ksully330 wrote:
IAAF has a minimal "entry" standard. 'A' standard to enter more than 1 athlete, 'B' standard to enter 1 athlete. If they wanted every country to use only their "entry" standards then it would be mandated to all the NSO's.
This is a ridiculous statement. Obviously the IAAF can't force countries to bring everyone making A (or B in single-qualifier events). The funny thing is that most poor countries (those with an excuse for tight rationing) send all their qualifiers, whereas a few rich ones (e.g. Canada, Netherlands, although NOT the US) feel the need to add criteria on top of the IAAF's.
ksully330 wrote:
Subjective? I think you need to look up the definition.
No need to be rude. Especially when you're wrong:
ksully330 wrote:
There is no subjectivity in the selection criteria. You make the standards as laid out in the AC selection criteria and finish top 3 at trials you go...no discussion, no debate. That is about as far from subjective as can be.
OBVIOUSLY whether someone runs 20.49 or >20.49 in the 200 (for example) is not a subjective statement. What clearly IS subjective is the decision-making around what level above the A is "worth" sending. These decisions (e.g demanding 20.49 "A+" vs 20.55 A in the 200, requiring repeat Bs from A qualifiers, entirely ignoring the IAAF A/B in the marathon, adding a "rising star" category, etc etc) are not "objective" by any means.
To simplify: Judging whether someone has met the arbitrary criteria is quite objective (although AC still has trouble, eg with worlds). Setting the criteria is not.
ksully330 wrote:
You make it seem like our athletes are so feebly minded that the added addition of a 'B' standard is some huge onerous task for them and the fact is, it isn't.
Wow. You are either deliberately misrepresenting my argument, or have misunderstood it.
Sounds like we both hope none of the current A qualifiers get left home because of extra AC demands. 20 days!