest is to maximise their chance at winning a medal, perhaps they have a case for Stenson.
You nailed it with your analysis. They picked the women with more upside potential than the one who probably deserves more (but Stenson's pregnancy also makes the 'deserves' it more a little dicey).
I'd like to know if their published documents talk anything about what they are supposed to do, but I do agree that Stenson has more upside (although Covid-19 diagnosis for Weightman for Valencia makes it interesting). I'd also like to know what Australia's laws say about age discrimination. I mean a huge part of my analysis is Weightman is 45 and Stenson is 36 because I would 100% plead guilty to age discrimination when deciding who has more potential.
PS. Should picking on potential apply here? Let's be honest. None of these women are medalling. They aren't remotely close to a Molly Seidel situation. Seidel had just started running long distance and pbs of 15:15/68:29 heading into Tokyo. Stenson has run 16 marathons and has pbs of 15:52/70::59
Imagine the uproar if the US based their Olympic team members based on "potential." "Potential" for most athletes, is just another way of saying they're not ready now.
For as good as Australia is in long distance triathlon and the shorter distance events (1,500 and 5,000), they really suck at the marathon. What is the highest placing Australian runner in the Olympic marathon? It's not good...
Just looking back, these are their highest finishes for men:
The selection process for the Australian female marathon team has recently come under intense scrutiny, sparking widespread controversy and frustration among athletes and fans alike. The primary contention revolves around the perceived lack of transparency and fairness in the criteria used to choose the runners, leading to accusations of bias and favoritism. Many top-performing athletes who met or exceeded qualifying standards were unexpectedly left off the team, fueling further discontent. This debacle has not only cast a shadow over the integrity of the selection process but also raised broader concerns about the governance and management of athletics in Australia, calling for an urgent review to restore trust and ensure future selections are conducted with utmost fairness and clarity.
You realise both Sinead and Brett are at the start of a marathon block (hence had a full week of training and didn't taper) and were simply just running to win.
Classy runs by the pair, both finishing close to the course records.
Sinead was not there to prove fitness, she's already been selected and rightly so. She has all the runs on the board and are we forgetting she finished top 10 at Tokyo!?
Get A grip you lot. The comments in this forum are laughable. With Gen and Jess making up the other two spots, Australia actually has a decent marathon team for once.
If Sinead was to run a marathon today in the shape she’s currently in she wouldn’t qualify for the Olympics.
You don't know that. By that logic the same could be said of Robinson. Reece Edwards is 5 weeks out from Gold coast mara looking at setting a big pb and he ran 1:09:41!
It was a solid hit out for the win 10 weeks out from the main event and that's all she would have wanted from it.
Ok, but don't put Reece Edwards in the same sentence as Olympians, he's a glorified fun runner thanks to a podcast.
Many top-performing athletes who met or exceeded qualifying standards were unexpectedly left off the team, fueling further discontent.
Pity you lose credibility here. 3 eligible were left off, 3 were selected, and only 1 was unexpected, except to the cynical stalwarts of the sport who predicted it after Daegu.
Pity you lose credibility here. 3 eligible were left off, 3 were selected, and only 1 was unexpected, except to the cynical stalwarts of the sport who predicted it after Daegu.
Izzy Batt running on pure ANGER at being left out of the conversation re the ladies marathon selection for Aus. She loses a couple of kg and she will be well under 2.20 in the 'thon (look at Lisa W & Sinead D for comparison - they look like they eat nothing but celery sticks).
