Eric Gillis left off Canadian Olympic Team

BC GM wrote:

I agree with you it seems like Ma Kettle reacts first then a long long time later probably thinks. unfortunatley people like this thrive on these boards where they can hide behind a fake name and say things about and 2 people they would never have the b alls to say in person, and ma kettle is guilty of all this. The fact is Sulley will not be a factor or make the final.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

And BC GM, you are?

BC GM wrote:

I agree with you it seems like Ma Kettle reacts first then a long long time later probably thinks. unfortunatley people like this thrive on these boards where they can hide behind a fake name and say things about and 2 people they would never have the b alls to say in person, and ma kettle is guilty of all this. The fact is Sulley will not be a factor or make the final.

I didn't do any Sully or Goulet bashing.

Dick!

No you just type on here to stroke your ego and get off on your own key strokes, you are a inspiration to us all TURD.

It would be a perfect world if Canada had the same system as the US (Top 3 with A standard go, and if there are no A standards, take the B), but that's not how things are, or will be soon.

Total Turd wrote:

No you just type on here to stroke your ego and get off on your own key strokes, you are a inspiration to us all TURD.

Be quiet, Total Turd! :)

asdfasdfasdfasdf wrote:

It would be a perfect world if Canada had the same system as the US (Top 3 with A standard go, and if there are no A standards, take the B), but that's not how things are, or will be soon.

I remember a time when it was deemed right that selectors SELECTED! Then GB moved to a more "absolute" method, and all shit broke loose....and now it seems that the absolute method is what we all want.

But here we are, with Webb effing up, and maybe he'll run 3:30 soon.

Coe 84 comes to mind also.

Coe 88 definitely comes to mind. Heaven forbid that you get a cold at the Trials.

RU suggesting that we let people in who have bad races at the trials or get a cold or get sick. Webb sucked it up and he has no one to blame but himself. If a person can not perform on the day tuff s hit. You cant have it both ways, the trials are there for a reason, if your favorites don't make it through you can't cry about it after the fact and put them in.

Really wrote:

RU suggesting that we let people in who have bad races at the trials or get a cold or get sick. Webb sucked it up and he has no one to blame but himself. If a person can not perform on the day tuff s hit. You cant have it both ways, the trials are there for a reason, if your favorites don't make it through you can't cry about it after the fact and put them in.

The older folks at letsrun will remember a time when selectors selected! What if Webb runs 3:33 in Paris, still 1-2 weeks shy of the IAAF deadline? Are you happy about the prospects of all 3 USA 1500m guys?

My point is....how do you BEST select an Olympic team? Do you base it purely on how things went on one particular day 6 weeks before?

Ma Kettle wrote:

The older folks at letsrun will remember a time when selectors selected!

Just what is it you are trying to suggest with this line? For the bulk of the team, they qualified automatically, but with the 'Rising Stars' (including Gillis), there was a subjective selection policy. I thought you (and most others) were against this concept of selectors (which, by definition, means they could foreseably NOT select someone).

My point is....how do you BEST select an Olympic team? Do you base it purely on how things went on one particular day 6 weeks before?

And your alternative is...? Do you really want your top athletes scrambling in the last two-three weeks before the IAAF entry deadline trying to one-up each other?

By your suggested example of Webb running 3:33 and therefore presumably being able to bump Lomong off, what happens if a few days later that he goes and runs 3:32? Does Lomong get back on the team and Manzano get ditched? Then a week later Manzano pops a 3:31, just ahead of Webb running 3:32. Does Lagat now get booted off the team or can he still trump Webb or Lomong?

Then the Olympics come and your guys are totally wasted because they each did 4 races in two weeks trying to squeeze out another half second to keep themselves in the top three and end up not being able to break 3:40 in Beijing. Is that the BEST say to select your Olympic team?

Oh ouch, Dude. I have either expressed myself very poorly, or you haven't read me well. (Trolls enter now.)

The team should be selected a few weeks in advance of course. Your scenario makes little sense. I didn't say that.

Selectors should select! Is it fair that Coe didn't go in 88, because he had a cold at the trials, and GB decided that year would become "first 2 past the post"?

ONE race is what defines Olympic selection!? It's just wrong.

If Milne tripped on the railings at 1450m during the trials...."sorry, try again in 2012"?

Whatsisface who famously no-heighted a few Olympic trials ago in the decathlon? Dude should have gone!

We must base it on what said persons have done over a long period...the previous couple of years.

Asterix wrote:

And your alternative is...? Do you really want your top athletes scrambling in the last two-three weeks before the IAAF entry deadline trying to one-up each other?

