Standards are not everything. Most coaches know that its not the times you've run but the calibre of races you've been in, the competition you have faced and how an athlete has faired against such competition. With that, few have Sheila's track record (no pun intended) over the last 2 years. She's a proven 'winner'! That's why she deserves to go to the Olympics. She comes up big in big races.
Right so it happened in 2004. It does happen in other countries. The point is that the international standards would allow her to go with a b- AC has chosen not to.
crtc wrote:
Standards are not everything. Most coaches know that its not the times you've run but the calibre of races you've been in, the competition you have faced and how an athlete has faired against such competition. With that, few have Sheila's track record (no pun intended) over the last 2 years. She's a proven 'winner'! That's why she deserves to go to the Olympics. She comes up big in big races.
But Elmore won the nationals.
AC hasn't "chosen to" - they are not picking on her. ALL rising stars have to have 2 B's, Sheila doesn't (doing so over two events, 1+1, doesn't count).
There was no rising star for the Marathon either (that's another thread) so no women are going for that event either, and that's just as egregious.
As said earlier - don't blame AC, her coach outlined her racing program and made poor choices in trying to ensure that her athlete got the required criteria accomplished BEFORE the trials (everyone knew that getting Standard was next to impossible in Calgary for the 5000m, with not much competition as well, although Megan Wright being there might have helped). If making the Olympics was that important for this year, then she should have red-shirted the outdoor season, OR excluded unnecessary events (like Penn Relays) in order to get the A standard before NCAA's, or at least sought a better opportunity for a second B.
The choice wasn't all that easy, as it was possible that 3 women (Hilary, Nicole and Malindi) might get A standard in the 1500m, and therefore there wouldn't be an eligilble rising star for that event, and also that there were fewer good opportunities for the 5000m. They rolled the dice hoping that the NCAA 5000m might suffice (she ran poorly at NCAA anyway), it didn't. She (as stated earlier in the thread) might have gone to Payton Jordan instead of Penn Relays (others got A there, and she didn't even need that), and that is a coach's decision not AC's.
noted know it all. will learn how to make better choices
Trollist wrote:
An American wrote:You are arguing about the wrong year. In 2004 Carrie Tollefson went to Athens as the Trials winner and left A qualifiers at home.
Correct.
Actually, that's not quite right. Tollefson won the trials but no one in the top 3 (Tollefson, Toomey, and Rudolph) had the A or the B at the time.
Suzy Favor Hamilton had the A standard, but didn't run in the final, so she obviously finished behind Tollefson. In 2004 you could chase the standard, which Tollefson did, and after running several hard races in Europe finally made the B standard. Neither Toomey nor Rudolph ever got the A, so no one besides SFH ended up with the A. Because Tollefson won the trials, she therefore bumped SFH (since SFH wasn't in the top 3) and went to the Olympics with the B standard as the sole American women's 1500 runner. If anyone else in the top 3 had gotten the A, then that person, plus SFH, would have bumped Tollefson. (It was actually even more complicated because Marla Runyon was originally in the mix until she decided to go only in the 5000.)
http://www.letsrun.com/2004/tollefsonb.phphttp://www.letsrun.com/2004/tollefsonb.phpSHEILAS ON THE TEAM!
Athletics canada just announced (hour ago) on their twitter that their team will be growing.
Say they are about to make an announcement.
@athleticscanada
2012 Olympic Games nominees
...
Shelia Reid
1500m
Newmarket, ON
Hugh Cameron/ Gina Procaccio
So don't say that AC is entirely inflexible (see Gillis in 2008), but athletes not qualifying under normal cirmcumstances (appropriate standard by trials deadline) still got in on appeal - she wasn't the only one as others (sprinters) won a place on the team on appeal as well, so it's not because of all the ballyhoo of recent threads.
Given the 1500m mess in 2004 (US trials as above), the Canadian system (Priscilla and Perdita excepted, but that's what happens when 6 qualify as A candidates - as per US system) has worked this year with people running fast (qualifiers in most events) and rising stars also being selected.
Congratulations Sheila!!
5k though. Must be a missprint there as their statement said 5000
Villanova running article...
NovaRunn3r wrote:
5k though. Must be a missprint there as their statement said 5000
What missprint? She's named in the 5000.
The IAAF won't let her go in the 1500 since she doesn't have A standard and Canada already has 2 in that event.
AC is so weird. At least they made the right desicion
Would've been nice if AC could've told all the athletes at the start of the year that the standards wouldn't have been adhered to...
Good for Reid and AC. Reid deserves it. Even in the worst case scenario and she is a total bust in London, it's a wise chocie by AC because she will be that much better in the future from having the experience.
This must make the 2 A standard marathon girls sick.
HobieLover wrote:
This must make the 2 A standard marathon girls sick.
Did they appeal also?
Seriously?????? Are you joking?????? Enough of the outrageously ignorant comments about Canada. It's a border that separates our two countries, not a time line. Canada is NOT a "developing country" (we're on par with or exceed the U.S. in social, economic, political, financial, etc. levels and to imply otherwise is beyond stupidity!). Canada "suffered under British colonialism"???? The U.S. knows little to nothing about the history of other countries and, Canada is still a proud member of the British Commonwealth. FYI, more than two billion people in 54 countries across six continents are citizens of the British Commonwealth .... get your facts straight. Better yet, come to Canada where our Educational system exceeds the U.S. and you can learn something .... Canadian students repeatedly rank higher in performance in all three tested and documented fields of Reading, Science and Mathematical Literacy. Where are these supposed "beggars in the teaming slums of Canada" who are "starving"? FYI, Canada doesn't have what is generally considered to be "slums" and, the U.S. exceeds Canada in poorer neighbourhoods and poverty. As for our "limited resources to provide clean drinking water, improve basic literacy, teach modern hygiene and sanitation, etc.", 1) we have an abundance of resources, 2) we have had (for over 100 years) clean drinking water, higher literacy ranking than the U.S. (check your facts: http://www.geographic.org/country_ranks/educational_score_performance_country_ranks_2009_oecd.html) and, 3) have modern hygiene & sanitation (how obtuse are you). While your comment doesn't typify the mentality of all Americans, it is alarming to read such erroneous comments from any American who clearly has never bothered to educate themselves on the world beyond their own borders, let alone their progressive and currently more financially and economically sound neighbour (FYI, the Cdn. spelling) to the north. Enough said! :-(
Look buddy, I'm trying to DEFEND Canada. All I'm saying is that it's easy for a rich country like the US to send everyone who qualifies to the Olympics, but for a 3rd world country they have different priorities - AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
I think it's cool that Canada came up with the money to send Sheila Reid, but I'm just saying that everyone should understand why Canada couldn't afford to send everyone. Money doesn't grow on maple trees, eh?!?!
All of those other things sound super, and Canada should be proud of all of the progress it has made. Good for you!
Um he was being sarcastic and the fact that you can't decipher that speaks volumes in measuring your intelligence as well as the Canada as a whole.
fgurt wrote:
Um he was being sarcastic and the fact that you can't decipher that speaks volumes in measuring your intelligence as well as the Canada as a whole.
This is not a complete sentence. This speaks volumes of America and the education system.