dumb ass wrote:
well i think it is afe to say ma kettle that you are a complete moron
Good morning, dumb ass. (I mean...well....that IS what you called yourself, right? :) If you are going to do multiple handles one one thread, at least TRY to make it look different each time.)
I'm trying here to have a serious / intelligent discussion abpout how teams should be selected. Would anyone like to join in?
(Not you, dumb ass!)
Listen Ma Kettle I have been following this thread and as there have been many retarded posts on here and you are associated with many of them, so perhaps when you actually do have something intelligent to say then post it, but so far we are still waiting for that to happen.
Ma Kettle wrote:
I'm trying here to have a serious / intelligent discussion abpout how teams should be selected.
You make it rather hard to believe that statement. You contradict your position, you avoid direct questions attempting to get you to explain or justify your position and yet you continue to engage in meaningless banter like the rest of the post I didn't bother quoting.
As someone has previously suggested on this thread (likely not the for the first time), you appear to have a need for attention. If that's not the case, then perhaps you shouldn't be acting in a way that leads people to that conclusion.
Your choice.
You are SUCH an a-hole! What? When? Where? Show me. Collect my posts in this thread and say that again. With a straight face.
Asterix wrote:
Ma Kettle wrote:I'm trying here to have a serious / intelligent discussion abpout how teams should be selected.
You make it rather hard to believe that statement. You contradict your position, you avoid direct questions attempting to get you to explain or justify your position and yet you continue to engage in meaningless banter like the rest of the post I didn't bother quoting.
As someone has previously suggested on this thread (likely not the for the first time), you appear to have a need for attention. If that's not the case, then perhaps you shouldn't be acting in a way that leads people to that conclusion.
Your choice.
Asterix wrote:
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?
You keep putting stupid scenarios out there and I never said this is what I wanted. Putting words in my mouth, twisting everything around.
Asterix wrote:
Ma Kettle wrote:The team should be selected a few weeks in advance of course. Your scenario makes little sense. I didn't say that.
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?
Selectors should select!
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.
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.
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.
If Milne tripped on the railings at 1450m during the trials...."sorry, try again in 2012"?
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 who famously no-heighted a few Olympic trials ago in the decathlon? Dude should have gone!
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.
We must base it on what said persons have done over a long period...the previous couple of years.
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?
Where do you get off with all this stupidity? Re-running Olympic races if someone fell or isn't the favourite? What kind of drugs are you taking before you read my posts in this thread about selection philosophy? LEARN TO READ!!!
OUT!
Ok, we'll make this simple and go step by step.
First off, when you said:
"What if Webb runs 3:33 in Paris, still 1-2 weeks shy of the IAAF deadline? "
Did you want Webb's proposed performance to supercede the nomination of one of the three (Lagat, Manzano and Lomong) from the US Trials?
If not, then what does it matter what Webb runs in Paris?
asterix why are you such a tool? i always remember your toolness on the kingthread; there was a good conversation brewing here until you started with your pig headedness and insults.
SO gillis has been named to the team.
In my humble opinion, this is the end of the Rising star process. DST and crew have set a precedent.
the rising star idea was a bunsh of bull s hit in the first place, for kevin to say that they had to push and beg to get that criteria set in place is a huge waste of time and resourses. It is set up so AC can still deny an athlete depending on if they wanted that person on the team or not, it has nothing what so ever to do with someone who is rising to stardom. It deflects from the cancerous selection system that canada has in place right now. Burn it down, out with the useless and in with the new. It is time to flip canada athletics on it's head, get rid of AC, f uck the COC and every single one of it's members, get a new organization to re vamp running in canada and work towards getting canadians to races not creating cushy jobs for brain dead morons who create job title, chief high performance officer, for them selves. Split disciplines if that is what it takes, Distance running get your own organization, sprints take care of you self, field events throws jumps do your own thing, to lump all these things together is moronic, they are not equal disciplines. I have said it before and I will say it again
F UCK the COC, it memebers and AC and all it's members we don't want you and we don't need you.
IT IS TIME FOR A F UCKING CHANGE!
Fluffer, please don't hold back. Tell us how you REALLY feel.
:)
if u have a problem with what I am saying let me know. Is there nothing in my post that makes sense to u?
Fluffer,
Although I think calling oneself \'Chief High Performance Officer\' is a serious demonstration of egotism, I think we have to remember that someone has to take that title or why have ego maniacs running a governing body?
There seems to be a serious disconnect in priorities.
If they follow the Olympic Creed they will include all who are Canada\'s best at the time, which is a bit much to ask at this time in a game that is more about money now than ever.
If they just follow the IAAF criteria, then we would have a greater number of athletes going, who according to the big organization deserve to go.
But alas, money is an issue. This is where you come in and suggest to tear it all down, which I agree with.
The Feds need to be giving more money a larger budget, if not, get the Feds to agree to corporate money and call it Team Canada brought to you by Nike/adidas/puma/Brooks/Asics/Budweiser/Export A....etc. whoever will pony up.
The idea of saying, \"work your ass off and take a vow of poverty doing so, then WE will decide if we a.) Feel like sending you and b.) Can afford to.\" is simply asking for people to go to school and then work, bypassing the whole athletic career.
