The Canadian Olympic Committee - a barrier for athletes

Hmm... we may agree on quite a bit.

Apparently the horse is not dead, yet.

Pete wrote:

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

Agreed. Best of the best has been determined by the international community (whatever sporting body it happens to be) to be the Olympic 'A' standard. I'm not that big on the 'B' standard concept, except as a 'proof of fitness' marker for someone who made 'A' last year. Look at the world lists, 'A' standards are very high and, I feel, entirely appropriate. There are no free or easy rides there, even if the marathon is relatively a bit weaker than others. (But then, what about women's javelin, which doesn't have anywhere near the depth of international competition as the marathon?)

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

But we're still at loggerheads over the definition of "credible" or "high standards". Suppose every country or international body used "top 12 possibility" as the criteria. We'd likely end up with fields barely 20 people strong. These would be damn top athletes, yet someone would still finish last, others in the bottom half of the field. Would any nation be right in deciding to toughen up their standards since they had someone "embarass" them by placing last in the field? Where does it end?

Another weak different sport analogy. There are what, 7 - 9 players who will make the defense roster on the Olympic hockey team? Assuming there is now reasonable national team parity between 4 - 6 countries (Canada, US, Russia, Sweden, Czech Rep), we're looking at the very real likelyhood we are taking some defensemen who are no better than 36th in the world. While it's stretching the arguement to bring in team sports, maybe we should limit those who make the Oly hockey squad to top 16 in the world capable. Who cares about the whole Olympic qualifying tournament, as we should exercise our sovereignty to only send a team that we feel is the best of the best.

And to "interested party", you're right. We do have Jacobson, Connely and Howe who've run sub 2:38 and we should be taking our top 3 'A' standard athletes.

Only a flesh wound, then? Let me get out my gun and shoot the poor thing. You say tom-eh-to, I say tom-ah-to. I'm arguing about holistic concepts. You're arguing about the niggly details, and who should determine the niggly details. You say IOC, I say Canada. You're buying the third Kilkenney.

Asterix wrote:Suppose every country or international body used "top 12 possibility" as the criteria. We'd likely end up with fields barely 20 people strong.

No way. Dozens of athletes would have a realistic shot at top 12 on a good day. If we set the marathon standard at 2:08 we could still get a good field, and a fantastic race.

Asterix wrote:While it's stretching the arguement to bring in team sports, maybe we should limit those who make the Oly hockey squad to top 16 in the world capable. Who cares about the whole Olympic qualifying tournament, as we should exercise our sovereignty to only send a team that we feel is the best of the best.

You can't mix individual rankings and team rankings. The quality of the team may have very little to do with the relative quality of the individual players. Look at Calgary, or even the 1980 US Olympic team. But the OG tournament SHOULD be limited to something like the top 16 teams in the world. That's exactly it. Should the IOC soften the entry conditions so that every nation could send a hockey team? NFW.

I think you've made my point.

Further on that, I don't think they should include a sport that hasn't aged enough to have a truly competitive field with some depth. I love the Canadian women's hockey team, but it's not especially satisfying watch them demolish everyone and only have competive matches with the US. Get rdi of it until another half dozen countries catch up.

And my vote for the Canadian of all time is Terry Fox. No friggin' way it's Lester Pearson or Shania Twain.

Depends on the event, but I think past history has shown that just about anyone who is capable of making an Olympic 'A' standard has the potential to medal, let alone place top 12. That is truly the best of the best.

Yeah, it was an acknowledged weak arguement. That is one of the beauties of track, the absoluteness of times and not some undefined "team chemistry" or "cohesion".

Agreed again. I think there are strong parallels between top 16 teams and the 'A' standard. Even in laned events, you can deal with 100 competitors reasonably quickly and efficiently in four rounds far better than a round-robin affair with 6 - 8 teams in a division before you get to medal rounds. Entry standard for both (top 100 100m guys versus making a hockey team ranked top 16) are at the very least comparable, if not more difficult for the track event. We are talking best of the best here.

Agreed again (this is becoming a worrisome trend!) I'll leave the arguement over what should constitute critical mass for a sport to be Olympic calibre for another pair combatents.

Haven't really looked into this whole vote thing so I don't know what criteria they are using to determine "greatest Canadian". Most popular? Biggest impact on the country (political or social)? Biggest contributor to the world scene (something Pearson might be in the running for, although Banting & Best or Bell, among others would be included)? Regardless, I'm willing to vote to get those annoying commercials off the air though.

