Vancouver V wrote:
Canada has a history of sending sprinters without any standards
Really? And just how did Canada manage to enter people in the Olympics when they didn't have Olympic standards? It's not like 'standards' are a unique-to-Canada concept.
wetcoast wrote:
Once the Olympic Marathon gun sounds, anything can (and often does) happen.
Can you define 'anything'? Just because conditions may be such (Osaka) that winning times are slow, it doesn't mean that a slower marathoner has really increased their chances of winning (or even placing).
Asterix,
Very good point.
Osaka, is only one example. Athens, Sydney and others even the non-Olympic Chicago and Boston two years ago??, Paris etc have all had weather play a very large factor, negatively.
Things happen anyway, Nicole could have her big lifetime result on that day. Or some people may drop out and usually do.
I know, someone is going to say that allowing her on borderline results opens the floodgates or is the thin edge of the wedge, if you let her or anyone go with a near qualification on a hard course or bad weather day, then others will demand to go. Ultimately somewhere the line has to be drawn.
Fair.
But we send zero athletes.
This is wrong on many levels:
1.) Want to motivate kids to run? Teens? Who to emulate?
2.) Anything can happen (earlier point)
3.) Exposure to greater competition usually, not always, but usually benefits the athlete.
4.) Sending zero athletes, but a distance coach. I don't know...what am I missing?
5.) Again, beurocrats will go and be entertained and make business connections, fine, I am in favor. But your athlete you barely supported to begin with, doesn't go. I don't get that?
Why spend billions of dollars hosting events (ie; 2010) and money sending distance coaches, politicians etc, but the people who are the Olympics - the athletes - don't go.
The public holds the purse, guess who loved Eddie the eagle the pathetic ski-jumper in Calgary?
What about the African swimmer who could hardly complete a lap in the pool....Sydney I think??
...Is it entertainment or Politainment?
Good question. Loudmilla, yeah, that seems probable enough. I hope Stevenson does too, but that would be a very big and pleasant surprise.
On the men's side, where the standards are harder, IMHO, I hope the weather is great and someone catches a flyer. I'm rooting hard for Oz. That 2:16 at Victoria, solo, was epic. His string of bad luck leading up to Ottawa was really unfortunate. Doesn't really seem likely that he can summon the magic necessary to qualify, especially after what happened in Montreal for the half.
I'm also rooting for Ryan Day, another west coaster. He's been posting his training online, and it's made for a compelling weekly read. His work ethic is immense, and he had some pretty decent results in the middle of his training cycle (a 1:06 solo half on the Sunshine Coast - not exactly a speed track). In recent weeks, though, he has struggled badly, and although his last post indicated that he had settled down mentally, when you read what he's been going through it looks a lot like he might have crossed the line into over-training territory. Hopefully, his taper will set him up right and all the hard work will shine through on race day. But that's not how things usually play out when you overtrain, is it? He is a bright guy, very knowledgeable about training, but he has no coach and his living arrangements appear to have been less than settled over the last while. Hardly ideal. Makes me want him to do it even more.
And then there is Finlayson - is he running it? Is he done? Lots of excitement when he hit 2:18, but after a couple of mis-hits at Berlin, he seems to have gone off the boil. Great guy.
Then there are the eastern boys. Bedley in Sacramento was a huge surprise. Perhaps he's got another 3 minute PB in the tank.
Several varying themes in your post, so I'll try and address what I can.
wetcoast wrote:
Osaka, is only one example. Athens, Sydney and others even the non-Olympic Chicago and Boston two years ago??, Paris etc have all had weather play a very large factor, negatively.
Yes, conditions have been a negative factor against absolute performances at several recent major events. However, everyone is affected, even if some more so than others. Someone with a 2:16 PB is not going to suddenly medal just because the heat/humidity slowed the medalists to 2:15 - 2:17 range.
I know, someone is going to say that allowing her on borderline results opens the floodgates or is the thin edge of the wedge, if you let her or anyone go with a near qualification on a hard course or bad weather day, then others will demand to go. Ultimately somewhere the line has to be drawn.
And that line has been drawn. The IAAF came out with one set of standards, making the marathon times significantly easier, relatively speaking, than the rest of them.
Athletics Canada, under direction from the purse string holders at the COC, uses the same IAAF standards except for the marathon, where the domestic standard is toughened to be closer to equivalent to other events.
Neither the IAAF nor the AC standards/criteria do I see any room for exceptions to those lines ('they were just 3 seconds off standard, so let's let them compete anyways), so I don't think one can claim any kind of wishy-washiness. The line has been drawn.
