Any news on Australian marathon teams for Paris?

Can’t you only post with 1 username per thread?

Just took a look at Lisa’s husband’s twitter account and it’s still there. Don’t know why this article says he deleted it.

What was incorrect about what I said? I'm highlighting they are using a 7s faster time in one decision but then disregarding 46s faster time in the other....

Should Izzy Batt Doyle be aggreived? She has a faster time than Jessica? The only time that is safe is Sinead Divers. She has the best time and best Olympic placing. Gen is 7 seconds faster than Lisa on a faster course. Lisa time is faster than Jessica. Izzy is also faster time than Jessica.

Possibly. The issue is that AA selectors have cherry picked data to support their (very tenuous) argument that Jess will perform better in Paris, (than Lisa, but also Izzy & Ellie). They have not considered all of the available data in reaching that conclusion and have reached well beyond the qualifying window, relying on data that is so old that it is beyond irrelevant. Meanwhile they have ignored data that weakens the case for selecting Jess (like Lisa’s 7-1 head to head results, multiple qualifying times etc).
As we have all stated on this thread, athletes have a right to expect a full, complete and objective assessment of all available data so as to arrive at the fairest possible outcome.
That has not happened and is why there was an appeal. The tribunal upheld the appeal and agreed that not all data had been considered and sent it back to selectors, to give them an opportunity to rectify their mistake … but they refused. And here we are.

I would be interested to know the order of fastest times if normalised pace was used. Given the differences in course elevation I wonder how much of an impact that would make. And if net time, rather than gun time was taken into account for Daegu. At the end of the day we are lucky as a country to have such incredible female distance runners to represent us and it is disappointing they can't all be selected.

Jess's Daegu pace was 3.25 but GAP pace 3.23...which puts it at 2:23 low. But of course any girl could put forward statistical quirks like this. A temperature calc, wind calc, calc because one athlete's shoes might be worse, calc because of COVID....

Fairness has gone out the window because the policy isn't watertight. This stuff was on the Australian nightly news last night. AA is sitting there saying nothing- these women are the absolute guns of Aussie athletics and there's a complete absence of leadership while we all watch the spectacle play out. I understand there's legal processes going on.....but there's plenty they could have done to hose things down, at least for the general public.

Spot on objectivity and consistency is lacking. If you are wanting to apply the fastest in the qualification lens to selection then it’s clear it should be Sinead, Gen and Lisa. If you are taking into account consistency of performance, championship performance etc. in the marathon then you probably should select Sinead, Lisa & Jess. But the team reported seems to be a blend that has been applied inconsistently. This is what leads to outrage….as it should

If they are going based on who gives them the best chance to place high, the answer is Jess, Lisa, Gen. Maybe even Izzy over Lisa.

Sinead will be 47, 2 years removed from her best time with not a lot of indication that she’s maintained that fitness.

Gen is new to the event and beat the others in her marathon. Jess is still in marathon prime with a commonwealth win. And Izzy is new, showed promise and as the Americans saw in 2020, sometimes a new athlete with talent hits a flyer. The upside is higher with those three than Lisa and Sinead.

The fairest team is probably straight by time. But even that’s a bit nebulous as marathon courses and conditions differ enough that the time differential between them is negligible.

They should have made the Sydney marathon a selection race.

Based on their ability to place well in this race I would go:

Lisa > Jess > Izzi > Gen

The rationale for placing Izzy ahead of Gen is her results on the track compared to Gen’s post marathon. Sinead should be ranked using her half marathon result from the weekend.

How do you know this Whybother? AA haven't formally announced anything and I am assuming the selection process would be strictly confidential. We can't really speculate until we have the facts. If Jess has been chosen, given everything that has played out and in the spirit of Olympics (which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play) AA have in hindsight made the right call it seems.

That makes no sense. Sinead was top 10 in last olympics. A proven top 10 Olympian. Valencia was there to be run in qualifying period in 2022 and 2023, Gen and Izzy ran it and got no where near 2:21.

Sinead has run the national record within the qualifying period. Gen and Izzy ran the same course within that time and have not come near the record set by sinead. Sinead is a proven top 10 Olympian. I don’t see why people are dismissing it and questioning why she not not be in the team.

People in here acting like Diver has no good recent results... But her Sydney marathon time in the heat is still a better performance than all those others perfect condition Valencia and Osaka times.

How do you know this Whybother? AA haven't formally announced anything and I am assuming the selection process would be strictly confidential. We can't really speculate until we have the facts. If Jess has been chosen, given everything that has played out and in the spirit of Olympics (which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play) AA have in hindsight made the right call it seems.

This is such a bad take not sure why you felt the need to post it twice….

