Canadians: What is up with your crazy Olympic qualifying process?

[quote]Make up artist wrote:

It's on the Athletics Canada site.

Stop making things up.

[quote]

LOL. The Athletics Canada website! Good one. Since it sounds like you work for/with AC, you should know damn well that NOBODY visits that thing. Let me remind you why:

http://www.athletics.ca/home.asp

Clear?

Back to the actual point...um, maybe read more slowly next time? As I said, I'm talking about the famous

WWW.2012TRIALS.CA

website - seems like relevant place to put the qualifying criteria, doesn't it, clown?

Please tell me where "front and centre" the criteria are on the

WWW.2012TRIALS.CA

website. (Caps for your reading comprehension. You're welcome.)

AFTER THAT, stop making things up.

in the know? me too wrote:

Back to the actual point...um, maybe read more slowly next time? As I said, I'm talking about the famous

http://WWW.2012TRIALS.CA

website - seems like relevant place to put the qualifying criteria, doesn't it, clown?

Please tell me where "front and centre" the criteria are on the

http://WWW.2012TRIALS.CA

website. (Caps for your reading comprehension. You're welcome.)

Who said the criteria for the Olympics were on the Trials site? Someone from AC or just some random anonymous message board poster who doesn't actually provide a link to back up their claims (not that anyone could ever accuse you of such things)?

The Trials site has the criteria to qualify for the Trials. Go to registration:

AC site, simply select 'International' from the home page, then 'Olympic Games' and here you go:

I'm tired of the AC A+ BS, and have been for a while.

I'm tired of you flat out lying to try and push some sort of vendetta.

You and AC are both full of BS; however, you are a liar. Sad to think that you make AC look good by comparison.

Make up artist wrote:

The Trials site has the criteria to qualify for the Trials. Go to registration:

http://www.2012trials.ca/registration-schedule.php

AC site, simply select 'International' from the home page, then 'Olympic Games' and here you go:

http://www.athletics.ca/page.asp?id=561

You're right. Why would the OLYMPIC TRIALS website post the qualifying criteria for the OLYMPIC GAMES? That would be too, um, logical.

What a joke. No wonder the Trials broadcast will have about 92 viewers.

Although maybe hiding the criteria is an AC "marketing" strategy? Knowing what a joke the criteria are would turn off many of the few non die-hard viewers.

ovbious wrote:

I'm tired of the AC A+ BS, and have been for a while.

I'm tired of you flat out lying to try and push some sort of vendetta.

You are tired of me? Oh, gee. I almost care in the slightest amount what you say.

At least I have the gonads to use the same name consistently, chump. Big guy: You're hiding behind a computer screen. You get to MAKE UP A NAME. Making up a NEW ONE every time you post is pathetic.

in the know? me too wrote:

ovbious wrote:

I'm tired of the AC A+ BS, and have been for a while.

I'm tired of you flat out lying to try and push some sort of vendetta.

You are tired of me? Oh, gee. I almost care in the slightest amount what you say.

At least I have the gonads to use the same name consistently, chump. Big guy: You're hiding behind a computer screen. You get to MAKE UP A NAME. Making up a NEW ONE every time you post is pathetic.

Why does Athletics Canada use "2012 Olympic trials 10,000m " in the media release,sent to Rogers SportsNet.

Did this race have anything to do with picking the 10k team?

Magic McMike wrote:

Why does Athletics Canada use "2012 Olympic trials 10,000m " in the media release,sent to Rogers SportsNet.

Did this race have anything to do with picking the 10k team?

Since you asked, yes it did. Mo Ahmed needed to place top 3 to make the team.

This article reported 2 (B's) and a top 3 in Trials punches ticket to London. Was the Athletics Canada media rep confused with the selection process?

http://www.mykawartha.com/sports/olympics/article/1382668--brampton-s-harper-aiming-for-olympic-berth

TV Viewer wrote:

This article reported 2 (B's) and a top 3 in Trials punches ticket to London. Was the Athletics Canada media rep confused with the selection process?

No, just you. Ever heard of the 'rising star' criteria?

Missed someone? wrote:

Magic McMike wrote:

Why does Athletics Canada use "2012 Olympic trials 10,000m " in the media release,sent to Rogers SportsNet.

Did this race have anything to do with picking the 10k team?

Since you asked, yes it did. Mo Ahmed needed to place top 3 to make the team.

You missed my sarcasm. For the individual who refers to the AC site and the specific qualifying .... It appears to a non insider, the 10K "Olympic" trial, has invited , non-sub 31 minute entries as required on the AC site.

Missed someone? wrote:

TV Viewer wrote:

This article reported 2 (B's) and a top 3 in Trials punches ticket to London. Was the Athletics Canada media rep confused with the selection process?

No, just you. Ever heard of the 'rising star' criteria?

Was he already awarded awarded this status. The AC site says you must be nominated and "rising star" is selected after the qualifying period.

TV Viewer wrote:

Was he already awarded awarded this status. The AC site says you must be nominated and "rising star" is selected after the qualifying period.

To be eligible for 'rising star', you have to finish top 3 at the Trials. That puts you in the pool eligible to be selected (but not guaranteed, unlike those with A standard).

TV Viewer wrote:

The AC site says you must be nominated and "rising star" is selected after the qualifying period.

And AC is VERY well-known for applying this criteria arbitrarily. It's a mess. Ask that guy they took the uniform from.

Soooo, any guesses as to how many athletes with As are getting left home while there are empty spots in their events?

Hint: it's more than just the two women marathoners who crushed the A and won't go.

The defenders of the AC position, saying that the standards are the standards, period, are wrong. The classic, and legally binding "Notwithstanding" clause basically nullifies the criteria, and makes it incumbent to decide, for each individual athlete with a minimum IOC standard, whether there are "truly exceptional circumstances" (as stated in the criteria) or not. It isn't immediately clear whether the onus lies on the athlete to make the case for, or AC against, but I am sure a good lawyer could flush that out in a hurry.

So wait. Even with all of these super-duper-objective Athletics Canada criteria...

- a team still couldn't be named after the trials?

- multiple athletes not making the super-duper-objective Athletics Canada criteria are on the team?

Please explain, Make Up Artist, Um Yeah, et al!

in the know? me too wrote:

Please explain, Make Up Artist, Um Yeah, et al!

What's to explain?

AC has taken what are clearly objective criteria (even if not everyone agrees with them) and then pretty well thrown them out the window with some apparent random application of 'exceptional circumstances'.

What are 'exceptional circumstances'? Can anyone precisely define that?

Um, yeah wrote:

AC has taken what are clearly objective criteria (even if not everyone agrees with them) and then pretty well thrown them out the window with some apparent random application of 'exceptional circumstances'.

So, when I said the AC Olympic selection is a subjective joke, and you spent half a dozen pages defending their "objectivity" and transparency...

...the truth was that the process is a subjective joke?

Thanks for confirming.

Ouch. Just ouch.

Good thing we didn't let our top-3 A-qualifiers simply go to the Olympics, and demanded repeat performances or "A+" times. It would have been a bad idea to have anyone without an A+ dragging down the team, just "gaining experience" or something dumb like that.

Now, thanks to the AC criteria, our medals-to-athletes ratio is looking AWESOME!

...could someone remind me of the number?

Bwah!