Breaking: Jock leaves Bahamas!

Go back to Eugene wrote:

Found out he was an alternate, and left immediately as a result. Other than his oly trials performance, what else has he done recently besides underperform? Very weak move, in my fairly uneducated opinion.

Did he ride his bike back?

stephen snell wrote:

Go back to Eugene wrote:

Found out he was an alternate, and left immediately as a result. Other than his oly trials performance, what else has he done recently besides underperform? Very weak move, in my fairly uneducated opinion.

Did he ride his bike back?

LOL

My dream job is 4x800 alternate for a national relay competiton in the Bahamas.

Maybe they should have told him before the trip so he didn't waste his time going all the way there to find out he wasn't running. The first selection criteria was the three Olympians then it went down from there. An indoor 600 trumps and Olympian? I don't think so. Even if they would have asked him to prove fitness with one race prior that would have been better. Typical USATF decision making.

Top kek wrote:

stephen snell wrote:

Did he ride his bike back?

LOL

funniest post of the month

Flotrack has the details here:

http://www.flotrack.org/article/55086-charles-jock-named-alternate-after-arriving-in-bahamas-leaves-world-relays

My take is that the only way Jock's actions are defensible is if USATF informed him prior to Thursday that he would be in the lineup. If they told him he was running and then reversed course once he got to the Bahamas, then he has a legitimate grievance.

That doesn't appear to be the case.

And if that's not the case, I think Jock's actions are childish. The race isn't until tomorrow. What if something happens and one of the other guys can't run? Then the U.S. would have to forfeit as their alternate is already in the U.S.

Look, there were five men named to the team but only four can race. Obviously SOMEONE has to be the alternate. The selection criteria only says Olympians will be invited to the relay pool. It doesn't say they're guaranteed a spot on the team that runs.

stephen snell wrote:

Go back to Eugene wrote:

Found out he was an alternate, and left immediately as a result. Other than his oly trials performance, what else has he done recently besides underperform? Very weak move, in my fairly uneducated opinion.

Did he ride his bike back?

I was thinking his horse?...;)

Why not Chill in fancy beach resort and free meals on the USATF's dime-- Make believe you are a USATF executive. Go bone fishing on the flats!

Jon, Rowland's quotes in the press release seem to allude to jock being under the impression that he was running...but obviously there's no evidence of that, so we're left to what-if's. Agree wholeheartedly, if he was led to believe that he was running, ESPECIALLY if he was smart enough to get it in writing (such as a very direct email to the coach, "am I running, need to adjust my training according," or something like that), then yes I can see his point in taking off. Otherwise, childish is actually a pretty gentle description, IMO.

Rowland did say something to the effec tof "usatf needs to communicate clearly" and I agree that the standards need to be delineated more clearly, with specific team "runners" to be based on specific criteria. For example, the priority team could be "top two on olympic/world team, first at indoor champs, and current US leader by say Apr 1." Knowing that meeting that criteria would guarantee you a running spot might be a good way to alleviate issues like this from cropping up. Of course, it's usatf so we should expect nothing less than fubar, which makes me a little hesitant to judge jock quite yet.

Based on decades of observation, I find it all too easy to believe Jock that USATF failed to communicate his alternate status.

Either party can and should release the letter of invitation to prove their point.

Far Out West wrote:

Maybe they should have told him before the trip so he didn't waste his time going all the way there to find out he wasn't running. The first selection criteria was the three Olympians then it went down from there. An indoor 600 trumps and Olympian? I don't think so. Even if they would have asked him to prove fitness with one race prior that would have been better. Typical USATF decision making.

Thanks for chiming in ciaran o'lionaird.

You can go back to brown nosing nike execs in beaverton now.

1& 2 in the 600 and 1&2 in the 1000 at Indoor champs is pretty clear to me.

His latest race was a 2:21 1000m. It is hard for me to imagine he could really be that shocked. I think he looks foolish. I guess he can make the top 3 at US champs and prove us all wrong but I will be shocked if he does.

Impossible that the USATF would make a mistake like that and mislead an athlete.

dislike sticking up for USATF wrote:

1& 2 in the 600 and 1&2 in the 1000 at Indoor champs is pretty clear to me.

What WAS clear is how the INITIAL POOL would be formed. But that doesn't say who travels and who races.

What is completely NON-transparent is how the five-member traveling team would be selected if the top-3 at OT 800 and 1/2 at indoor 600/1000 were six or seven different people.

And, importantly here, how the selection of the final four was made.

It sounds like Rowland, Jock and his agents took the communication they received to mean that those included on Olympic-qualifying criteria would automatically be racing. They or USATF can clear this up by releasing the text of the invitation.

It's pretty straightforward. I think Rowland and Jock come across as entitled and a bit delusional.

USATF's relay coach is actually being smart. He recognizes that Jock had a one-off home run at the trials, and nothing before or since has backed that up. Meanwhile, the other 4 guys have all proven themselves recently, and appear more consistent. Jock has the dreaded blowup factor. That guy you put on your relay in college who could run well, but also lays some eggs.

9/10 any college coach would make this decision with his relay.

Jock's run to make the Olympic team last year was awesome. But the Trials final was his only race under 1:47 last year.

And he's only broken 1:46 3 times over the past 3 outdoor seasons (not including 2017). No, it's not all about times, but why should he be guaranteed a spot?

Jock strapped wrote:

Jock's run to make the Olympic team last year was awesome. But the Trials final was his only race under 1:47 last year.

And he's only broken 1:46 3 times over the past 3 outdoor seasons (not including 2017). No, it's not all about times, but why should he be guaranteed a spot?

He shouldn't be guaranteed a spot, but he should be told whether or not he has a spot before he shows up at the competition.

Fudge Factor wrote:

It's pretty straightforward. I think Rowland and Jock come across as entitled and a bit delusional.

USATF's relay coach is actually being smart. He recognizes that Jock had a one-off home run at the trials, and nothing before or since has backed that up. Meanwhile, the other 4 guys have all proven themselves recently, and appear more consistent. Jock has the dreaded blowup factor. That guy you put on your relay in college who could run well, but also lays some eggs.

9/10 any college coach would make this decision with his relay.

You're just now figuring out that OTC is entitled? Most of the mid/distance guys are 100% that. Besides Ben and Hassan, they're all inconsistent as well- horribly so. Look no further than Farrell's or Jock's performances.