so let me get this clear and please correct me if i'm wrong . athlete A wins the trial beating Athletes B and C ,and then achieves the qualifying time . Athletes B and C are coached or/ and managed by coach NB . Athlete D doesn't run the trial but is indirectly or directly assisted in her training by coach SS ( my understanding is coach SS and NB are a married couple so one would assume they have communicated a little) all athletes are cleared by world athletics to compete if selected having reached the qualifying criteria . And heres the funny part of it all, I always thought prior was not inclusive of the present time . Therefore you could win the trial in a qualifying time and beat every other athlete who has met the criteria and still not get selected ... In reality it would seem that the australian nationals were never a trial at all ( said with a hint of sarcasm) but a tool used to manipulate who the selectors preferred to pick but in this case it backfired so they came up with something else to get the toys out of the cot that they preferred . I'll conclude that Australia should have 3 women in the 1500 final but because of their governing bodies bad decisions emotions and pressure will be overwelming and they'll get a max 1 going through . Well done AA just what the sport needs .
Just one thing to correct you on: Linden has never have anything to do with Bideau. She is coached by Ned Brophy-Williams and managed by Ray Flynn.
On Griffith and Hull you are correct.
My Bad - thanks for the correction . Its so sad because the athletes seem like nice and approachable people who are stuck in the middle of something that from the outside looks so political .
In reading the Athletics Australia Selection Policy: 2022 World Athletics Championships there is a clear contradiction:
2. Team Selection Summary
(Table) Automatic Selection 1st at Trail and World Athletics Standard in qualifying period
5.5 Automatic Selection
5.5.3 Any athlete who wins the selection trial and has achieved the World Athletics standard prior to that trial and within the qualification period will be automatically selected.
(Bold text my emphasis)
Under Section 2 she is an automatic qualified, under Section 5.5.3 she is not.
I have a couple of comments on this document:
1) It is undated and there is no issue number or revision number. To me that is unacceptable. Any policy document or regulations should have an issue date and revision number where applicable. Otherwise how would anyone know they have got the official copy and not some unapproved draft version.
2) (OK this is a bit conspiracy theorist) Section 5.5.3 is the same as Section 2 but with the words "prior to that trial and" added in the middle. Does anyone have access to an earlier version? Were these words in that version? It does look like a quick revision was done to get the result they required but someone bungled in that they revised Section 5.5.3 but forgot about Section 2.
As an aside: In the Boeing 737MAX MCAS scandal Boeing originally included details of the MCAS system in the Operation Manual but were told to delete it by senior management as it would highlight the differences between the MAX and the legacy 737s. The scribes dutifully did this, but forgot to remove it from the list of abbreviations. This became part of the evidence that Boeing was covering up the significance of the MCAS system.
In reading the Athletics Australia Selection Policy: 2022 World Athletics Championships there is a clear contradiction:
2. Team Selection Summary
(Table) Automatic Selection 1st at Trail and World Athletics Standard in qualifying period
5.5 Automatic Selection
5.5.3 Any athlete who wins the selection trial and has achieved the World Athletics standard prior to that trial and within the qualification period will be automatically selected.
(Bold text my emphasis)
Under Section 2 she is an automatic qualified, under Section 5.5.3 she is not.
I have a couple of comments on this document:
1) It is undated and there is no issue number or revision number. To me that is unacceptable. Any policy document or regulations should have an issue date and revision number where applicable. Otherwise how would anyone know they have got the official copy and not some unapproved draft version.
2) (OK this is a bit conspiracy theorist) Section 5.5.3 is the same as Section 2 but with the words "prior to that trial and" added in the middle. Does anyone have access to an earlier version? Were these words in that version? It does look like a quick revision was done to get the result they required but someone bungled in that they revised Section 5.5.3 but forgot about Section 2.
As an aside: In the Boeing 737MAX MCAS scandal Boeing originally included details of the MCAS system in the Operation Manual but were told to delete it by senior management as it would highlight the differences between the MAX and the legacy 737s. The scribes dutifully did this, but forgot to remove it from the list of abbreviations. This became part of the evidence that Boeing was covering up the significance of the MCAS system.
Australia might be better served with a clear cut US style selection policy, 1, 2 and 3 at the national championships (trial) are automatically selected to the team if they have the WA standard prior to the date required.
Controversy in Australia as Abby Caldwell the national 1500m champion is left off the team. Seems to be causing a stir. More shading politics from NB.