Granted, like pretty much all lines, not everybody likes where it has been drawn. Some people feel that just being in the top 400 or 500 marathoners in the world should be good enough to go to the Olympics. Others feel it should be more like top 100. Neither position is absolutely right or wrong, although all other events require the athlete to be pretty much in the top few dozen to make Olympic standards.
This is wrong on many levels:
1.) Want to motivate kids to run? Teens? Who to emulate?
2.) Anything can happen (earlier point)
3.) Exposure to greater competition usually, not always, but usually benefits the athlete.
4.) Sending zero athletes, but a distance coach. I don't know...what am I missing?
5.) Again, beurocrats will go and be entertained and make business connections, fine, I am in favor. But your athlete you barely supported to begin with, doesn't go. I don't get that?
1) Why do the Olympics have to be the be-all and end-all? If someone isn't fast enough for that event, what about qualifying for Commonwealth, Francophone, NACAC, etc?
2) Again, define 'anything'. Has any 2:16 or slower marathoner ever placed in the top 12 in recent Olympic or World Championships?
3) See item 1). Marathoners also have the advantage of great competition at London, Boston, Chicago....
4) Aren't the 5000 and 10,000 distance events?
5) The COC is certainly not infallible. I'm curious though as to how much of their funding is public money versus corporate sponsorship. To whom are they really accountable to?
I'm not really sure what point you are trying to prove with the examples of Eddie the Eagle or the African non-swimmer who almost drowned in Sydney (that's entertainment?)
The point was that a bunch of skinny people running is not really that serious, people make it serious. That's all, just putting a little - come on folks, this is running, not war/peace-keeping/disater-relief/nation building...it's running...pretty small activity.
You have brought up the 2:16 several times. I think anything can happen in a race. Why can't a woman or man have their huge lifetime day on an Olympic day? Why deny them that, if they are close.
I do agree though, that for the most part there is a line for good reason, it has to be drawn somewhere. But again, it's to me about exposing the athletes to greater competition and - maybe I am wrong. But it doesn't seem right that in the Bazillion dollar games, a flight and accomodation gift can't be given to the best the country has to offer on an athlete that cannot prove their worth more than 1 to 3 times per year. Getting the marathon right can be diffcult.
Let's be honest at the worlds, there were slower runners than the guy we are talkig about...who ran 2:16...I thin one guy was 50 with 2:50 pb??? Or something...that's way out a line then!
The '3 seconds off, lets send them anyway,' perhaps would have a caveat, 4 guys qualify, 1 goes 2:13:59 in Sacramento on a perfect day weatherwize and 1 guy goes 2:14:01 in a storm somewhere say at Boston....
Although the way the standards are written, leaves no room for this and how would you write this?? I do not know. But if our standards are different than the IAAF, then why do they have to be written the way they are.
I know...I know...thinking way outside the box...
But let's keep in mind that the top 12 caveat, is not based on reality, as the 'games' events of the recent past, have top 12 that are SLOW compared to the very top runners. I think using the top 400 example is one way to look at it, but what about the fact that some of these people do drugs, run barely legal courses...etc etc...
..I know outside...the box again.
POTD
atlanta wrote:
Yeah, you're right. Olympic Gold Medalist Glenroy Gilbert never should have gone to the Olympics...
wetcoast wrote:
You have brought up the 2:16 several times. I think anything can happen in a race. Why can't a woman or man have their huge lifetime day on an Olympic day? Why deny them that, if they are close.
Again, please define 'anything'. How many 2:16 or slower marathoners can you identify who have placed in the top 12 at any recent Olympics or World Championships?
The point is - 2:16 is not 'close'. There are still hundreds of runners in the world running faster than the Canadian B standard of 2:14.
But again, it's to me about exposing the athletes to greater competition and - maybe I am wrong.
I don't dispute the exposure to greater competition angle. It's just that a 2:16 (or 2:17...) marathoner will in all likelihood get a greater competitive experience running a 'lesser' championships (again, Commonwealth, Francophone, etc) than in having their doors blown off at World's or the Olympics. Remember that IAAF marathon standards are SIGNIFICANTLY weaker, relatively speaking, than any of the other athletics events.
Let's be honest at the worlds, there were slower runners than the guy we are talkig about...who ran 2:16...I thin one guy was 50 with 2:50 pb??? Or something...that's way out a line then!