How come AC & COC want to send more athletes to the next World\'s so softened some standards? - this is their decision - yet decide to hold back on the budget to sending athletes to the biggest show, coming to a 3 billion worldwide audience near you SOONER than the next Worlds.
I call bullshit.
Fluffer wrote:
It is set up so AC can still deny an athlete depending on if they wanted that person on the team or not, it has nothing what so ever to do with someone who is rising to stardom.
Serious question for you (and wetcoast and anyone else who buys into this 'AC is out to screw the athletes conspiracy theory) then:
What possible reason or motivation would AC have for wanting a smaller team (and therefore be looking to "deny" an athlete)?
If they really are a bunch of egotistical bureaucrats like you claim, then wouldn't they get a bigger ego boost out of taking as big a team as possible? Then they could go to all their buddies in the other sports and say "hey, look at me! I'm head of a team of 40! How many you got?"
Wouldn't that sound better than "I'm head of a team of 30"?
A.,
You'd think that yes that would be a source of pride.
I keep hearing the budget thing with - standards being set higher, so only those probably making top 12 will get to go, so AC will be graced with more money upon better performance based on number of athletes going.
...or someting very similar to that.
I say someone should demand a better system of financial support to AC so as to allow the maximum number of athletes to go based on the IAAF standards and reasonable time constraints....or lack of constraints.
It is interesting to note that AC wants more athletes to go to World's and are therefore supporting that notion with some easier standards.
I don't get that kind of control...I don't understand.
How can they decide that they want more athletes for the World's - therefore less for Olympics...because THAT is what it amounts to, less for the Olympics, by nature of deciding to send more to World's.
AC and COC should redefine themselves or be redefined so as to take the position of body of government who supports athletes rather than one that creates obstacles.
Yeah Canada has too many people qualifying and needs to be pared down...yeah that's Canada's problem.
The amount of money, at the end of the day is nothing.
I don't think that AC is out to screw the athletes malisciously, I don't pretend to know that. I do think that there seems to be a beaurocratic, hierarchial system in place, which so far has frusterated many-a-athlete.
....and the apathy in the youth will grow.
(NOTE: I SHALL NOT RESPOND TO ASTERIX DIRECTLY ANYMORE.)
Fluffer, I enjoyed your post. It was a bit harsh, but, the essence of what is wrong and what is needed is there, imho.
I, and we, have to face facts: Sully has stated this reality on several occasions, and if you read between the lines, the "funding partners" call the shots. We bow to them. We are at their mercy. We must answer to them.
That's how it is now.
And it's WRONG!
Thank you for actually reading and responding to the post instead of the usual routine of some who continue to blow off steam about how everything is wrong and everyone is out to screw athletes while blatantly avoiding answering straightforward questions about their fundamental position. That just shows how much substance they've got to support their blatherings.
wetcoast wrote:
I say someone should demand a better system of financial support to AC so as to allow the maximum number of athletes to go based on the IAAF standards and reasonable time constraints....or lack of constraints.
This is a great idea in theory, but how can this reasonably be put into practice? It's one thing to say the system is bad and needs to be re-built, but unless there is a viable alternative that can be implemented, we're stuck with something that is better than nothing.
Keeping in mind that the COC isn't just about track and field, how should the system be reformed? Who will be the replacement funding sources tied in with the Olympic brand? Who makes the decisions on how to allocate that funding and how do they distribute the money to various sporting bodies (do new sporting bodies have to be created and how do you ensure they are not of the same bureaucratic model viewed so derisively by some currently in existence)?
It's one thing for someone on a message board to blurt out that AC should tell the COC to bugger-off and go get their own sources of funding that will enable them to send as many people as can be qualified under IAAF criteria, but the COC still holds the keys given to them by the IOC. You want to go to Beijing, you have to play nice with the COC. Besides, if it were so easy to get money elsewhere, don't you think AC would be pulling in a little more on the corporate or public sponsorship front already? Have a look at their annual reports to see how hard it apparently is to get private funds for things like shot putters or 400m hurdlers.
Asterix wrote:
Thank you for actually reading and responding to the post instead of the usual routine of some who continue to blow off steam about how everything is wrong and everyone is out to screw athletes while blatantly avoiding answering straightforward questions about their fundamental position. That just shows how much substance they've got to support their blatherings.
how ironic; whats your solution?
and you are always misreading others especially at kingthread. pot kettle.
Not a tool wrote:
how ironic; whats your solution?
While the current system may not be ideal, I don't believe you'll be able to show where I've said it should blindly be scrapped and those who currently run it are incompetent.
and you are always misreading others especially at kingthread. pot kettle.
That's at least the second time you've reference some 'kingthread'. I must admit to not knowing what you are referring to. Care to share?
Asterix wrote:
Not a tool wrote:how ironic; whats your solution?
While the current system may not be ideal, I don't believe you'll be able to show where I've said it should blindly be scrapped and those who currently run it are incompetent.
there you go again; where did i suggest that? just like your responses to others on this thread and at kingthread=locked canova one at top, you jump to all kinds of crazy conclusions regarding what people apparantly said.