The Canadian Olympic Committee - a barrier for athletes

Pete, Ferris has essentially already summed up my point. Aside from the fact that it's fun argueing with you, we differ on who should determine what a "big league" qualification standard should be.

While it is a matter of conflicting personal opinions, it is also a relevant debating point. What reason should you or the COA have for superceding what the IAAF/IOC have already determined will provide a "big league" field?

I'd have little problem with a tougher domestic standard if we still had no problem qualifying a full slate (3 per event). Say the US with 10.05 for the 100 or Kenya with 2:08 for the full marathon. But we can't, so it just looks stupid.

At least we're in agreement on the silliness of trying to pre-approve eligible meets.

Other events have seen the Marathon standards as a little easier than others.This is understood as the Marathon is an "Olympic key event".

Can posters concider the effects of the high standards and even higher Canadian standards on the sport.Esp when Canada can do and has done xxxx all to bring and enhance excellence.

Other nations are the same by the way.

Asterix wrote:What reason should you or the COA have for superceding what the IAAF/IOC have already determined will provide a "big league" field?

Asterix, I wrote a brilliant rebuttal to this last night, but the damn thing disappeared. Might be because I included an Eye-Are-Aye-Cue-based allusion to make my point. I begged wejo not to delete it, but maybe they've got a fancy new "dirty word filter."

Anyway, the gist of my vaporised post is that I want you to tell me why you think Canada should kowtow to the IOC/IAAF/USATF etc in setting its own standards. Canada is a sovereign nation, perfectly capable of deciding on its own what to use, so what difference does it make that IOC/IAAF have a second, weaker standard in addition to the A standard?

Pete wrote:

Anyway, the gist of my vaporised post is that I want you to tell me why you think Canada should kowtow to the IOC/IAAF/USATF etc in setting its own standards. Canada is a sovereign nation, perfectly capable of deciding on its own what to use, so what difference does it make that IOC/IAAF have a second, weaker standard in addition to the A standard?

Good topic. Minor point, but I don't think it can be suggested we kowtow to USATF.

Further to that, I don't think it can really be described as kowtowing to the IOC/IAAF (when will I figure out who is responsible for setting the standards?).

Look at it this way, just what are the Olympics supposed to be, or to represent? You've got the citius, altius, fortius, motto and the generally understood concept that it is supposed to be a competition amongst the best in the world. Obviously with the influence of nationalism, it is not an exact "best of the best", otherwise we'd have an all Kenyan (including ex-Kenyan) steeple. But with a nod to diverse representation, it can pass itself off as the pinnacle of athletic competition on the planet.

Starting from that basic goal, the people who run it (for all their faults related to the awarding of Olympic cities and drug inaction), determine the level at which someone is worthy of competing and being labelled an Olympian.

Their call, to deliver to the public a reasonably sized field (diverse, yet not being unwieldly) of top marathoners, is to set the standard to 2:16. I'll ignore the B standard, since I think you could make a good case that we shouldn't bother sending athletes who've only me that lesser mark, which, by definition, is not as "Olympian" as the 'A' standard.

Canada does not own the Olympics and I don't think it is really the proper forum to start trying to exert our sovereignty. If we choose to partake in the Olympic festivities, then I think it is appropriate that we not try and out-think the standard setters. Of course, as I mentioned previously, should we have the national depth to warrant it, I could live with a tougher Canadian standard, but since we don't, I just don't buy the whole concept of trying to be 'super-Olympian'.

Take for example Kevin Sulivan. Is he, in your opinion, worthy of being a 2004 Olympian? According to the IAAF/IOC, he is, having achieved A standard last year. That's not good enough for the COA and so he still has not assured his ticket to Athens, regardless of whether he wins the Trials in Victoria or not, as he has to run fast again in the near future.

Well, if you're going to drag Kevin Sullivan into this...

Being an open minded guy, I'm quite conflicted on that one. Friggin' guy went sixth last time around. You'd think that alone should get him a bye. But then the cold, logical, analytical side of my personality takes over. Unfortunately, Sully hasn't demonstrated the same kind of fitness, recently, that got him to the Games last time around. I don't think you can dispute that. We've all been waiting for him to pick up from where he left off and drag the whole country to gold, but he's struggled a little (eveything being relative, of course - I wish I was struggling for 3:40) with injuries or whatever, and has not been at that same level since.