Who was 50 with a 2:50 pb? If there was such a runner, then they are there only under the token representation rule. If a country has no one who has made even a B standard in any event, then they are allowed a single male and female entry, regardless of performance capability. Is that more entertainment or politainment?
The '3 seconds off, lets send them anyway,' perhaps would have a caveat, 4 guys qualify, 1 goes 2:13:59 in Sacramento on a perfect day weatherwize and 1 guy goes 2:14:01 in a storm somewhere say at Boston....
That looks like it is just asking for trouble. Who do you suggest make the subjective decision to send a 2:14:01 guy over a 2:13:59 guy? The same people you are complaining about for having come up with the 2:14:00 standard in the first place? What criteria do you want them to use to ensure 'fairness'?
But if our standards are different than the IAAF, then why do they have to be written the way they are.
What, specifically, do you have a problem with the way they are written? While taken as a whole, it can be confusing with the repeat performance stipulations, but look up any single specific event and it is relatively straightforward. Marathon criteria is even simpler - here is the standard. Run faster if you want to go.
But let's keep in mind that the top 12 caveat, is not based on reality, as the 'games' events of the recent past, have top 12 that are SLOW compared to the very top runners.
I don't think you are understanding the top 12 caveat. It is not that one must be ranked in the top 12, but one has the potential to achieve top 12. Reality of the recent past shows that if you are barely ranked in the top 400, you have no potential to make top 12 at those Games, regardless of what the conditions do to the top athletes.
I think using the top 400 example is one way to look at it, but what about the fact that some of these people do drugs, run barely legal courses...etc etc...
"Barely legal courses"? You mean courses that are in complete compliance with the rules and regulations? Again, this is the line that has been drawn.
Now, who do you suggest be the arbiter to determine which qualified competitors are doing drugs and which ones aren't and should be given a break on the qualifying standards?
I run a lot and have a lot of friends that run a lot. We all run marathons. None of us are in any danger of qualifying for the Olympics so you can automatically discount anything I have to say.
Every single one of us average Joe's not working for Athletics Canada that knows something about the sport feels that it was a disgrace not to send Nicole to the last Olympics when she had the A standard. We see Athletics Canada as a bureaucracy more interested in sending second rate sprinters, delegates, suits etc... More coaches than athletes. How can that be justified? Massage therapists, trainers etc...
I believe we are the only country to make up our own standards which is really another word for we are too cheap to send qualified athletes.
Regarding that other clown that posted about Nicoles work ethic and not taking the sport seriously. What are his credentials to make such a statement? She had enough work ethic to get the A standard.
Electrohead wrote:
I believe we are the only country to make up our own standards
I believe you are wrong. Many countries (even Kenya) makes up their own, tougher standards.
As long as I can remember, Canada has always been tough in picking their Olympic Team. I see no problem with that as long as the standards for each event are set at the same time and in advance and they do not get political in their selections or pit one event against another.
hay Ottawa is a tribe here in Oklahoma.
Check out the rankings. Almost 250 performances in 2008 already that are 2:14 or better.
Compare that to other events. Since a few shots have been taken at the sprinters, 58 guys have run 10.28 or faster. 3 of them Canadians.
Minimum standards set by federations. Research helps if you're trying to make a point:
Australia 2:14:50
UK 2:15:00
France 2:10:30
I just checked these 3, but as you can see, no, Canada is not the only country to set its own standards for the marathon.
Interesting discussion. It might be a valid statistical analysis to determine how many of the World's top 100 or so Marathoners are from 2 or 3 Countries, and whether Olympic or World participation should be that limited. It seems to me that the IOC and IAAF have recognized the reality that the Marathon is a different event, capable of and made better by having many on the Start Line, rather than a few. Also, perhaps that the huge number of Road Runners around the World (and accompanying sponsors and fans) are represented only by the Marathon. Why Canada or any other Country would choose to limit participation in this event, over and above what the International bodies declare is acceptable, totally escapes me. The argument that the Marathon should be treated the same as every other event is absolute nonsense.
It's a totally different event obviously. What, will "all the hammer throwers" or "all the triple jumpers" get up in arms? Please, all 6 of them?
As far as a statistical analysis of World/Olympic Marathon finishes, check out the World rankings in the years that Jon Brown finished 4th, or Bruce Deacon finished top 16, and you will immediately notice a huge discrepancy between the rankings going in, and the finishes coming out.
