The Canadian Olympic Committee - a barrier for athletes

You wrote.

Sure it is. But it's a hundred years old at least. There's a lot of evidence that rampant nationalism helped create the modern Olympic games. Baron de Coubertin was French, and they'd just gotten pasted in the Franco-Prussian war. He noticed that the Prussians had organized pfysical training for all youth, and wanted the same for France.

............................................................

Thanks for the extra detail.There are loads of extra forces at play at the time.It will be interesting how many the Greeks wish to falsely hype up this summer.

I would have stressed the word "over" in the over use of the tables.The way western european governments fund olympic teams they will have hardly any middle distance in athens.This cant be right for the sport.

This, amongst other factors, is creating the greatest apathy towards the Games that I can ever remember.

[quote]thinitthru wrote:

The over use of the medal table is a corruption of sport.

Corruption of sport is when you send your mayor "Mel Lastman" to an IOC function and he is so drunk he can't sign his bar tab. Then tells an IOC official he doesn't want to make the African visit because he's afraid of the canibals.

academictech wrote:

Agreed, but I was thinking more like the oil and gas, auto mfgs, companies from the Fortune 500 lists, not necessarily just sporting good mfgs.

The 'authorities' have taken care of this by limiting the allowable size of any advertising logo to a very small space!

Matt Kerr is going for the gold!!

canadian track and field is a joke. All canada has is young talent and old guys... Only 5% of runners ever train after college.... hence the sucking... way to go

cvxcbbx wrote:

Only 5% of runners ever train after college....

Might I ask where you get your 5% figure from, aside from out of thin air? Do you have a comparable statistic for US post-collegians?

Asterix wrote:

Don't know about the sponsorship, but Timmies was sold off to an American corporation a couple years ago.

... and the donuts have gone straight into the shitter since then...

I think it was Peter Vail that raised this very same argument maybe six months ago. He's an up and coming Canadian marathoner who hopes to get sub-2:18ish (if I remember his comments then through the fog of memory - although maybe someone has better current knowledge, and I think maybe he's one of the Canucks rooming with wejo...?), and felt that a time like that should be close enough to earn a spot. I disagreed with Peter then (while still admiring his achievements) and disagree with Glen now.

Canada has traditionally taken the position that its Olympic athletes should have a decent shot of a top 16 finish in order to be selected for the team. I personally think that's a pretty reasonable standard. Hence the 2:12ish marathon standard.

I note Bruce Deacon (Canada's strongest marathoner for the past few years) had an off day and ran 2:18 and change at London. Would that be enough, coupled with the Pan Am Games silver medal, to give him a good shot at a top 16 finish? Not in my mind. I think he may be running Ottawa later this month, so we need to wait until then to find out if he can demonstrate fitness. I wish him all the best, but unless he runs a solid PB, he still likely wouldn't get the standard, and in any event, top 16 would probably be a long long shot.

I guess what it comes down to in my mind, is that the olympics are not, as someone else suggested, for the world's younth. The Olympics are the big show. You want to toe the line, you need to show you've got the stuff. As Orville suggested, the second and third tier international events are for the second and third tier international calibre athletes. The Olympics are for the best of the best.

Pete,

5 months later, I agree more with Canada's stance on tough standards, although I think they should just follow the IAAF guidelines. Now training in Flagstaff, I have been fortunate to run regularly with 3 sub-2:14 marathoners, as well as Weldon before he got injured. They are on a completely different level, so I now have to agree that sending athletes that haven't meet very tough standards may not be the best scenario. At the same time, 2:28 for women and 2:12 for men is not realistic for Canadians. It is a shame that Canada may not send anyone in either, the Olympic experience would be invaluable for any committed athlete (why not send the top ranked CDN if they have met the B standard?). I really hope that Bruce pulls it off in Ottawa (or any CDN for that matter), although historically a sub-2:12:38 time has been a difficult feat! As for the women, they have been running really well this year and will have a pacemaker, so maybe it will be more feasible. Manny Rodrigues (elite coordinator) has been extremely supportive of CDN athletes and seems to be trying everything to make the race a fast one. This apparently includes pacemaking for sub-2:19, which is great for developing marathoners.

By the way, the CDN standards for other events in T&F are equally tough - the marathon is not alone for sure!

Peter,

thanks for chiming in. Are you planning to run Ottawa? It's a great course, good for a good time if the weather cooperates. That's excellent that they're planning to pace for sub-2:19 also. I assume there'll be a pretty good crop of Canadian runners there this year, since it's really the only shot for anyone to get the ride to Athens.

I still don't agree with going with the B standard, though. I like the concept of giving our hopefuls an invaluable developmental experience - just somewhere else, not the Olympics. It serves neither the athlete nor the country to send someone to give their best, see them outperform their wildest dreams and still place 50th in a field of 53 in front of the entire nation on CBC.