So, in the asbence of him getting the standard, I guess I have to say no. Reluctantly, of course.

Damn, that sounds cold-hearted, but I'm trying to be realistic. Here's to Sully getting an Olympic standard before the Games.

Just using Sullivan as an example of the apparent stupidity of making COA qualifying rules more difficult that Olympic 'A' standard. According to the latter, he's eligible to go, but not the former. Similar to Nicole Stevenson and her 2:33 marathon clocking.

And Sullivan was 5th last time, just as he was at the 95 World Champs, but I don't think that should earn him a bye. The fact he has met 'A' standard qualifications, combined with an expected top finish at the Trials, should, but isn't good enough for the COA.

I also disagree on is lack of fitness demonstration. He ran 3:34 last year. This year he ran a pretty fast 3:56 mile indoors, as well as a national indoor 3000 record. Oh, and he also had one of the best Canadian men short course cross-country placings ever.

Given that the Olympics aren't for another 3 months and the Trials still 2 months away, that looks to me like someone who is building up momentum that could take him to the same levels from 4 years ago.

Damn, I knew I was typing to fast without checking my facts. What I was trying to say, but blundered, was that he hasn't really been close to his PRs. But I suppose that's to be expected. Save 'em for the Games!

I was gonna mention the 3000m race, but it didn't really help my argument. And since there's no men's 3000 m at the OG, it doesn't really help his case, either. Nice run, though.

Still, no tickey, no watchey. When he meets the standard, he makes the team.

Hear, hear!

Pete wrote:

Still, no tickey, no watchey. When he meets the standard, he makes the team.

But we're back to the question of whose standard? He's met the 'A' standard for the IOC/IAAF, by virtue of his 3:34 clocking last year. Just as Schiebler, Deacon and Stevenson have met the 'A' standard. None of them have a COA approved tickey to runney, watchey or even get their laundly done at the Games.

Canada's standard. Canada decides who makes the team. Not IOC. I keep saying that, and you keep saying the opposite. The horse is dead. Put away the whip.

Pete,

Why would you want an unlevel playing field at the Olympic - one on which athletes from different nations have had to meet different standards in order to make the Games?

The even bigger problem is that the COC's stance essentially says to athletes, "Yeah, you can go to the Olympics, but not until you get by us first." Why the COC wants to set a bunch of its own country's athletes against it is beyond me (and many of our best athletes). Why not foster an environment in which it at least appears that Canadians try to help Canadians get to the OGs?

Asterix, according to the Olympic Charter, it's the international federations that are supposed to set the OG standards.

Greg,you gotta pick one issue/compaint and stick with it. You're muddying the issue by talking about "level playing fields" and such.You started this thread to discuss what you, quite rightly, believe to be a silly selection process. I have come to agree with you and Asterix and others on that point. It is silly. But not because COC insists on 2:12, as an example, or because COC has the audacity to set its own standards, IOC B standard be damned. It's silly because of the severe limitations they place on opportunities, which makes the probability of meeting the standard, even for the athletes who can do so on a good day, remote.

Greg in Toronto wrote:Why not foster an environment in which it at least appears that Canadians try to help Canadians get to the OGs?

This is our fundamental point of disagreement. Olympic athletes should make it to the games entirely on their own merit, relying on their own spirit, tenacity and will. To hell with Canadians helping Canadians make it on to the team. That concept is great for getting our emerging athletes to the Commonwealth or Pan Am Games, or getting kids onto little league baseball teams. But that ideal doesn't even wash for competitive minor hockey. You wanna play triple-A, you have to earn it.

You guys don't seem to hold the Olympic Games at the same level of significance as I do. Olympic athletes should demonstrate themselves to be among the world's best, not simply world class.

As a x-c skier, we have been suffering the same issue as the track runners. We have many skiers capable of meeting the FIS standards for the olympics but the COC standards are much tougher. This resulted in only one Canadian male skier at the 2002 olympics. Beckie Scott has stated that without the experience of the 1998 games in Nagano (where she performed dismally), she would not have won her medal in Salt Lake City.

According to the following linked article on the Canadian x-c skiing website skifaster.net, the COC agreed last year to allow the international federations to set the standards for the winter games in 2006 and 2010 (instead of the previous standard of top 16). The COC decided not to relax the top 12 requirement for the 2004 summer games, and has not made any decision with regards to the 2008 summer games.

