I am looking at a handy sheet made by Athletics Canada, showing who has made standard (at the A+/A/B level) and what they still need to do to make the Olympic team:
http://www.2012trials.ca/news.php?id=27
Of course, there are guys with a B who still need to get an A and place top-three at trials. Fine.
But what is going on with guys who have, for example, an A+ and two A performances this year, who STILL NEED TO GET A B-STANDARD?
I have no personal stake in this. I am just an old track fan who wonders how it got so complicated.
Canadians: What is up with your crazy Olympic qualifying process?
Pro News/Info/Results
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
From April 1st to June 30th if an athlete achieves the A+ standard, they have qualified providing that they are one of three.
Achieve top-12 at the IAAF World Track and Field Championships plus a B standard in the aforementioned qualifying time period.
Achieve A standard and two B standards in the aforementioned qualifying time period.
The concept was about getting athlete to be able to finish in the top 12 at the Olympics. So in theory the standards are based on what will likely be a top-12 finish based on past Olympics and I think based on Worlds, as you can see by the top-12 criteria at Worlds plus a B.
The IAAF and the Canadian standards for comparison are here. You have to click on the docs twice to get them to their largest size: http://athleticsillustrated.com/editorial/2012-london-olympic-standards-track-and-field/ -
If our qualifying process made sense to the average person, we might attract fans, and no one wants fans because fans lead to nasty, nasty things like sponsorship dollars and media coverage and increased participation. It would mean the end of our 'fringe sport' status. It's better this way.
-
I'm just glad we have 3 guys we can send to the marathon in London.
-
So Canada will actually leave people home that have an A standard and finish top 3 at their championships if they arent top 12 in the world or also have TWO B standard performances along with their A?
Really Canada? -
Athletics Canada are jerks.
I remember several years ago one of the reasons, not the only reason, Kathy Butler switched to running for Great Britain was because the Canadians were making athletes pay to travel to races and for equipment. Equipment they were getting for free from Mizuno? Most athletes can't afford that kind of thing. It seems things have not changed, Martin G, still in charge, still making poor decisions, It's a long time I've read anything about it all but if I remember correctly after finishing 4th at the World Cross country the Canadians offered to pay for a ticket? I wonder how many of the Athletics Canada staff etc were paying for their tickets? How many athletes have and will continue to be stopped from competing at major championships?
It's very sad that an organization such as AC, an organization you would think would want to encourage athletes is doing completely the opposite. Maybe Athletics Canada should let athletes with the A standard pay to travel? It's sad, ridiculous etc but at least people get a chance to run at the olympics etc? -
M.C. Confusing wrote:
So Canada will actually leave people home that have an A standard and finish top 3 at their championships if they arent top 12 in the world or also have TWO B standard performances along with their A?
Really Canada?
If that's really the system, it's very shortsighted. The reason you run races is because you can't predict the outcome beforehand. Anyone who an A standard has a chance to medal, even if the odds are low. And you are getting people experience on the world stage to use in the future, and building up depth in the sport.
If money is the issue, at least let the athletes raise the money to pay their own way. Surely if someone would go to the Olympics if they could raise the price of a plane fare, housing, etc. then sponsors could be found. -
I am guessing the idea behind this process is this:
Sending a person to the Olympics just so s/he can say, "I was an Olympian" is meaningless. AC only wants to spend the $ to send an athlete if they think they have a decent chance of making an meaningful impact, and placing in the race.
If they roughly budget for 12 athletes and only 4-5 qualify, what do they do with the rest of the money? I am guessing they do not have a big party with it. Does it go to promote more promising athletes? Do they just keep it?
I am sure there are many instances where they will not pay for athletes. The relationship sounds contentious.
Maybe letting the athlete w/ the Olympic standard is the solution. If you want to show up at the Olympics, perhaps they should say, "Be my guest!"
However, when I read the results from Stanford, or Mt. SAC, and see guys who flew across the country to run 14:20, I have to think, "Really? You couldn't do this at a regional meet?" I am sure the same discussions go on at AC. -
Something sort of on point and by a Canadian-
http://sweatscience.runnersworld.com/2012/04/does-more-participation-produce-faster-times/
I think the big point is that the more people you get into track and field the more chances you have of getting superior athletes who can compete at an international level. Sending athletes to the Olympics even if you don't think they will finish in the top 12 increases the base of the pyramid, at the Olympics itself and when the athletes come back and become coaches, role models, etc who help get more people into the sport and considering the possibility of going to the Olympics. -
Like the lottery you have to be in it to win it.
-
The American men's marathon team is only 1/3 Americans
-
And your point would be? If you have an American passport you are an American end of story.
-
AAA-AAB wrote: Sending athletes to the Olympics ...increases the base of the pyramid
How? Athletes will still be coaches and role models, even if they don't go to the Olympics? -
Kevin Sullivan had a good post on this, in response to an up-and-coming 1,500m runner, in which he basically said when he was fit enough to hit the A standard he wasn't worried about having to also hit a slower B standard to prove fitness.
-
M.C. Confusing wrote:
So Canada will actually leave people home that have an A standard and finish top 3 at their championships if they arent top 12 in the world or also have TWO B standard performances along with their A?
Really Canada?
Exactly. It is pathetic and a disgrace. It is all so that athletics canada won't lose its federal funding as compared to sports like trampoline and curling - other fringe sports which the rest of the world has yet to discover. Every time we send athletes that don't win, it makes ath can look worse than not sending anybody (it is too complicated to explain fully here). so they chicken out and set ridiculous standards that suck the optimism out of most runners - who leave the sport early instead of trying to reach their full potential.
Our recent marathon success is fueled mostly by guys like DST who inspires people in spite of the red tape - it is not inspired by ridiculous standards.
It should be simple - you send as many people as the IOC will let you send. -
AC staff are too busy paying themselves lots of money to do nothing to actually make decisions that will benefit the growth of track in Canada. Also, don't forget charging national team members $2-3000 in order to attend a world event while the 45 AC staff get their flights paid for.
Oh, and don't forget squandering obscene amounts of money for a relay team that can't make the finals of a WC. -
Are they able to maintain a ratio of 3:1 AC officials:athletes with this system? If so it seems to be very elegant indeed.
-
Canada will only send you if they believe you are a finalist or a medal contender.
Sad thing is there is absolutely NO presence. They are a joke. It would be better to have athletes there in numbers even if the finish in the middle.
Unfortunately some US coaches also have this philosophy. They wont take a team unless they can finish in the top. They would rather DNF or not compete. Sad. -
Please don't tell that an athlete can meet the Olympic A standard and win their national championship and be denied the Olympic experience?
...that can't possibly be right; what am I miss understanding? -
Canadian spectator wrote:But what is going on with guys who have, for example, an A+ and two A performances this year, who STILL NEED TO GET A B-STANDARD?
There is nobody in that situation, or anywhere even remotely close to that situation.
Anybody who hit A+ standard this year is good to go. Period. (Other than finishing top 3 at Trials, which I assume you have no problem with.)
Anybody who hit A this year needs AT MOST one more B standard.
Perhaps you're looking at Andrew Ellerton, who hit A+ in 2011 (not this year) and thus still has to hit B this year to prove fitness?
Personally, I agree that the standards should be simpler (hit IAAF standard and place at Trials and that's it), but let's not pretend that they're harder than they are. There's no A+ plus two As plus B required, in any event, under any circumstances.