Pete wrote:

I assume there'll be a pretty good crop of Canadian runners there this year, since it's really the only shot for anyone to get the ride to Athens.

Elite athlete profiles for Ottawa:

It serves neither the athlete nor the country to send someone to give their best, see them outperform their wildest dreams and still place 50th in a field of 53 in front of the entire nation on CBC.

To play devil's advocate on this one, someone has to finish in the last five spots, whether there are 50, 500 or 50,000 entrants. If every country used the "top 16" material in determining who they'd send, wouldn't the end result be only 16 competitors? Is that exciting?

Then, since in any given race, not all the athletes will perform up to expectations or their personal bests, there will be several who may run like crap, but still place top 16, by virtue of there being only 16 in the field. Further, any given race also has several athletes who are "long shots" that step up their game. How favoured was Steve Spence in 1991? Anyone pick Jan Hurak to place top four that year as well?

The IAAF/IOC sets their A and B standards with the intent that those who achieve them, are worthy of being classified as among the best in the world, top 100, 50 or whatever it is that gives them their preferred field size. Apart from the freebie single entry for the back-water countries, they feel that anyone who can meet those expectations deserves a shot at the gold. For any country such as Canada (not exactly a powerhouse of track depth) to declare that they are better than the Olympics by making standards even harder, is rather presumptuous.

Asterix wrote:

To play devil's advocate on this one, someone has to finish in the last five spots, whether there are 50, 500 or 50,000 entrants.

Sure. But 11th out of 16 on the world stage is much more impressive than 50th out of 55, particularly when you know the last five didn't really deserve to be there.

Asterix wrote:If every country used the "top 16" material in determining who they'd send, wouldn't the end result be only 16 competitors?

Not really. Statistically speaking, you'd likely end up with 50 or more runners who have a legitimate shot at top 16 on a good day.

Asterix wrote:

The IAAF/IOC sets their A and B standards with the intent that those who achieve them, are worthy of being classified as among the best in the world, top 100, 50 or whatever it is that gives them their preferred field size.

I disagree. The A standard for the marathon is 2:12+. There are several hundred runners in the world who can beat that standard. Unfortunately, just not, at present, any Canadians (although it would be great to see it happen at Ottawa!), and not too many Americans either.

I don't mean to come across as being too negative here to the Olympic hopefuls. I wish I could be an Olympics hopeful. It's just that I believe the Olympics are THE big show. You need to demonstrate that you belong. Setting the bar so that an athlete has demonstrated a reasonable shot at a top 16 finish in their event may be a tough standard, but I think it's the right standard.

Pete,

You wrote:

"I guess what it comes down to in my mind, is that the olympics are not, as someone else suggested, for the world's younth. The Olympics are the big show. You want to toe the line, you need to show you've got the stuff. As Orville suggested, the second and third tier international events are for the second and third tier international calibre athletes. The Olympics are for the best of the best."

So why not just have the IAAF/IOC tighten the standards so that only those with a good shot of top-12 (which is the Canadian standard replacing the old top-16) are allowed at the games?

This is all a subjective issue, as how does one define the criteria that "the last five didn't really deserve to be there"?

Top 16 is also just an arbitrary number. Why not top 10 or top 40? Is there really that much of a difference between 40th in the world and 8th in most of the T&F events?

But couldn't your above arguement also be used that the last five don't really deserve to be there?

Many of those several hundred runners won't be allowed in due to the 3 athletes/country rule. I believe the IAAF/IOC are aware of that when they set their standards. Based on their numbers, they figure 'X' number of athletes should be in the games, and hence how they determine their standards. Similar to the way CIS or NCAA track standards are set based on some idealized number of participants and the current talent pool available.

This comes back to a national federation (Canada's) trying to be more know-it-all than the IAAF/IOC when they don't have the muscle (performances) to back it up. Kenya, on the other hand, would be justified in toughening things up due to their incredible depth. But if you can't find two or more people to make B standard, it's not really that smart to be making your standards harder.

If top 16 is the right standard, then why are there such things as IAAF/IOC 'A' and 'B' standards? And again, why the arbitrary use of top 16 or top 12? Why not top 20 or 30?

You're right, it is a subjective issue, and most of the debate here is sort of circular. However, when I say "don't deserve to be there," I mean the top 50 all manage sub-2:15, say, and the next 5, running even splits and setting PBs, come in between 2:25 and 2:35. ie., there's a pronounced gulf between the competitors and the passengers, so to speak. I think most of us know what I mean here. I've been a passenger like that before, knowing I'd jumped into the deep end of the pool with half-inflated water wings. Not good for me, for the race, the race organizers, the spectators, anybody.

This is definitely circular logic. Canada doesn't have the performances (yet) to back up sending a team. That doesn't mean it doesn't have the experience and knowledge (and good sense) to know better than to send a team.

