Aussie female Marathon selection fiasco

Absolutely predictable crap shoot. Too many vested interests. Next time please - olympic trial men and women gold coast. You get a qualifier and are 1 2 3 in the trial you're in.

This is insane. I figured Stenson probably had a higher points ranking or something and that's why the committee selected her. Turns out she doesn't even have a current ranking, as she only did one race in all of 2023 (a very slow 3000m on the track). Meanwhile Weightman, besides her 2:23:15 last year, has run 2:24:xx three times in just the last year-and-a-half, and did four major marathons last year including Worlds and Tokyo. Pretty impressive for a 45-year-old.

Doesn’t this happen with Australia in some event basically every team selected?

Okay, now I see she had a kid last year which explains her lack of racing. But still, she made a decision to pin her Olympic hopes on one race, she knew the mark she had to hit, and she missed it by 46 seconds.

Are they somehow giving her credit for some theoretical time she might have run last year if she didn't have a kid?

Yes, there's always some bs where the committee appears to make selections based on 'who knows who' rather than any objective performance standards.

For as good as Australia is in long distance triathlon and the shorter distance events (1,500 and 5,000), they really suck at the marathon. What is the highest placing Australian runner in the Olympic marathon? It's not good...

Just looking back, these are their highest finishes for men:

Tokyo 2021: 24th

Rio 2016: 31st

London 2012: 16th

Beijing 2008: 60th

Athens 2004: 28th

And women:

Tokyo 2021: 10th

Rio 2016: 18th

London 2012: 17th

Beijing 2008: 21st

Athens 2004: 31st

Just as the bashing of the US selection system dies down, we get this. Although ours is cold and harsh, and the best might not make the team, but it is the best way. Keeps the favoritism out of it.

There are better ways to abvoid the cloak and dagger. A trail race is one of them. The other one is the 3 fastest times in a qualifying window. The current method is smoke and mirrors.

Looking at the statistics, it's crazy.

-Six Aussies did enough to qualify under the Paris entry standard of 2:26:50, but only three can be chosen.

- Weightman qualified with the third quickest time and did everything she could to earn a spot on the plane to France.

- Her time of 2:23:15 was only behind Gregson’s 2:23:08 and Diver’s 2:21:34, but ahead of Izzi Batt-Doyle (2:23:27), Eloise Wellings (2:25:47) and critically Stenson (2:24:01).

- She has beaten her 7-1 in head to heads.

- Nobody ran under the qualifying time more than what Weightman did during the qualifying period.

- Earned a quota place (Top three fastest Australians in the qualification period);

• Obtained three qualifiers and ran under the standard five times from July 2022 to Feb 2024 (no nominated athlete had more than 1 in that period - man or woman).

• Having a 7-1 head-to-head record (including 3-1 in the marathon) against the fifth ranked athlete who was nominated in place of her

• Being the only Australian athlete to podium finish in an international marathon (23 seconds from 1st place) and having beaten the highest ranked athlete with a quota place (12th - Helen Bekele) on the road to Paris qualification ranking list.

It's not straightforward.

Lisa's biggest problem is in one of the only head to head in the period, she lost to Gen Gregson and Izzy Bat Doyle (Valencia). She beat Doyle at World champs.

So you can't really argue that Lisa can be ahead of Gregson, despite all the arguments that Gregson is new to it, only run fast courses, etc. She beat Lisa.

That leaves Lisa being ahead of either Sinead or Stenson.

You can make arguments for both. Stenson beat Sinead in winning commonwealth games marathon in 2022. This is outside the qualifying range, but within the same Olympic cycle so I think it's relevant.

I think the 7-1 record is pretty irrelevant as it goes back to races over a decade ago, and no races within this Olympic cycle.

The selection committee seems to have leaned hard on Stenson's com games win.

If we look at Sinead, she has the fastest time, australian record, etc. and a poor 2:31 showing at Sydney. Nothing in 2024. In 2022, she has her record run, and a 5th place finish behind Stenson.

I'd say Sinead has the weakest claim, except she's the australian record holder. So she's not going to be left out.

It's a tough call, but I think Lisa is banking on her time being faster than Stensons, and her consistency in getting the standard.

It seems like the selection committee is going more based on competition and places in races.

In this Olympic cycle marathons against the 4:

Gen has beaten Lisa
Jess has beaten Sinead

And Sinead set the australian record.

Clear selective reasoning. I can make cases against Gen (only one good performance in the window on a flat ideal course), Sinead (has not raced well for 18 months) & Jess (40s of a top 3 time). What’s the case against Lisa? She lost to Gen in Valencia? So that head to head counts and comms games although still outside the qualifying window because that puts Jess in front of Sinead but then Lisa’s head to head against Jess doesn’t count? Seems like inconsistent logic.