The team is Jessica Hull, 3:58, Linden Hall, 3:59, Georgia Griffiths, 4:00. So they chose the three fastest runners in AUS (in fact they are the 3 fastest of all time!). Abby is a 4:04 runner. In Australia, its a selection proccess. There is no qualifying race like the USA. Only At nationals Linden Hall led 1400m of that race and Abby and Georgia outkicked her down the stretch. Hull didn't even show up. If it were an actual qualifying race, the tactics might have played out differently too. I'm fine with selection processes and I'm fine with a qualifying race. You could make a reasonable argument for Abby in place of any of the three: Hull (didn't race nationals, despite mile/1500 national records in the last year), or Hall (beat by both Griffiths and Abby, but then are you punishing her over Hull because she ran nationals?) or over Griffiths (slowest of the non national champions). But in the end just taking the 3 fastest is also reasonable too. There is no scandal here. Just a different type of selection process than the US. If Abby really wanted to make the team, she should have ran faster. If she had run 4:01 or faster in the past year, I think she would have been selected. But the fact is that she is 4 seconds slower than the others' PBs and SBs.
Hull ran the 5,000 at Aussie Nationals it’s worth noting.
In general, it’s either a selection race or it’s not. Clearly it’s not in your view based on your analysis and you might as well skip it and just run fast. For fans, that is lame as championship races and nationals can be must-watch viewing if they mean something.
Controversy in Australia as Abby Caldwell the national 1500m champion is left off the team. Seems to be causing a stir. More shading politics from NB.
The team is Jessica Hull, 3:58, Linden Hall, 3:59, Georgia Griffiths, 4:00. So they chose the three fastest runners in AUS (in fact they are the 3 fastest of all time!). Abby is a 4:04 runner. In Australia, its a selection proccess. There is no qualifying race like the USA. Only At nationals Linden Hall led 1400m of that race and Abby and Georgia outkicked her down the stretch. Hull didn't even show up. If it were an actual qualifying race, the tactics might have played out differently too. I'm fine with selection processes and I'm fine with a qualifying race. You could make a reasonable argument for Abby in place of any of the three: Hull (didn't race nationals, despite mile/1500 national records in the last year), or Hall (beat by both Griffiths and Abby, but then are you punishing her over Hull because she ran nationals?) or over Griffiths (slowest of the non national champions). But in the end just taking the 3 fastest is also reasonable too. There is no scandal here. Just a different type of selection process than the US. If Abby really wanted to make the team, she should have ran faster. If she had run 4:01 or faster in the past year, I think she would have been selected. But the fact is that she is 4 seconds slower than the others' PBs and SBs.
You're missing the vital point that normally winning nationals is an automatic selection. This year there is vague wording, but to most people the policy still read as though winning nationals is automatics selection if you get the standard. On top of that, several staff members of Athletics Australia told Abbey that she was automatically selected.
This is a scandal. There are major inconsistencies to how selection has always taken place and how all athletes and coaches believed it was taking place this year.
In reading the Athletics Australia Selection Policy: 2022 World Athletics Championships there is a clear contradiction:
2. Team Selection Summary
(Table) Automatic Selection 1st at Trail and World Athletics Standard in qualifying period
5.5 Automatic Selection
5.5.3 Any athlete who wins the selection trial and has achieved the World Athletics standard prior to that trial and within the qualification period will be automatically selected.
(Bold text my emphasis)
Under Section 2 she is an automatic qualified, under Section 5.5.3 she is not.
I have a couple of comments on this document:
1) It is undated and there is no issue number or revision number. To me that is unacceptable. Any policy document or regulations should have an issue date and revision number where applicable. Otherwise how would anyone know they have got the official copy and not some unapproved draft version.
2) (OK this is a bit conspiracy theorist) Section 5.5.3 is the same as Section 2 but with the words "prior to that trial and" added in the middle. Does anyone have access to an earlier version? Were these words in that version? It does look like a quick revision was done to get the result they required but someone bungled in that they revised Section 5.5.3 but forgot about Section 2.
As an aside: In the Boeing 737MAX MCAS scandal Boeing originally included details of the MCAS system in the Operation Manual but were told to delete it by senior management as it would highlight the differences between the MAX and the legacy 737s. The scribes dutifully did this, but forgot to remove it from the list of abbreviations. This became part of the evidence that Boeing was covering up the significance of the MCAS system.
Sometimes summaries of detailed documents are incomplete (and section 2 is celarly labeled as a summary). 5.5.3 is totally reasonable (although I disagree with it). It says you can't go chacing the standard after winning nationals. USA actually had this condition at some point as well. Now it probably should be replaced with prior "or during" to allow those to qualify if they achieve the standard at nationals when they win. However, this point is moot. Abby did not achieve the standard at nationals. She chased the standard after winning.