Having said that, I'm pulling for the Canucks in Ottawa and hope we get a couple of A standards so we do send a team that I can cheer for this summer.

Go Canada!

Pete wrote:

You're right, it is a subjective issue, and most of the debate here is sort of circular. However, when I say "don't deserve to be there," I mean the top 50 all manage sub-2:15, say, and the next 5, running even splits and setting PBs, come in between 2:25 and 2:35.

If that is the performance level we're talking about, then I'll agree with you that they don't deserve to be Olympians. But when 'A' standard is 2:16, I think it is a little extreme to be saying a 2:14 - 2:16 does not deserve to be there.

This is definitely circular logic. Canada doesn't have the performances (yet) to back up sending a team. That doesn't mean it doesn't have the experience and knowledge (and good sense) to know better than to send a team.

I see what you are trying to get at with the "circular logic" label, but don't buy it. The IAAF/IOC (I never remember which one it is that sets the Olympic standards) decides what performance level is good enough to be Olympian. If Canada has someone who makes that standard, then they should be sent.

If ones country has a wealth of talent, such as American sprinting or Kenyan distance running, then you could further whittle down your possible team by setting your own higher standards. But to increase those standards when you don't have the depth to back it up, just looks silly and does nothing to further domestic development so that four years down the road someone does run that fast.

Greg in Toronto wrote:

So why not just have the IAAF/IOC tighten the standards so that only those with a good shot of top-12 (which is the Canadian standard replacing the old top-16) are allowed at the games?

You couldn't fill a week's worth of track that way. You couldn't give all kinds of officials a free ride to the biggest sports show in the world that way. And they do run a meet like that every year; they call it the "World Athletics Final". The current setup for the WC/OG maximizes the political and economic interests of the IOC & IAAF.

You and Asterix have identified one of the major reasons why the COC's standards don't make sense.

They "raise the bar" for Canada's athletes, but won't acknowledge the fact that if other countries adopted this strategy, the Olympics as we know them would cease to exist.

Pete;

I happen to agree with you on this issue.

The other factor is that the Marathon (as the event relevant to this discussion) standards were changed (softened), since they were originally published, by the IOC (or was it the IAAF?) for the wrong reasons!! This is an athletic event and the reason (I understand) for the change was to attract more competitors for this event due to its historical significance. What?? If there was a team title in the balance (like worlds in Edmonton),I might understand, but softening the standards to get more people in the event is like lowering the standards (as was done a number of years ago for national Juniors in track) to increase entries for the purpose of making more money for the local organizing group, all well and good, but what has it got to do with the level of performance!

I'm not sure whether the 2h12 or 2h15 levels are reasonable for the men, but 2h12 doesn't seem nearly as difficult as the 10k standard (27.49).Why are the track people being held to a higher relative standard?

I do think that IAAF "A" standards should be sufficient (as Asterix maintains) to qualify for the Olympics as the top 12 (top 16 is what it used to be) is an unfair performance criteria for what is primarily an individual sport which attracts a greater number of participating countries than do the team sports. How many teams to the Africans send for Basketball or Volleyball (for example)? Our sport arguably has the highest level of diverse participation - who had ever even heard of Djibouti until they had top level marathon participants (and medalists!) a number of years ago. Canadian successes often come in sports where there are relatively few countries involved (trampoline, rhythmic gymnastics, equestrian, triathlon even - talk about "yuppie sports", and of course the winter sports like Ice Hockey).

The women's IOC Marathon standards (2h37 and 2h42 for A and B) are a joke! Relative to what the track women have to run, there is absolutely no comparison. There has been discussion in my neck of the woods to have the top Canadian woman (at this moment Nicole Stevenson I believe - 2h33.3?) go (subject to what happens in Ottawa) as someone with the new A standard. 2h28 (Can A) is not out of line with the IAAF track standards (in fact it is still easier than the 31.45 for the 10k). 10 years ago we had women (Lapierre and Rouillard) flirting with sub-2h30, and even Ruegger's 2h28 of almost 20 years ago should be in reach of someone truly at an Olympic level these days. The American women (with the exception of a fit Kastor) aren't running anywhere near the level of a Beniot-Samuelson from 20 years ago either, yet the standards for other distances races (5k/10) let alone the marathon are increasing throughout the world. This isn't attributable necessarily to drugs (as too many presume) rather the training and competition (for the women),for those who take a "professional" approach to the sport, contribute to the increase in performance level. The Canadian women simply (due to lack of talent or commitment I'm not sure) aren't measuring up at present.

Steel,

I don't have anything more to add on the subject of standards - Asterix and I are hopelessly deadlocked, which is about par for the course (and OK) when we have a debate.

But I would like to chime in on the subject of Canadian women. There's some pretty incredible potential starting to develop at the shorter distances that I sure hope develops into marathon success at the next Olympics (or even better - this one!). Like I said before, Go Canada!