Canadians: What is up with your crazy Olympic qualifying process?

Um, yeah wrote:

So again, other than two female marathoners, who specifically is being kept off the team?

You said there will be more, so please elaborate.

Um, since you ask...

From the convoluted bowels of the AC web presence:

and

Aaron Brown, 100, has A this year. Needs B.

Aaron Brown, 200, has A this year. Needs 2 Bs.

Sultana Frizell, Javelin, has “A+” this year! Needs 2 Bs. (???)

You're right. Why would we want to accept A qualifiers from May, and allow them to refocus and train properly? Much better to arbitrarily make them run Bs. Repeatedly, even.

Lots of meets for athletes to get the A in June, too, so logically we should assume this list will grow. Maybe we can aim to leave 5-10 of our A qualifiers home by the time trials come around?

B is not A+. He does not need A+ to qualify.

2 is not 1. He needs a single B. He does not need A+ to qualify.

Qualifying window for 2012 season started April 1. Unfortunately her March A+ does not count for any qualifying criteria. She does not need A+ to qualify.

You still have not identified any non-marathoner who is being kept off the team because they do not have an A+ standard.

Please re-read the criteria. No one who has an A standard in May has to run repeated Bs.

Other than Sultana who threw A+ in March and Aaron Brown in the 100 and 200, can you identify any other athletes who have achieved A standard in 2012 but need to hit another B?

If not, then why do you throw out numbers like 5 - 10?

For a sprinter who is capable of hitting A standard, is it really unfathomable to think they might be capable of picking up an easy B in one of the nearly dozen meets they'd run between April 1 and June 30? We're not talking 5000 or 10000 here.

Um, you are a joke. EARLY-season performances IN THE OLYMPIC YEAR don't count? Why not?

Other than the two marathoners, the sprinter (in two events) and the thrower who I have identified who have the A or even "A+" and still need to hit one or more Bs? No, I think those five events cover where we're at for now. Probably more to come, though, yes.

DOZEN meets? Are you joking? Do you follow the sport, or just apologize for poorly thought-out standards? This is the same cluelessness than leads to making a March "A+" qualifier re-qualify later in the season.

I don't know. It would make sense that they should be counted.

The marathoners have not met any Canadian standard. Their qualifying window is also closed. There is no repeat performance criteria for the marathon.

What we have now is one athlete, in two events, who needs a single B for each event and one athlete whose early season A+ doesn't count who needs two Bs.

That's two athletes. Not 5 - 10. Since no other athletes who currently have an A need to do anything more than finish top 3, for there to be 'probably more to come', there would have to be athletes who haven't even made a single B standard who will pop an A before the end of the Trials. Who do you have in mind?

Ok, you tell me. A sprinter in the NCAA does how many outdoor meets (or separate races) between April 1 and June 30? Since we're talking about the Olympics, we'll assume he's racing beyond NCAA champs through the Trials.

Um, so we've "ONLY" got:

One 100m A qualifier who now has to run a B.

One 200m A qualifier who now has to run a B.

One thrower who has made the "A+" THIS YEAR who now has to throw a B.

TWO marathoners who have made the A and won't be going.

Many of us happen to think it's a disgrace to keep even ONE athlete home who has an A and is top-3 at Trials. Maybe for you keeping these athletes from the games is something to be proud of. I guess we'll just have to disagree there.

You'd be making some sense if you said "we just want a small but excellent team, hence the A+." But you're not. You are defending the most ridiculous of criteria, the extra Bs demanded of our A qualifiers. And you're contradicting yourself: When it suits you, you say that demanding extra Bs from our A qualifiers is part of some enhanced criteria, which will enhance the medals/finals per team size ratio. But then you backpedal and suggest that that getting the extra B (or two) is a foregone conclusion for an A qualifier. Which, if true, means that demanding it will have no impact on the team performance.

Um, you can't have it both ways, guy. Make up your mind. If it's such a certainty that this year's A (and A+!) qualifiers in the 100, 200 and hammer will pick up those extra Bs in June, why are we wasting their time pretending this will make a better team?

So we've got two athletes. Should I use 'only'?

Personally, if an athlete has made A in 2012, then I'd think they should go (pending top 3). But I don't think it is particularly onerous to ask a thrower or a sprinter who has made an A to show repeat performance with a measly B. Unlike distance runners, they have many shots at standards in the qualifying period.

You keep repeating this about the marathoners as if it were true. For Canada (and an awful lot of other countries in the world), IAAF marathon standards are meaningless and they've gone with their own domestic ones.

Canadian marathon standard is comparable to B standard for other events so these athletes aren't being particularly hard done by.

You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between different frames of reference. In a perfect world, sure, why not send all legit qualifiers? If that were the policy, it would be fine with me.

But the policy that does exist also seems to be reasonable to me. Obviously it is a little tougher, but in the grand scheme of things, not overtly so. You obviously disagree and that's fair enough.

But if you are completely unwilling or unable to at least understand why the existing criteria could be seen as reasonable, then you are going to be a very frustrated individual. Repeating misunderstandings, mistruths or outright incorrect statements is not going further convincing most rational minds.