Not to mention Lisa tested positive for COVID at Valencia. So if we are taking into account Jess’ performance being related to her quick turnaround after pregnancy should that not be considered? Or be consistent and just look at the body of work during the qualification period…..

That’s the point. You can make arguments for and against all of them depending on what you prioritize.

The argument against Lisa is she has lost to other Australians in this Olympic cycle. She’s 45 on the tail end of her career and her best performance at a worlds/olympics is 16th. The argument for her is that she is very consistently a 2:24-5 performer.

For Sinead, she’s the fastest, Australian record holder and was 10th at the last Olympics. Against she’s 47, hasn’t really raced much in the last 6 months.

For Gen, she’s 2nd fastest and beat two of the Aussies with the standard in one of those marathons. She’s newer to the event and younger than the others. Against, she hasn’t been tested in a championship marathon.

For Jess. She’s won commonwealth games right outside of the window, beating Sinead. Her best finish at worlds is 9th. Against her, she’s slightly slower than the other qualifiers. She’s raced one marathon this cycle.

So it depends what you value. Consistency, choose Lisa. Potential, choose Gen or even Izzy. Championship record, choose Sinead and/or Jess.

Any way you slice it, someone deserving is missing out. Let’s stop acting like Lisa (or anyone) was an overwhelming favorite to make the team. This isn’t Kipchoge vs. Connor Mance. This is more akin to the 3rd spot for the American women’s team. Any of a half dozen performers could make their claim if it was done by selection.

And just to reiterate the reason Jess vs. Lisa head to head isn’t as relevant as Jess vs. Sinead is because the last time Jess and Lisa raced a marathon was 6 years ago in 2018. The 2022 commonwealth games was 2 years ago.

it doesn’t take a genius to understand one is more relevant than the other for a race in 2024.

I agree with the Australian Selection Committee personally and we have sent our best CHAMPIONSHIP racing team because that's what the Olympics are and given Stenson won the Comm games within the period this weighs heavily in her favor. Also old mates husband has been a yap and disrespectful towards Stenson that personally got me completely off of her.

Ps Everyone talking about the 7-1 record it spans over a long time and all those races where at different distances with only 3 being at the Mara which the record is 2-1 and more recently Jess being victorious

Correct.

Trials races are the way to go.

Here is an article I found on it:

nine.com.au

Late-night decision ends ugly Olympic selection fight

Women's team for Paris 2024 locked in

Link:www.nine.com.au/sport/olympics/games-p...

I hadn't been paying attention to this until I read that while working on homepage links. When I first read it, I was like, "I'll contribute to her lawyer fund." And I still might. If it's simply a matter of her raising 50k for an appeal, I think she should try to crowdfund it .

That being said, I don't really think it's a disgrace she was left off the team. I think it's a disgrace they have some committee picking it.

The reality is in her last two marathons Lisa Weightman has run 2:24:18 (13th in Valencia) and 2:24:43 in Osaka (3rd). She's 45 years of age. Stenson, 36, coming off of pregnancy, just ran faster than that (2:24:01 in Daegu for 4th). No one should care what happened years ago.

Are you going for fastest time in the window / volume (she's run 5 marathon since 2023) appreciation (Weightman) or are you going for the woman with arguably more upside (Stenson)? They went with Stenson.

(I'd like to know what the conditions were like in those marathons).

The good news is both women have been to multiple Olympics in their careers before.

Our top 3 men’s times in the qualifying period were still better than what the US could muster on the men’s side mate

Statement From Australia Athletics.

By any rationale consideration of past performance, Australia got this decision wrong.

However, I think folks are kind of missing the point of Australia's Sh&^%t show of a decision process. I don't think Australia cares about being fair. The cynical person would say most of the dodgy selections are due to conflicts of interest. I don't necessarily disagree. Australia have left deserving athletes home over ones with ties to those in power quite frequently.

However, there is some rationale for selecitng Stenson if you look at it through a different angle. If Australia's interest is to maximise their chance at winning a medal, perhaps they have a case for Stenson. Weightman has been consistently performing well for ages, at 45 and running 2:23 - 2:30 for the last 17 years, I don't think anyone would expect any surprises. She'll do fine. A solid run. But she isn't shocking anyone an winning a medal.

Now lets look at Stenson. Before having a baby she was 9th in the 2022 NY marathon in 2:27:27 (not an easy course as we all know) and won the commonwealth champs against an OK field (including Sinead). None of these results are amazing but they are solid. Now in her first marathon back from having a baby she runs a lifetime PB of 2:24:01.

Who would you pick to finish higher out of Stenson and Weightman? I'd go with Weightman. But if you want to maximise the chance of having a breakthrough run, I do think Stenson has more upside. While it would take a Miracle for any of these women to win a medal, I do think Stenson has a better shot than those left off the team. Not saying Australia made the right decision. I'm not saying its fair. But there is a case.