I agree Pete. I have always held the Olympics to be far superior to all other events. I would like to see the top 16 or 20 in each event be given the opportunity make it to the semifinals. Unfortunately, that does not seem possible. Among other things, politics gets involved.

Hey buddy, go find an XC message board (kidding).

I think this muddies the central debate also. There's no question that Canada does not do enough to support its developing athletes. Nowhere close. But that's a totally separate discussion, so let's not get seduced by it and confuse ourselves.

I grant you Beckie Scott (god love 'er, eh?) was glad for the first (disastrous?) opportunity. I assume she qualified to earn the opportunity to have that bad day, though. Her observation does not, in my mind, imply that it's a good idea to have two or three other athletes there for the experience, in the hope of learning from it and medalling next time around. The Olympics are not a developmental event. It's the last stop. Last (wo)men standing, so to speak.

Actually Pete, the basis of this thread - that the COC's being a barrier to Canadian athletes is a problem - is all about the COC's creating an uneven playing field. If the road to the Olympics was the same for all athletes and based solely on athletic merit, I don't think anyone would have an issue with what the COC does.

And to say that, "Olympic athletes should make it to the games entirely on their own merit, relying on their own spirit, tenacity and will" shows ingnorance of the reality of athletic careers and what makes and/or breaks them (as an example, in Canada evidence suggests that parents' income is highly correlated with one's ability to make a national team).

Finally, I'll ask again: if you think that the OGs are only for the world's best athletes, and that the COC's "top-12 potential" criteria (2:12 for the men's marathon, for instance) is a good standard, are you suggesting that the IAAF should raise the standards for the OGs to reflect "top-12 potential"? Because if you're not, then you're suggesting that athletes should not make the OGs based only on "merit, spirit, tenacity and will" but also based on political decisions made by the COC and other NOCs.

You keep mentioning only Deacon, Schiebler, and Stevenson as marathoners currently holding the revised "A" standard. Please be aware of the fact that 3 other Canadian women have also achieved said standard (as a matter of fact, all 4 women are within about 90 sec. of each other!). I believe these athletes should go to Athens--I also believe the 2 women behind Nicole should go as well.

Greg,

Income/race/etc - red herring. Not relevant to the debate. (so says Pete, anyway)

Back onto the main topic, though, we're debating two entirely different thoughts here, and maybe I've picked up on the wrong element of your issue (which I think you've muddied, but perhaps that's my failure to receive what you're transmitting).

My basic point is that the Olympics, in my mind, are for the absolute best of the best.

ergo, high entry standards are entirely appropriate. No free rides. No easy rides.

Your basic point, as I read it, is that COC in its politicization and beaurocratization of athletics, is impeding the development of Canadian athletes.

I don't disagree with your argument at all. I take issue with you extending that argument to including Canadian OG standards, because I don't believe the two issues are related.

Canada should set difficult standards to ensure the team it sends is credible.

Subsequent to, and divorced from that, Canada should not create barriers to its athletes achieving those standards so that we can send a team of worthy athletes. Notice I didn't say Canada should push its athletes along. I've only said they shouldn't impede them. That's also a separate debate, and one that I wouldn't push quite so hard, except if we start to talk about giving athletes a nudge into the Games.

All right all right. If we were jousting, I think we'd both be hitting open air. We'll have to settle this over a beer sometime.

Greg in Toronto wrote:Finally, I'll ask again: if you think that the OGs are only for the world's best athletes, and that the COC's "top-12 potential" criteria (2:12 for the men's marathon, for instance) is a good standard, are you suggesting that the IAAF should raise the standards for the OGs to reflect "top-12 potential"? Because if you're not, then you're suggesting that athletes should not make the OGs based only on "merit, spirit, tenacity and will" but also based on political decisions made by the COC and other NOCs.

I guess I didn't answer this question, and I don't want you to think I'm dodging you.

I DO think that IOC should set entry standards that ensure a very high level of competition. That's what I want the OGs to be all about. So as an example, I think the men's marathon B standard is too lax. 2:12 and a half, in today's terms, might be also, to be frank. Do you think Culpepper has a legitimate top 16 shot, even with his outstanding debut? No, I don't really. Do I think he ought to be there? Yeah, of course. And I will be pulling for him. Can we find fifty marathoners with sub-2:10 to make up a field for the Olympics? Of course. Granted, not many countries would be represented, but not everybody gets to play in the World Cup either.