The alternative is precisely the kind of system that GB had in the past (and I believe they still have something like this). I you have A standard and finish top 2 at the Trials, you're on the team. So for "your top athletes," their fate is in their own hands, and they can stamp their ticket well in advance.

But the third spot remains discretionary, and is only allocated before the final deadline. This provides some flexibility for Dan O'Brien-like situations. If the third finisher at Trials also has A standard, then there's a pretty heavy presumption that they'll be named to the team, but there's some flexibility if a favourite trips ors something -- or if one of the contenders is hurt at Trials, they can be given an extra few weeks to demonstrate fitness.

Not saying that's the best solution, but it's certainly one that has been widely applied around the world.

No solution will ever be perfect. And, the way the trials is these days, hey, it creates a ton of drama and interest!

I think the winner of the trials should go! PERIOD! Then, the next 2 are "up for debate".

“The National Team Committee has a high level of confidence in Eric’s program and coaching...led us to rule in favour of the athlete”.

Clearly this statement from Goulet reflects that AC bases decisions on who you know, not what you've run.

Well then just what did you mean by your line:

"What if Webb runs 3:33 in Paris, still 1-2 weeks shy of the IAAF deadline? "

Isn't this suggesting that someone can be added and someone can be bumped right up to near the deadline? If not, then what difference does it make if Webb runs 3:33 or 3:23?

By and large, Canada does not have 'selections'. The vast majority of athletes qualified with purely objective criteria and were nominated by AC to the COC for team membership.

The only 'selections' were with respect to 'Rising Stars' and this very thread is evidence that anything subjective is not going to be an easy answer or likely to satisfy many people.

The alternative would be to either make 'Rising Stars' automatic qualifiers (which the COC would very likely not agree to) or get rid of them all together and leave everything as objective qualifications, just like most people are advocating for.

Maybe they should have re-run the Atlanta 1500 since El-G was heavily favoured to win but tripped at the bell.

Life isn't fair. The unexpected does happen and often at the Olympics, one person's misfortune is another's chance to shine. Maybe Billy Mills 10,000 gold should be taken away since it is not fair the odds-on favourite didn't win.

But then, if we are re-writing history (or at least certain races), then why bother having any kind of Trials or even the Olympics themselves? If it is not fair that a favourite didn't win or qualify, then let's avoid that possibility and mail out medals based on PBs. That'll be fair to the deserving competitors even if it screws us fans out of exciting championship racing.

You want to tell Lomong that despite kicking butt and taking third at the US Trials that he'll be staying home because Webb was the best in the world in 2007 and obviously it would be unfair for him not to be at the Olympics?

It's not fun, but s**t happens. That's why they run the race! They don't qualify athletes out of the heats or semis who 'deserve' to be in the final but screwed up their earlier races, so what is the difference?

Whatsisface being Dan O'Brian? You want to tell Rob Muzzio that he's staying home since it is only fair that Dan go to Barcelona? Would your answer change if you knew that Muzzio ended up placing 5th at the Olympics? One person's misfortune is another's fortune.

So, lets just mail out the Olympic medals now and be fair to those who have performed over the previous couple of years. What's the difference between that solution and ignoring performance at qualifying trials?

you said it, I don;t think ma kettle is playing with a full deck, only a complete moron would want to add this type of subjective team selection criteria into the trials. The usa are happy with how they pick their team because it works and it is the only right way to pick a team. The way ma kettle flip flops from picking people on their performances to picking people because they have run well in the past but had a bad race just shows one part of why AC can't get their s hit together and come up with a proper selection criteria.

I personally talked with a GB world cross tea,selector who said that there was a certain person he would always pick for the team because he felt he could always count on a strong performance out of him, even though this person may not have run a cross race that year or ran their trials. yes it is who u know not how you run.

Just ask Steve Jones about that. how many teams did he get left off because he was a welsh man, he could run fast times but he wasn't coached by the selectors so was left home. The guy had to set world records before these dough heads looked up and said oh I guess we have to put this guy on the team now.

yu have no idea how corupt AC and the COC is. They give points depending on who your coach is and who you train with in your group. times are not what gets you funding. If there is a person who meets the funding standard but trains alone and self coaches that person gets less points than some one in the same event, who is slower but has a certain coach and trains with other people who have recieved funding. and could not recieve funding because of this. Talk about total bull s hit. The ac system is set in place to f uck the athlete, there is always a side rule that lets AC make a subjective decision so they can see who the athlete in question is and look around the commitee and decide do we like this person, does he fit into what we think an athlete should do and how they should train, does he fit our model of athlete, no, then lets vote him off the team.

you think this is not true, you would be disgusted at what goes on with in AC.

well i think it is afe to say ma kettle that you are a complete moron

I KNOW!!!