Did the sky just fall or a pig fly? Pete and Asterix just openly agreed on something. More than one thing. !!

On the Greatest Canadian thing, quit equivocating over the details and put your support behind someone. Don't expect CBC to set the standard. YOU get to set the standard.

Pete,

I had some time on the exercise bike (damn stress fracture) to think about why I disagree with you. You seem like a guy who's willing to at least consider opposing points of view, so hopefully you'll bear with my long-windedness.

You're still confusing the specifics of the marathon situation with the general principle of how standards should be selected. You think 2:12 is a reasonable standard. Fine. So do I, as a matter of fact. But consider a hypothetical situation: what if the IAAF standard was (still) 2:12, but the COA insisted on a standard of 2:07? Now would you agree that that was unreasonable?

The problem is that everyone has an opinion on what standards should be. You may think 2:11, I may think 2:12, others may think 2:09 or 2:20. How do we decide between all these opinions? We don't: we just follow what the IAAF has determined to be the appropriate entry standard to this "world-class" competition.

Now, my "hypothetical" example of the COA picking a ridiculous marathon standard of 2:07 is actually not all that hypothetical. Take a look at the Canadian standards in other events. Why is the men's 800m standard 1:45.71 when the IAAF standard is 1:46.00? Why is the women's 5000m standard 15:01.42 when the IAAF standard is 15:08.70? These are already HARD standards (not like 2:15), but COA makes them harder.

The real question is: why? If a Canadian woman runs 15:04, is she really a significantly less likely finalist than one who runs 15:01? Either woman would have to have the race of her life to medal (like Babcock almost did last summer), or could have a "very good" race and not make the final. There's no real difference between 15:01 and 15:04 on the world scale -- the COA has just invented an arbitrary bureacratic number which makes it harder to make the team.

Just like last Olympics, there will be people this year who make the very difficult A standards on the track, but don't go to Athens because the COA has tweaked their standards for no reason. To me, that's yet another way that the COA acts as a "barrier for athletes".

Pete wrote:

On the Greatest Canadian thing, quit equivocating over the details and put your support behind someone. Don't expect CBC to set the standard. YOU get to set the standard.

Looks like Ferris has stated my point far better than I've been able to.

Still can't come up with an unequivocal nomination, but I'll put forward for now: Sir John A., Dr. Bethune and Sir Sanford Fleming.

I'll have to get back to you once the COA has determined what the 'A' standard is for a realistic shot at "Greatest Canadian".

Well,

if we're comparing 15:01 to 15:04 we're just splitting hairs. Two different athletes with those times are on exactly the same level. Comparing 2:12 to 2:15 is not splitting hairs. These two athletes are on different tiers.

I think our difference of opinion still hinges on who ought to be setting the standards for the Canadian team - Canada, or some world body. While I wouldn't necessarily agree with all of the standards that Canada may have set, I wholeheartedly agree that it's Canada that should decide who it feels deserves to represent the country in international competition.

Standard selection doesn't come down to individual opinions on specific standards - your opinion versus my opinion - but comes down to the presumed reasonable judgement of those charged with the responsibility of setting the team.

The IOC didn't select Canada's gold medal hockey team. Wayne Gretzky did, in consultation with a small group of brilliant hockey minds. Whether a similar system exists at Athletics Canada/COA/whoever may be subject to debate (I have no idea who's making the decisions, although it seems like some of their decisions reflect poor judgement), but that's where the decision must lie. Not with the international body. They (IOC/IAAF) should be setting minimum standards, and then letting the participating countries determine if/how they will send a team meeting those minimum standards.

I can't give you a logical fact-based framework for this argument, much as you haven't presented (in my mind) a logical basis why Canada should default to generic international standards. It's really just a conflict of opinion. Neither of us is right or wrong.

Asterix,

that's waffling. You can only select one. This is the big show, not some pansy house league ringuette tourney.

In any event you're way wrong. None of those three qualify to do Don Cherry's laundry, let alone get mentioned in the same post as Romeo Dallaire.

Exactly, it shouldn't be some individual opinions, which are obviously coming into play if the COA is keeping 'A' standard for some events, but choosing to toughen them up for others. Who is it at the COA that is making these decisions and on what basis? What criteria are they using to determine that in some events "top 16 potential" is equivalent to Olympic 'A' standard whereas it is not in others? Where is the accountability?

Now you are the one resorting to a different sport analogy that isn't relevant. Hockey is a lot more open to subjective decisions on who should make the team due to its many attributes that can't be quantified. Track is so simplistic in that pretty much everything can be reduced to a number (or more specifically, a time or distance). 10.10 is good, 10.60 is not.

