Eric Gillis left off Canadian Olympic Team

Pete,

Things don't seem to have changed much up there since I ran in the 1960 and 1964 Canadian Trials. The system worked then and I assume that it works now, eh. Also, if I do not know who the poster is, I assume what has been posted has little value.

Ma Kettle wrote: Do they miss me at TNFN, Pete? (Hero.))

Not sure "they" miss you, but I think it's a bit of a quieter, and less interesting, place without someone stirring things up a bit.

Pete wrote:

Ma Kettle wrote: Do they miss me at TNFN, Pete? (Hero.))

Not sure "they" miss you, but I think it's a bit of a quieter, and less interesting, place without someone stirring things up a bit.

Oh COME ON! Be nice. Jees....that not all I did there.

Maye I over-reacted and read you wrong, Pete???

Anyway....that was a good discourse there about Gillis, and the stuff coming out of AC supports what you guys debated.

A call to action wrote:

To the Brojos and the Letsrun.com community,

Once again it is time to mobilize the forces of the LRC community to right a wrong in the athletics world.

Eric Gillis has jumped through all the hoops Athletics Canada has asked of him (and there were a lot) only to have his ticket to Beijing ripped from his hand and set ablaze.

Eric is one of the most promising young runners in Canada and will benefit tremendously from this experience in Beijing.

You need to voice your opposition in any way you can and can start by flooding Athletics Canada with your disapproval.

Well done, rojos and letsrun community!

LOL!

FAST TALKERS wrote:

wow, has this strand turned into total fack-fest.

Not only are the Guelph guys cocky as Mo Greene, I say Sully for sure doesn't make the final, he doesn't have the tools anymore, and hasn't really been in contention for over a decade...but WTF. The dude keeps doing what he has to, and has made damn good career out of staying just fit enough to be near the top. And he's a damn good guy to boot.

Long Live Sully--I Say London 2012!

I would argue 5th in the Olympics was "In Contention". I believe that took place in 2000.

OK, fair enough the old dog did have a great race in Sydney...2000 was 8 years ago, but I wouldn't say he was ever in medal contention. Medhi Baala went for it and had a good shot for a medal finishing fourth. Sully kicked for 5th, never really a medal threat. Watch it here dude:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUH0Hp_sv0w

Anyway, I hope Sully proves me wrong in 6 weeks and makes the final. And that he makes it to 20 years straight of running sub 3:40.

FAST TALKERS wrote:

OK, fair enough the old dog did have a great race in Sydney...2000 was 8 years ago, but I wouldn't say he was ever in medal contention. Medhi Baala went for it and had a good shot for a medal finishing fourth. Sully kicked for 5th, never really a medal threat. Watch it here dude:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUH0Hp_sv0w

Anyway, I hope Sully proves me wrong in 6 weeks and makes the final. And that he makes it to 20 years straight of running sub 3:40.

What exactly IS your focking point? Sully ran 3:31 that year, and was very respectable 5th in that stupid time trial of a race. And I say again, he ran 3:35 this year, and has shown in the last 2-3 years that even his PRs can be challenged.

Who should go to the Olympics in your little world?

Ma Kettle wrote: Maye I over-reacted and read you wrong, Pete???

Hard to say. I meant my comment in a friendly way. I've always enjoyed your contributions, whether or not I've agreed with them. I think maybe you tend to read too much into comments in discussions on the internet, and maybe overreact a little sometimes. Maybe if you count to 100 before responding to any particular post....

I'm hoping to start a discussion about periodization and peaking that will probably see me as an odd man out, as usual. You might want to join in and help me out....? Wait a couple of days.

Pete wrote:

Hard to say. I meant my comment in a friendly way. I've always enjoyed your contributions, whether or not I've agreed with them. I think maybe you tend to read too much into comments in discussions on the internet, and maybe overreact a little sometimes. Maybe if you count to 100 before responding to any particular post....

I'm hoping to start a discussion about periodization and peaking that will probably see me as an odd man out, as usual. You might want to join in and help me out....? Wait a couple of days.

Well, maye yer right, as evidenced by my above reaction. One day, at TnFN, I composed a very nasty response to caco, who was being, well, caco.... Then, at the last minute....I did the right thing and deleted my account, instead of hitting the send button. ut I still lurk, and it's a great place, even without all the OFSSAisms, hahaha....

Anyway, sorry for the sidebar. GO CANADA!

And Pete, congrats on your stellar running this year. Wow!

Damn...typos there. YET I still lurk, and even WITH the OFSSAisms.

turku wrote:

Of course, I also believe we should be sending 3 marathoners men and 3 marathoners women to all the International events, with IAAF standard of course.

I totally agree. To your point aobut the business leaders and their opinions; bang on; every single business-non-runner person that my friends and I told about the situation in 2004 with Nicole Stephenson making the Olympic standard 3 times (two other runners made it at least once as well) and not sent was appalled.

Ma Kettle wrote:

Do they miss me at TNFN, Pete? (Hero.)

Got self esteem issues? Do they miss me? Please tell me they miss me. Please? I so much need to feel missed and wanted. WTF!

Good morning Ego Much. (I know that you know that I know etc etc...) They don't have senses of humour where you live, do they? Or tongues in cheeks?

I love the "highlighting of grey area" language in the press release. Perhaps those grey area will quickly go away?

Ma Kettle wrote:Perhaps those grey area will quickly go away?

Possibly. But one potentially undesireable outcome would be that in getting rid of the "grey," they also need to further tighten the whole "rising star" idea, maybe putting it further out of reach. I like our hard standards (unlike most other Canadian distance runners, I support AC's harder than IAAF standards at selected distances), but I also like this opportunity for athletes "on the cusp" to make it without quite meeting standards, and wouldn't like to see this door close.

..... just to add to the previous post....

I can see how it would be extremely difficult to create a selection process for "rising stars" that is entirely objective and yet also consistently hard/fair across all of the T&F disciplines. In eliminating any subjectivity (if this happens), additional (or tighter) objective criteria may well make it virtually impossible to qualify.

Maybe I'm doing the glass half empty thing, I don't know. I guess we will wait and see...

Pete wrote:

I like our hard standards (unlike most other Canadian distance runners, I support AC's harder than IAAF standards at selected distances),

...in before the wave! :)

Well good for u Pete I think we can all sleep tight tonight knowing that U support the ac tougher than iaaf standards. We were all wondering where u stood on that issue. Thanks.

Take a valium, did I once suggest Sully shouldn't go? I said he won't be a factor in the medals, plain and simple.

I see you read about as well as you write.