Act like you are the British Olympic women's team selectors, pick 2 of the following 3 women for the Olympic team

Can someone explain why Piasecki, Purdue, and Twell didn't run the Trials? I think it's awesome that GB was able to have a standalone Trials for the first time in 40+ years, but it loses some of its luster when the athletes don't treat it as a Trials (though granted, this race had not been on the calendar for years in advance like the US Trials).

Part of me has sympathy for Purdue, but I also think when you haven't raced in over a year and aren't healthy/fit enough to run the trials four months out, it's hard to complain that you've been screwed over.

But from what I've read here, Purdue didn't run the trials because she has been injured (that makes sense) and Twell didn't run because she was focusing on the 10k. Why didn't Piasecki run?

I'm curious about whether Piasecki/Twell knew they had the inside track for selection and a poor performance at the Trials would have hurt their cause so they just sat it out and hoped no one else would get the standard.

well i would not pick b as the last 4 times she represented her country she dnf 3 times i would have to pick the other 2

Hard to say with Piasecki. Could be she had a work based exemption. She's a world leading researcher working on RED-S with UK athletics and World Athletics. It could also be that Twell and Piasecki actually turn up to race when selected but Purdue scratches or DNFs a lot. As well as her three recent DNFs for GB, she also withdrew from the world half championships. If I was to bet which of the three women in Rojo's post will actually finish the marathon in Sapporo, I'd only put money on Piasecki. Steph Davis will also finish as she's a tough runner.

Purdue's DNF in Japan 2020 was pacing the Nagoya women's marathon to 28km - the winner went on to run 2.20

I love that Rojo deliberately anonymised this and you're sort of playing along by using the "Runner A" notation but at the same time using information that was 100% not in the brief!

I also like how everyone commenting clearly knows who each runner is, but says "I'd pick runner A" as thought they're playing the game with no outisde info,

Honestly though, I think UKA picked the right team. Chances are Runner A will switch to the 10km anyway and everyone will be happy. Maybe not being sure if she will have a run or not will work out well for Runner B, as she won't overtrain now so won't get injured and DNF/DNS.

I'd agree if Steph Twell had fully committed to the marathon. It feels like she's accepted the spot as a backup option if the 10k doesn't pan out. I don't blame her, she probably has bonuses tied to Olympic selection, I just feel a little bad for Purdue who has never been to the Olympics and committed to the marathon for years now. Hopefully Twell makes the 10 and they both get to go

The post about Piasecki's Florence splits is interesting. At the time a very reliable source told me she hadn't run the actual certified course in full and I think he said maybe about a minute or a bit more was missed. I didn't think much of it and thought that with just a few months left of the pre Tokyo 2020 window, (at the time) it was very unlikely that 3 Brits would run faster than her notional time anyway. I agree with the poster ,who may be the source in question, who finds her late race surge set against all her other splits en route (and the truly huge negative split it helped to produce) a rather strange set of stats. he mentioned something about her missing a loop around a city square - he had checked against the course's certified route. Apart from the runner with almost identical split alongside her i don;t see other lead runners with anything like this weird data set - perhaps an oficial at a key point did a great job but just didn;t pick up this pair as they passed. The fact that it's 2.25 runner Purdue who is appealing potentially makes it awkward.

The Twell selection makes perfect sense if you understand UK Athletics.

She has been a poster child since age-group days and they are keen to select "one of theirs".

The selection process has always been inherently political. See also the Kate Reed situation back when she was banging Alan Storey.

So Purdue made the selectors look like the fools they are. Twell runs 2:53 in Tokyo, Piasecki runs 2:55. Purdue runs 2:23 in London a few months later. 2 minute PB and goes 3rd on the British all-time list

High hopes wrote:

So Purdue made the selectors look like the fools they are. Twell runs 2:53 in Tokyo, Piasecki runs 2:55. Purdue runs 2:23 in London a few months later. 2 minute PB and goes 3rd on the British all-time list

Maybe.

In all likelyhood Purdue would have DNFd in Tokyo because that's what she does in Championship races.

Maybe, maybe not. She's only been to three championships, she was 13th at the World's in 2017, DNF at Europeans in 2018, and DNF at 2019 World's. Tbh, I'm not holding 2019 against her since so many DNF'd that absurd race.

I think I can safely say if she'd been in Tokyo, she'd have run faster than 2:53. Plus, she has actually finished more marathons (7) than both Twell (3) and Piasecki (2) combined. The more you look at their respective records, the harder it is to understand how Piasecki was selected ahead of Purdue, even if we discount yesterday's 2:23.

I was a selector for a while in a different sport;

There were 2 sets of criteria to make decisions from

Objective - the athletes had to meet all of these - usually place, but also often %age time behind leader, sometimes also at intermediate steps eg were they strong in the 2nd half, last 25% etc

Subjective - eg were they likely to get injured prior to the event, would they cope well with heat, humidity, hills etc. There had to be majority agreement amongst selectors - usually 3-5.

Having said that, it seems like UKA just sacrifices a few chickens and looks at the entrails.

Why does it matter if they're strong in the last half of last 25%? Surely finishing place is all that matters, and it doesn't make a difference if they prefer to positive split or negative split?

chihuahua - wah. wrote:

Why does it matter if they're strong in the last half of last 25%? Surely finishing place is all that matters, and it doesn't make a difference if they prefer to positive split or negative split?

Why does any of this matter? The sport is weak in GB. Compared to Molly Seidel, none of them deserved to go.

yawnitis wrote:

chihuahua - wah. wrote:

Why does it matter if they're strong in the last half of last 25%? Surely finishing place is all that matters, and it doesn't make a difference if they prefer to positive split or negative split?

Why does any of this matter? The sport is weak in GB. Compared to Molly Seidel, none of them deserved to go.

About the same as the US 1500 men don't deserve to go,just 1 suspected drug cheat in the top 6.

Just use million dollar software like the CFB/NCAA uses to choose the Divsion I football brackets.

High hopes wrote:

So Purdue made the selectors look like the fools they are. Twell runs 2:53 in Tokyo, Piasecki runs 2:55. Purdue runs 2:23 in London a few months later. 2 minute PB and goes 3rd on the British all-time list

Let's be honest - none of them had a leg to stand on (perhaps quite literally) with none demonstrating 2:29:30 form in over a year before the selection deadline.

I personally wouldn't have selected Piasecki (far too mercurial) but not selecting Purdue was a perfectly reasonable approach for the selectors to take.

It's absolutely fantastic she has bounced back and run so well. Fingers crossed she now gets a medal next year and goes to Paris in 2024.