The IAAF has set the standards and then Canada, like the US, has chosen to pick the team based on finishing place at the Trials amongst those who've made the standard. Why should some unknown official(s) have the perogative to apparently arbitrarily move the goalposts?

While there may be no absolute right or wrong, there is still the open issue (the outcome of which neither of us has any real influence on) of whether either method is what is best for the sport and for Canada. I am of the opinion that an internationally recognized standard for excellence (Olympic 'A' standard), combined with a top placing at our domestic Olympic trials, should be good enough to earn yourself a ticket to Athens. You apparently feel that some unelected, unaccountable individuals should have the ability to move times up on an unexplained basis, for the primary reason that Canada should not necessarily be subjected to international dictates.

Now, the other issue:

"that's waffling. You can only select one. This is the big show, not some pansy house league ringuette tourney.

In any event you're way wrong. None of those three qualify to do Don Cherry's laundry, let alone get mentioned in the same post as Romeo Dallaire."

Yes, it's waffling, but am I expected to come up with THE greatest Canadian in a short time period? I need some time to evaluate!

But given you just told me a post or two prior that I get to set the standards for selection, you've got no grounds to tell me that I'm wrong in who I pick. My rules, I make 'em up. For what it's worth, I think I'm now down to two, MacDonald and Fleming.

Pete,

Okay, I guess I'm almost ready to accept that we're at a point where we won't convince each other. But one more try at clarifying what I think many on this thread feel:

As I understand it, you're arguing the principle that Canada should have the right the set its own criteria for picking its teams. Once again, I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is their arbitrary use of this power to set higher standards with no apparent benefit except to deny the Olympic dreams of a very small number of athletes.

We seem to agree that 15:01 versus 15:04 is pretty much equivalent on the world stage: we're not talking about a "contender" versus a "no-hoper". And the number of people who will run between, say 1:45.7 and 1:46.0 is very small, so we're not talking about saving significant money with a smaller team. And I really do not believe that AC saying 15:01 rather than 15:08 is going to inspire our athletes to reach greater heights of excellence. If you believe they're not already doing everything within their power at that level, you're doing them an injustice.

So what we're really talking about is a small number of athletes who won't go to the Olympics because of an apparently arbitrary decision by some bureaucrats. It will happen -- just as it happened to the two or three women who ran between the IAAF standard of 15:35 and the COA standard of 15:29 in 2000.

This is what inspires someone to start a thread about the COA being a "barrier for athletes". It's not about who has the *right* to set standards -- it's about how the COA uses that power. And no number of "right" decisions (such as, say, the 2:12 versus 2:15) compensate for the "wrong" decisions like the arbitrary toughening of a few (but not all -- why?) already tough track standards.

Oh, and a post-script: the whole point about Beckie Scott in 1998 is that she WAS one of your "no-hopers". There was nothing to distinguish her from the other Canadians on the team. No one knew that she would be a medalist four years later -- just as no one knew her teammates wouldn't be. You can't use hindsight to only select the Simon Whitfields and Beckie Scotts who are going to far surpass expectations. You either let the non-top-12-ers in, and hope for a few surpassing performances like Whitfield's. Or you take none of them, and watch the continued withering away and dying of amateur sport in Canada.

Ferris,

you've almost got me sold now.

But not quite. The only thing I have a hard time is your characterization of the standard setting decisions as "arbitrary." Unless you have real insight into what goes on behind closed doors (Asterix, in making the same argument, acknowledged he didn't know who was making these so-called *arbitrary* decisions, which implies to me he doesn't know in fact that the decisions are arbitrary), you shouldn't be making that accusation.

You CAN say that some of the decisions, in your opinion, suck, which they may do. But unless you actually know how the decisions have been made, you're on thin ice saying they're arbitrary.

I can sympathize with those who get oh-so-close but don't get on the bus. One might argue that the selection committee (or whoever) should have some license to use judgment and award a place on the basis nearly making it.

But that would be a slippery slope, rife with the potential for political interference.

If the standards are known by all, well in advance, and NOT flexible, you have a fair selection system.

If these standards are good and tough, then you have an Olympic selection system.

But it doesn't really matter how you do it. Fair or not, tough or not, you'll never please everyone. The best one can hope for is that the process is conceived and managed by level headed and knowledgeable people, and the athletes find good opportunity to show their stuff at an appropriate time.