Let me know when you've found a country with a three line qualifications criteria.

If you're Canadian and love the sport email your MP

http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

It doesn't need to be War and Peace but a quick line indicating your displeasure with Athletics Canada should be sufficient. We go through this every Olympic Cycle and it needs to end.

Then send and email to the Minister of Sport.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/ProfileMP.aspx?Key=170709&Language=E

Telling him what a terrible job Athletics Canada are doing. Give him the benefit of the doubt maybe he thinks they're doing a great job, he needs to be told otherwise.

Nope. Try again. There are FOUR athletes this year who either have to make more standards (100, 200, hammer) or have been cut off from the opportunity (marathon). This is in FIVE events - which is actually the more relevant metric, obviously.

The decision to say "only" depends how many IAAF A qualifiers you think is acceptable to leave home. I say zero. You seem comfortable with at least two (the female marathoners).

You. Keep. On. Proving. My. Point.

If for an A qualifier it is "not onerous" or even a "measly" achievement to get the B once or twice between hitting A and trials, then WHY MAKE THEM DO IT? Either it is a "real" standard, expected to improve the team (fine motivation), or it is a "measly" exercise and the same people will make the team anyway (ridiculous). WHICH IS IT? You seem to be suggesting it will have no impact on team selection. So why have those criteria?

And again, Sultana has not only an IAAF A but an AC "A+" - from March 2012. And needs to get not one but two Bs. If this doesn't seem ridiculous to you, you must truly be a toady.

Sorry. TWO marathoners who have made the ---IAAF A--- won't be going. Thanks for clarifying that their being kept home is ENTIRELY due to arbitrary Athletics Canada "A+" standards. The fact that Ireland does the same doesn't really justify it. This isn't the 2:43:00 B-standard we're talking about. This is keeping home our two best female marathoners, who have the 2:37:00 ---IAAF A---.

"A little tougher"? Wait a second. I thought you just said that the added standards of repeatedly hitting Bs rather than just accepting an A were "measly"? Now you're saying it's "a little tougher"? You keep contradicting yourself and refusing to answer: What justification is there for making athletes with an A-standard in 2012, as accepted by the IAAF, pick up one or more Bs? (Saying it's easy doesn't answer the question, although it does show you to be clued-out on how throwers (for example) organize their training.)

Please just answer the last question. I get that you don't think our ---IAAF A-standard marathoners--- should go to the Olympics while many other countries are sending a B-standard holder. I disagree, but I see that's your view. But I am utterly fascinated at how you think this makes sense:

Brown: 10.18 (A) in May 2012. Now needs to run 10:24 to qualify.

Brown: 20:55 (A) in May 2012. Now needs to run 20.65 to qualify.

Frizell: 75.04 meters ("A+") in March 2012. Now needs to throw 69.00m to qualify.

I simply can't imagine the sort of clowns at AC who know this to be the case and think all is well with the criteria.

in the know? me too wrote:

Please just answer the last question. I get that you don't think our ---IAAF A-standard marathoners--- should go to the Olympics while many other countries are sending a B-standard holder. I disagree, but I see that's your view. But I am utterly fascinated at how you think this makes sense:

Brown: 10.18 (A) in May 2012. Now needs to run 10:24 to qualify.

Brown: 20:55 (A) in May 2012. Now needs to run 20.65 to qualify.

Frizell: 75.04 meters ("A+") in March 2012. Now needs to throw 69.00m to qualify.

Have a look around. Very few countries are sending B standard marathoners. Feel free to list a few though.

Frizell: as I said before, it doesn't make much sense to me to ignore a March A+. If she did it in April, then she'd have qualified (pending top 3). That would make sense.

Brown: basic repeat performance criteria. Simply wanting to ensure that the athlete is capable of performing consistently at the Olympic level (A or B standard). Only takes two such performances over several months.

Yes, you think that this is totally unfair. Others think that it is reasonable that the athlete demonstrate their single A wasn't a total fluke. Both are valid points in my view.

For the Nth time, we're talking about the IAAF A. (Pretty straw man, though) Many, many countries accept this. The list is probably over 100. For a MUCH shorter exercise, why don't you list those who make up their own "A+" standard? Here's one: Canada. I'm guessing it's less than 5% of IAAF nations, as an absolute maximum.

Too bad that's not what we do. Too bad we don't make sense. Good work, AC clowns. Make a 250-foot thrower from this year go back and do 220.

"Basic"? Please tell me in what other countries the IAAF A and top 3 isn't enough, and this "basic" demand is in place. I'm guessing it's less than 5% of IAAF nations, as an absolute maximum.

in the know? me too wrote:

For the Nth time, we're talking about the IAAF A. (Pretty straw man, though) Many, many countries accept this. The list is probably over 100. For a MUCH shorter exercise, why don't you list those who make up their own "A+" standard? Here's one: Canada. I'm guessing it's less than 5% of IAAF nations, as an absolute maximum.

...