It's been reported Lisa has now been forced to accept the decision because fighting it meant she would be looking at a $50k legal bill.
Sally Pearson has now put her 2 cents into the conversation.
https://www.news.com.au/sport/olympics/im-shocked-sally-pearson-drops-paris-olympics-bombshell/news-story/1b2509323ba9a37df52b0bc17508e6cc
I think AA has created this mess by having dumb selection policies. It's all on them

STATEMENT FROM LISA WEIGHTMAN
Despite winning an appeal
at the National Sports Tribunal (the NST) against my non-nomination for
the women’s marathon team, the NST returned the nomination decision to
AA for re-determination. The NST was critical of AA’s handling of this
nomination decision including its failure to properly understand or
apply its own nomination criteria.
Notwithstanding the NST’s
recommendation for AA to convene a new and independent selection
committee to re-determine the matter (i.e. to avoid the risk of
potential bias), AA’s original selection committee simply re-affirmed
its original decision.
I have received legal advice that I have a
sound basis to appeal to the Court of Arbitration of Sport (the only
avenue available to me).
However, success in that forum would be
expensive and uncertain and still likely result in the matter being
returned to AA for re-determination.
I am of course disappointed
by the decision given that I fought hard and fair to gain my
qualification time – the third fastest of all Australian women during
the qualification period. However, what I am most disappointed about is
AA’s own internal systems and procedures that have allowed this outcome
and which, unless corrected, will negatively impact future Australian
athletes and their legitimate claims to represent Australia.

^ You didn't include the entire statement:

STATEMENT FROM LISA WEIGHTMAN

Despite winning an appeal at the National Sports Tribunal (the NST) against my non-nomination for the women’s marathon team, the NST returned the nomination decision to AA for re-determination. The NST was critical of AA’s handling of this nomination decision including its failure to properly understand or apply its own nomination criteria.

Notwithstanding the NST’s recommendation for AA to convene a new and independent selection committee to re-determine the matter (i.e. to avoid the risk of potential bias), AA’s original selection committee simply re-affirmed its original decision.

I have received legal advice that I have a sound basis to appeal to the Court of Arbitration of Sport (the only avenue available to me).

However, success in that forum would be expensive and uncertain and still likely result in the matter being returned to AA for re-determination.

I am of course disappointed by the decision given that I fought hard and fair to gain my qualification time – the third fastest of all Australian women during the qualification period. However, what I am most disappointed about is AA’s own internal systems and procedures that have allowed this outcome and which, unless corrected, will negatively impact future Australian athletes and their legitimate claims to represent Australia.

Much of the dispute before the NST involved an interpretation of AA’s own nomination criteria for the marathon. The nomination criteria was so unclear and ambiguous that the NST observed that AA did not even properly understand how to interpret or apply it.
It was not disputed that I achieved the qualifying criteria for nomination. AA elected not to nominate me to the Australian Olympic Committee despite:

• Earning a quota place (Top three fastest Australians in the qualification period);
• Obtaining three qualifiers and running under the standard five times from July 2022 to Feb 2024 (no nominated athlete had more than 1 in that period - man or woman), including one race in Valencia where I ran with covid;
• Having a 7-1 head-to-head record (including 3-1 in the marathon) against the fifth ranked athlete who was nominated in place of me; and
• Being the only Australian athlete to podium finish in an international marathon (23 seconds from 1st place) and having beaten the highest ranked athlete with a quota place (12th - Helen Bekele) on the road to Paris qualification ranking list.

The selection committee was effectively able to disregard the above facts and instead give greater weight to a speculative belief that the three nominated athletes had superior claims to finishing top eight in Paris. AA failed to provide its reasons for forming this belief until the actual appeal to the NST and, even then, failed to provide its reasons in the correct evidentiary form. The NST was critical of AA’s conduct and afforded it an opportunity to present its evidence in the correct written form: AA failed to do so.

It gets worse. AA’s Head of Integrity sent AA’s written submissions to the NST which included information supporting AA’s reasons for my non-nomination. However, this information was incorrect and, ironically, would have supported my claims for nomination. Upon realising his error the Head of Integrity sent an updated and corrected version of AA’s submissions to the NST outside of the agreed deadline, without disclosing details of the changes.

The NST was again critical of AA’s conduct and noted that the revised submissions further indicated AA’s “uncertainty or lack of clarity in respect of (its) real reasons” for not nominating me.

As noted, the NST upheld my appeal and referred the decision back to AA with a recommendation that a newly convened Selection Committee should make a fresh nomination decision taking into account all of the submissions made by the parties and that upon accepting this responsibility that it “must observe the principles of natural justice”.
AA doubled down in its refusal of my nomination to the AOC.

Noting the NST’s findings we asked AA to convene a new Selection Committee for the purpose of independently re-determining the non-nomination decision. The original Selection Committee rejected the request and any suggestion of bias. To the best of my knowledge, the AA Board was not alerted to this obvious break down in governance.

Subject to the futility of pursuing an appeal to the Court of Arbitration of Sport, AA would appear to have ended my dream of becoming the first female athlete to compete in the marathon at five consecutive Olympics and first Australian athlete to compete in five Olympics in Track and Field, altering the course of Australian Women’s Sporting History.