By the way, the A+, or the hyper standards for Canadians are not old - they are fairly new. The IOC/IAAF standards
are fine for Canadians too. If we only want to send people to the Games in sports that we can dominate in, or podium in, or whatever the current Ottawa-speak is, then I find that a sad statement about sport in Canada.
I agree with much of what you wrote, but I'll quibble with a few points:
turku wrote:It might be a valid statistical analysis to determine how many of the World's top 100 or so Marathoners are from 2 or 3 Countries...
When standards are being set (both by IAAF and by countries like Canada), the rankings used always include only three athletes per country. Even if 50 Kenyans run 8:10 for the steeple, the standard won't get pegged at 8:10.
As far as a statistical analysis of World/Olympic Marathon finishes, check out the World rankings in the years that Jon Brown finished 4th, or Bruce Deacon finished top 16, and you will immediately notice a huge discrepancy between the rankings going in, and the finishes coming out.
True enough. What you won't find, though, is any examples of runners whose best times were 2:16 or slower who EVER finished in the top 12 at a WC or Olympic marathon since 1984. Rankings aside, Jon Brown is a 2:09 guy, and even Deacon has a couple of 2:13s to his credit. Deacon would have qualified for Gothenburg (his best finish) under the current Rising Star criteria.
To clarify: Personally, I fully believe we should send everyone who qualifies under IAAF standard, including our marathoners. BUT that's not because I think a 2:16 guy has any tangible chance of coming top-12, even in as unpredictable an event as the marathon. Those who argue otherwise are just engaging in magical thinking, which makes it all the easier for AC to ignore.
I have no fundamental disagreement with your points, fellow Finnish city:)
Having said that, I don't think it's relevant to set an upper limit on what an individual may achieve on "the day". If the B standard is 2:14 or 2:15 or whatever, and we have 1 qualify, so be it - send them, that's how I see it. And,
if they prepare for the usually difficult Olympic or World Marathon conditions to the best of their ability, and come 12th or 16th or 24th or whatever, I am fine with that. I am no less proud of their effort, or of being a Canadian,
and I'm very happy that our best were able to be there.
And I don't think that is "magical thinking", as much as recognizing all the values we should be promoting in sport.
There is another point worth noting, I think. In our global village (which is great), the number of East and North Africans representing dozens of Nations is increasing exponentially, and I want to make it clear that I am just fine with that. But it is now and will continue to "skew" the International Standards, quite apart from the 3/country
scenario. I don't know how that looks or sounds to others, but my intentions are good in raising this as a possible
point of interest for some.
Not to turn this into a love-in (since this is letsrun, land of bitter disagreements), but I think we're pretty much in agreement, turku.
You raise a good point about the number of East and North Africans representing other countries. The three-per-country limit doesn't address the Kenyans in Qatar and elsewhere. (The lone male French marathoner in Beijing is likely to be a Kenyan who joined the French Foreign Legion, for example.)
One thing I wanted to clarify, though. The reasons you provide for sending our best marathoners sound fine to me, and have nothing to do with "magical thinking." What I meant by "magical thinking" is the argument (made by some posters even in this thread) that goes like this:
"Anything can happen in sports, and especially in the marathon, therefore we should send a 2:17 guy because he might win the gold medal. It's impossible to prove that he WON'T win the gold medal, so that means he has a shot. Therefore we should send him."
I agree that we should send the 2:17 guy, if that's the best we've got. There are a lot of different reasons I think we should send him. One is that I think the Olympics should be a competition between the best from every nation (subject to appropriate international standards). Another is that, by sending a 2:17 guy, I think that's the best possible carrot to encourage young guys to train to run 2:16, then 2:15, then 2:14, until the standards become irrelevant.
But I think that, in trying to convince the powers that be to change their ways, using the "anything can happen" doctrine to argue that a 2:17 guy is truly competitive at a global championship is a weak argument. Using that argument allows AC (or whoever) to come back with data that shows just how far a 2:16 or 2:17 guy is behind the rest of the world, without addressing the more important questions about athlete development and the role of Olympics in society.
And, go over to the history channel, and pick up on
"Vimy Ridge: Heaven to Hell". I'm sure you're on it...
international standards wrote:
Minimum standards set by federations. Research helps if you're trying to make a point:
Australia 2:14:50
UK 2:15:00
France 2:10:30
I just checked these 3, but as you can see, no, Canada is not the only country to set its own standards for the marathon.
Your right research does help. The Australian standard is 2hrs 12 mins. The 2hrs 14:50 is the B Standard.
Is Jon Brown running the trials?