"Basic"? Please tell me in what other countries the IAAF A and top 3 isn't enough, and this "basic" demand is in place. I'm guessing it's less than 5% of IAAF nations, as an absolute maximum.

As requested previously, please explicitly list these countries of which you speak.

UK? Nope. (Standards linked previously in thread.)

Australia? Nope. (Standards linked previously in thread.)

Netherlands? Given their guy who beat Wykes in Rotterdam didn't hit their standard, nope as well.

Give me three countries who do take IAAF B standard marathoners and I'll give some more who don't. Sure you want to stick with your 5% of IAAF nations guess?

Um, yeah wrote:

Give me three countries who do take IAAF B standard marathoners and I'll give some more who don't. Sure you want to stick with your 5% of IAAF nations guess?

Oh what the heck. Let's make it five, adding New Zealand

and France (http://www.athle.fr/asp.net/main.html/html.aspx?htmlid=3915 - 2:10 and 2:27).

What a joke. Funny thing about the countries you list is that they are actual legitimate forces in athletics relative to Canada's recent showings.

Face it: the UK is likely to get medals from their A+ athletes. We're not. For them, the decision is: big team with several medals or small team with several medals. For us, the decision is: modest-sized team with no medals, or small team with no medals. (OK, I'll give us one in the form chart - Armstrong, obviously. Really, that's all.)

We can't spare our A-standard earners, and can't afford to leave them at home. The UK (for example) can, hence their higher standard. For Canada to insist on a locally made-up "A+" is to misunderstand our current place in the sport, which (I hope) is rebuilding. How do you think our women's marathon will ever rebuild without a realistic potential "A+" qualifier walking the country in the past decade?

Countries accepting A, not demanding an arbitrary national "A+" as AC does:

Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, China, Cuba, Denmark.

Screw it. I don't have time to look up any more of these in alphabetical order. Although I see that Norway and Sweden are the same.

Fact: the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of countries accept an A.

I am going to predict you'll say that the Bahamas isn't a valid comparison, but frankly they have better medal chances than us and could rightfully raise their standards by your logic. And the most logical comparators, the Scandinavian countries, all take the A for what it's meant to be: an Olympic qualifier allowing a country to send more than one athlete in an event.

(Of course, the B is meant to allow countries to send one athlete in an event, but we know Athletics Canada will never pursue that. A lot of toadies need to be flown to meetings first-class, after all.)

Australia, not anymore. New Zealand? Not since the 1960s, maybe 1970s. Netherlands? 'actual legitimate force in athletics'? French women been kicking it in the marathon? (2:26, 2:33 and 2:36 for women, 2:10, 2:12 and 2:13 for men in 2011)

I thought we were focusing on the marathon. Where UK has a 2:10, a 2:14 and a 2:15 from 2011. Guess how many are eligible by their criteria?

Sure. Because it's not like we have any hurdlers who've done anything on the international level.

Fortunately not a single Canadian is being held back because they have not made an A+. (Ok, maybe I'm being pedantic with the women's marathon standard, but no one is calling it an A+ standard, except maybe you.)

As I did above, can you provide a link to your examples? Are you talking about the marathon or all events? If the latter, remember that Canada does not make anyone hit an A+ standard.

I thought we were talking about IAAF B? Are you referring to marathon or all events? Whatever, many countries (five more in addition to Canada already listed) more than your 5%. A good way to see for sure is to check out the Olympic entry lists when they come out. See how many countries actually sent IAAF B standard marathoners (or A standard folk who were well back of 2:11 or 2:30).

You do realize that several people beyond myself have pointed out that restricting the Olympic team has NOTHING to do with saving money on the Olympic team (whether to be able to send toadies instead or to fund those toadies back at home)? Olympic team is funded by the COC and they are rolling in the dough with their monopoly on all things Olympic in Canada.

Or are you deliberately ignoring that so that you can try and look righteous by decrying those elitist toadies you so detest?

It's SI innit?? :)

Reading through all of this, all I have to say it is just an absurd situation.

Canada is a big rich 1st world country. As a nation, it can easily afford to send as many athletes to the Olympics as meet the USOC/IAAF standards. The fact that it isn't doing this is pathetic, and would be very discouraging to me if I were a Canadian athlete.

"in the know" seems a lot like Ron Bowker - same cantankerous style, and never listens to anyone else (because he knows better) and will beat a thread to death. Oldster would be alternative choice.

Um yeah isn't SI. SI wants the women marathoners to go - local runner is one of them, so thinks (although a bit of a conflict of interest) the standard unfair this time around. May be right in terms of "rising star" that might qualify a least one otherwise.

captain and me wrote:

"in the know" seems a lot like Ron Bowker - same cantankerous style, and never listens to anyone else (because he knows better) and will beat a thread to death. Oldster would be alternative choice.

Um yeah isn't SI. SI wants the women marathoners to go - local runner is one of them, so thinks (although a bit of a conflict of interest) the standard unfair this time around. May be right in terms of "rising star" that might qualify a least one otherwise.

And you are pq.