Living in Wejo's house, I have fun reading all the threads and find it interesting that the CDN ones often last fairly long. The argument on this one has probably run amuck.

Ferris had some good logic, but I was taken aback by his comment "These are already HARD standards (not like 2:15), but COA makes them harder", when referring to 5k standards on the track.

There have been only 21 Canadian runners in our history who have run 2:15 or better! Quit looking at the equivalency tables. The marathon cannot be compared to any other event, there are too many intangibles/variables that make it extremely difficult to run good times. You only have to look at guys like Schiebler to see this. He is an amazing runner, one of Canada's most successful ever, who has run sub-28 and more than one 61 minute half marathon. Yet he has "only" run his two marathons in the 2:14 range. Obviously, he has the potential to run faster, but that is the point - the marathon is almost unpredictable in its difficulty. In most elite marathoners eyes, 2:15 is an incredible time, it is disrespectful of those making the effort to suggest otherwise!

Peter,

nobody's trying to be disrepespectful to anybody. But let's try to be a little more realistic on a couple of minor points.

Just because only 21 Canadians have gone 2:15 or better doesn't necessarily imply 2:15 is the right standard. Who's to say there should be a Canadian in the race? The top guys will be runners with sub-2:08 on their resume, not 2:13 or 2:14.

And yes, Scheibler, Deacon and others (Mondor!!) are amazing runners. But Scheibler has not demonstrated, yet, that he can make the leap from 10k to the full pull with equal credibility. When he manages to get the training, timing, race conditions, intangibles, etc, all down pat and grab the NR like we all expect him to, then he will have shown he's truly got the capability.

On a side note, this debate hasn't run amuck. It's been very polite, and I think it's explored some good territory. You want to see a debate run amuck, tune in to a sports call-in show after any NHL playoff game. This stuff's been diluted pablum in comparison.

Pete, I think that's the point. It is not known who made the decisions on standards (or at least which ones to follow and which ones to toughen), nor how they arrived at the new times. There is no mention in the selection criteria on AC's site why women's standard is 15:01 and not 15:08.

Unless there is some accountability as to who and how the standards were determined, then they have all the appearance of being arbitrary decisions, and that is not the way to run a fair and equitable organization. All that I believe is known is that these standards come from the COC (not, apparently AC). Who in the COC is claiming to have such an understanding and awareness of the sport in Canada that they can make such decisions?

It is absolutely a slippery slope. Why bring the human subjectivity into the equation, either by giving someone leeway to name an athlete to the team or to make some standards tougher than those set by the IAAF?

Not entirely, since some events only have to achieve the same level as the rest of the world, while others have a higher bar. If USATF were to make their 100m standard 8.95 and top 3 at the Trials, would that necessarily be a fair selection system?

No, I don't expect to please everyone, unfortunately. What would satisfy me (everyone has to get IAAF 'A' standard and place top 4 at Trials), would not please others who could claim the relative toughness of 2:16 is not as hard as 15:08. But how can we be assured that "the process is conceived and managed by level headed and knowledgeable people" if we don't know who toughened some standards and not others, nor what criteria they used?

In my perfect world, for Canadian selection, I would say you must achieve Olympic 'A' standard within the international qualifying time window. If it was done last year, then you must also achieve Olympic 'B' standard this year as proof of fitness. Plus place top 4 at Trials. Obviously some modifications for marathon purposes and not necessarily completely what the IAAF mandates, but everyone in every event is playing to the same standards as their competition in the rest of the world.

pvail wrote:

Ferris had some good logic, but I was taken aback by his comment "These are already HARD standards (not like 2:15), but COA makes them harder", when referring to 5k standards on the track.

Peter, I was a little more harsh than I intended in the interests of brevity. I know 2:15 is hard, and I respect what it takes to get there. The reason I put the (not like 2:15) comment in there is because I think the marathon question is a special case which detracts from the general argument.

The fact is, 2:15 is not on a par with the other track standards. There are good reasons for this: one is that field size is less of a restriction in the marathon than on the track; another is that marathon performances in most non-African countries have plummetted even more than middle-distance performances in the past 20 years. Nonetheless, it doesn't take equivalency tables to see that there's a difference. You astutely pointed out that only 21 Canadians have run 2:15. Well, take a look at the track standards: in history, only one guy has made 400m standard, 6 in the 800m, 3 in the 1500m, 1 in the 5000m, 1 in the 10,000m.

No disrespect intended to 2:15 aspirants, but that bar is a little lower than the track A standards.