BOHICA wrote:
Outside of the qualifying window is impertinent. What he ends up running at the OT should have zero bearing, he had the entire qualifying window to prove his fitness in the event and the appeals process shouldn't be about estimating that you're truly fitter than your qualifying time for that event. You're looking elsewhere to come up with whatever irony you see.
- So I guess he didn't prove his fitness when he was second at the USATF cross country nationals in February, 2007, which was within the track qualifying window that opened up in January 2007, beating the likes of Torres, Abdi, Ritzenhein, and Carney in the process? Interesting how that never gets mentioned or considered.
Which performance(s) are you referring to? I remember him drilling the likes of Kennedy and dusting full fields in doubling at XC nationals in his prime, not quitting a race because he couldn't manage the pace he needed on his own for just the A qualifying standard for the Games.
- See above. And let's not forget that he PR'd in the 5000 and finished in the top six in WORLD cross mere months earlier.
Actually, you read what you wanted to see. I stated that if the administrators wanted to open up the field of the 10,000 to more than 24 then and go down to #34 on the qualifier list then, per their own rules, they should have run semis and pulled in all qualifiers ahead of #34 as well. A conditional statement based wholly on USATF rules, not a statement of my preference.
- Actually, you surmised a scenario based on what you thought would be fair if the USATF granted Goucher's appeal. Go back and read what you wrote. In YOUR opinion, fairness would have required opening the race up to the last qualifier "ahead" of Goucher, which would mean two heats by the USATF's own rules.
No matter who was on the committee, it'd be best if they all were impartial and not likely to be swayed by things that occurred years in the past, well outside the qualifying window for the meet in question, nor swayed by a coach's estimate of his athlete's fitness.
- If rules is rules, then why even have an appeals process? I mean, under what circumstances would an appeal even be warranted if not this one? Maybe this is the difference between liberal and conservatives. If we ever captured a guy like Bin Laden, then I'm all for throwing the rule book out the window and going Jack Bauer on his ass, IF it means it would save American lives and provide greater security. I would consider it unethical not to. The spirit trumps the letter. We can continue to belabor this if you want to, but we aren't going to agree, and that's ok.