The team is Jessica Hull, 3:58, Linden Hall, 3:59, Georgia Griffiths, 4:00. So they chose the three fastest runners in AUS (in fact they are the 3 fastest of all time!). Abby is a 4:04 runner. In Australia, its a selection proccess. There is no qualifying race like the USA. Only At nationals Linden Hall led 1400m of that race and Abby and Georgia outkicked her down the stretch. Hull didn't even show up. If it were an actual qualifying race, the tactics might have played out differently too. I'm fine with selection processes and I'm fine with a qualifying race. You could make a reasonable argument for Abby in place of any of the three: Hull (didn't race nationals, despite mile/1500 national records in the last year), or Hall (beat by both Griffiths and Abby, but then are you punishing her over Hull because she ran nationals?) or over Griffiths (slowest of the non national champions). But in the end just taking the 3 fastest is also reasonable too. There is no scandal here. Just a different type of selection process than the US. If Abby really wanted to make the team, she should have ran faster. If she had run 4:01 or faster in the past year, I think she would have been selected. But the fact is that she is 4 seconds slower than the others' PBs and SBs.
You're missing the vital point that normally winning nationals is an automatic selection. This year there is vague wording, but to most people the policy still read as though winning nationals is automatics selection if you get the standard. On top of that, several staff members of Athletics Australia told Abbey that she was automatically selected.
This is a scandal. There are major inconsistencies to how selection has always taken place and how all athletes and coaches believed it was taking place this year.
There is nothing vague about 5.5.3, it is just inconsistent with the summary in section 2. You say that winning nationals without the standard and then chasing it and achieving it later normally equals automatic selection. Do you have an example of a 2019 athlete where this was the case? If its always been the case please provide examples of people chasing the standard who were selected over those who already had it.
And last year Abbey had better form over Georgia but Georgia was selected over Abbey for Olympics even though Georgia was struggling with injuries. And surprise surprise Georgia didn’t run well at all. Abbey should have been selected for the Olympics and now this year she’s been overlooked again.
It’s not like Georgia is consistently a 4 minute athlete. Up til this year she was sitting at 4:04-4:06. She had 1 perfectly pace run in Europe for 4:00. All other times are so similar to Abbey’s times.
Jye Edwards last year didn’t have the standard prior to nationals last year. He achieved it at nationals. He was auto nom to Olympics along with Stewie and oli and Matt ramsden had to wait for the 3 rd pick. Stewie Matt and oli all had Q’s before trials.
most of the time its a moot point as we don’t have anymore than 3 auto qualifiers.
but national champion + auto qualifier = nomination to team in all years prior to this. They changed the clause at some point this past season.
And last year Abbey had better form over Georgia but Georgia was selected over Abbey for Olympics even though Georgia was struggling with injuries. And surprise surprise Georgia didn’t run well at all. Abbey should have been selected for the Olympics and now this year she’s been overlooked again.
It’s not like Georgia is consistently a 4 minute athlete. Up til this year she was sitting at 4:04-4:06. She had 1 perfectly pace run in Europe for 4:00. All other times are so similar to Abbey’s times.
Message is clear: Bideau sees a young athlete on the rise and wants to sink his claws in. Caldwell's career will be blocked at every stage until she plays Bideau's game.
Jye Edwards last year didn’t have the standard prior to nationals last year. He achieved it at nationals. He was auto nom to Olympics along with Stewie and oli and Matt ramsden had to wait for the 3 rd pick. Stewie Matt and oli all had Q’s before trials.
most of the time its a moot point as we don’t have anymore than 3 auto qualifiers.
but national champion + auto qualifier = nomination to team in all years prior to this. They changed the clause at some point this past season.
I said please provide an example of someone chasing the standard like Abby did. Jay Edwards got the standard at nationals, as you point out, and therefore did not chase it.
Also was Jay auto-selected? He could have just been chosen to be on the team because he won with a solid time. Abby should have been chosen, but I don't think there is a scandal. She simply has never ran a solid time, 4:04.18, is barely even qualified, 0.02 below 4:04.2. Whereas Jay's time was well below the qualifying standard, and was faster than Matts SB. There was no hard choice between Jay and Matt. If you asked anyone who has a better shot at a medal Jay or Matt, everyone would say Jay. Now if you ask, who has a better shot at a medal between Hall/Griffith or Abby, that is much less clear, given Abby couldn't even break 4:04.