How many other countries REJECTING invitations to Olympics??? Nice one New Zealand

The problem is probably the cost for NZA to send the extra athletes, the airfare, the lodging, shipping needed gear and materials. They're not loaded with cash like the US, UK and other power nations in athletics. The big countries will send whoever qualifies, at any cost. With NZA and their more limited resources, the cost to send an extra athlete or two weighs more heavily on them, so you see this more often, where they have qualified athletes but they decide not to send them.

NZ isn't a third world country they can afford to send full teams in track and field. They aren't sending people in Track and Field. The central pillar of the Olympics. Not only that, not sending people in the 100m! The central Pillar of track and field!

But, would rather send people with a chance to finish top 16 in far less competitive sports. The PC application of a joke of a selection policy across all sports hurts track and field even more. Someone making the Olympic final in a track event is harder than winning a rowing gold medal IMO.

If cost is an issue, have athletes fund their costs? Every single athlete would raise the money they need from their local community to compete in less than one week.

I bet you that New Zealand has spent more in legal fees fighting claims made by athletes for non-selection, than the cost of sending those athletes to the games. SAD

UK athletics was going bankrupt last year. It's a global problem. Guess what? The public prefer any number of sports to watching rocket fuelled Ethiopians run in circles.

Those 100m sprinters should transition into women, then NZ would bend over backwards to send them.

Feel free to get a hold of their books and verify that they have more than enough resources to send everybody who qualified.

I get what you are saying, but this isn't some pie in the sky sport, Athletics is the cornerstone of the Games. That argument is a cop out. Four athletes - who, let's not forget, have been invited by the IOC, and weren't even given the option to self-fund the trip probably before their invites were put in the shredder don't cost as much as an under 23 football team (not even the pinnacle of their own sport) and all of their associated leeches.

World Athletics/IOC should slap on the wrist for this as it reduces competition further as they go deeper on the ranking list to fill allocated spots.

Zoe Hobbs was also asked by Athletics NZ and the NZ Olympic Committee to model the uniform for the games. She then met the standard set by World Athletics to compete too.

There is more to this too, the ranking system is based on placing even more than times at events that world athletics deem worthy. How many top-class meets are available to NZ athletes during covid to gain ranking points?! Not many...

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

Feel free to get a hold of their books and verify that they have more than enough resources to send everybody who qualified.

Just looked at their latest accounts - where Athletics NZ had 2.3 million in cash available. With a net asset position of 600k. (amounts in NZD)

Cheers

Right, so now someone with far more nous re finances has debunked your absolute speculative myth about funding, can you please answer why a national body would send the lowest ranked football/Soccer team to the World Cup when they with probably get pumped harder than a pig offal burrito in Eugene?

Oh...development? Something to aspire to? Potential to build on performances? Perhaps that money is an investment?

Do you work for the NZOC?

I understand. Their 100m runners probably would not break into the top 50 here. Peter Snell? That's like 55-60 yrs ago...kind of reaching, huh?

It's even worse in Sweden. SOC has an even more insane criteria where top 8 is required, which results in top athletes like Lovisa Lindh (1:58 performer, 3x 1:59 this year) doesn't get to go despite invitations from WA. SOC rejects the invitations for no sane reason at all, and sends a bunch of people from miniscule sports. No one seems to grasp that running is one of (if not the) most competetive sports in the world, and having the same criteria for athletics and skating or sailing or whatever is mildly retarded.

cramberrys wrote:

It's even worse in Sweden. SOC has an even more insane criteria where top 8 is required, which results in top athletes like Lovisa Lindh (1:58 performer, 3x 1:59 this year) doesn't get to go despite invitations from WA. SOC rejects the invitations for no sane reason at all, and sends a bunch of people from miniscule sports. No one seems to grasp that running is one of (if not the) most competetive sports in the world, and having the same criteria for athletics and skating or sailing or whatever is mildly retarded.

That is absurd. Lindh would have a legit shot to make the final, and certainly the semis.

The best part is they rejected the invitation so late no one could take the spot.

You are possibly right...re sprinting, but for the health of the sport worldwide it is important for this exposure actually, you don't know this, we both don't know this - why? Because the NZ sprinters will never get selected to run internationally thanks to the governing body.

It's not reaching at all fella, the point remains the same, a small country with limited international exposure and competition has the potential to punch above its weight in big events. Did you read the article? The Javelin thrower beat the reigning Comm Games champion who, surprise surprise is going to the OGs. These aren't random mugs, they're athletes with huge potential being denied access to an event they have been deemed good enough for by the IOC.

Wow, I thought there would be other countries out there with similar policies, but this is madness. An absolute joke. The OG's are too diluted with exhibition sports that have no depth. There has to be a re-balance. 1:58 performer can't go but you can bet they'll send a breakdancer to the next OG's.

Canada did stuff like this in the run-up to the 2004 Athens Games. Canadian athletes who would have been Olympians if they were citizens of almost any other country were victims of the COC's "raise the bar" fantasy, by which the Canadian Olympic Committee made tougher standards for Canadian athletes but didn't provide them with additional resources to achieve those standards.

Strangely, the COC also did it's best to take down an organization that DID raise funds and get them directly to Canadian athletes (it was named "See You In [name of city hosting the next Games]" and was renamed CAN Fund after the COC made the dbag move to trademark "See You In..."

Anyhoo, you have to wonder if athletes who aren't in Tokyo this year - regardless of the reason - aren't the lucky ones.

whoops "... did its best..."

The Olympics should invite 5000 athletes, weighted according to the percentage of total global population for each country.

China 895, India 875, United States 211, Indonesia 173, Pakistan 144, Brazil 136, Nigeria 135..........New Zealand 3.

All that works Nick put in and it still wouldn’t have mattered.

I remember hearing about this! After scoring such an own goal has the COC improved its process now, have they set more realistic standards or are they still enjoying putting more effort into rejecting athletes? Sometimes the organisations literally forget who they are supposed to represent and enable.

Mad that they shut down a community fundraising effort.