Nick Willis misses World Championships by 1 spot due to four "gift athletes"

Star wrote:

spar wrote:

But three slower runners are in because they are slower???

Makes sense, "it's an objective sport"

Objective?

.....If you're a Moran.

They limit entrants at 3 per event per country.

There are plenty of Kenyans who don't qualify that are faster than those that do.

It's still objective because they are not subjectively eliminating the faster Kenyans.

Same with these wild cards.

They allow any nation without a qualifier to enter exactly one athlete in one event.

That is an objective standard.

This is another great example of the sport shooting itself in the foot with dumb rules/standards/procedures.

I understand that this is objective. Yes, according to the rules, Willis shouldn't be in because he didn't run fast enough. Technically, IAAF isn't breaking any of their own rules or standard by doing this.

Why are we holding ourselves to objective standards that don't yield the best results?

1.) "Gift athletes" in general needs to be revisited. Abby D'ags getting hurt, as mentioned earlier, is a great example.

2.) IAAF should have looked at who would have gotten bumped out and realized that "Hey, 4 is already a lot in one event, and that would bump out one of the bigger names in Track, so let's just do 3 and make the track world happier and make this event more marketable because people are going to be more likely to watch a race if Nick Willis is in it"

I understand the beauty of the sport is that it can be objective, but at the same time, we need to start using some more common sense with the standard we are choosing to hold ourselves to. Why are we trading one of the biggest names in Track for a gift athlete? That's a poor decision by IAAF.

In general, why are we making ourselves slaves to rules people (generally) agree don't make sense?

I'm getting tired of "objective rules" making our sport worse. The fact that the USA has a guy that just ran 12:58 (I get it, time trial, perfect conditions, but he was also 3rd at the trials) staying at home from Worlds, while the guy that placed 7th at the trials will be going to worlds is another great example of this. Or, look at Thompson spending the past few weeks smacking the guys that are going to be going to worlds instead of him. Forget not chasing the standard, why were our trials SO FAR away from Worlds to begin with? Both of these decisions makes the USA team worse than it could be.

Yes, technically, the rules are the rules, and the rules are objective.

But the rules are also objectively stupid.

I must be late to the party. Abby D'ags got tripped up by a gift athlete? Is there an article about this? I really had no idea.

...you don’t remember the race where she fell and had to limp to the finish?

ripvanwink wrote:

...you don’t remember the race where she fell and had to limp to the finish?

Starts at around the 40sec mark. I've seen the crash before, but I noticed this time they get hung up by a runner who appears to be getting lapped and didn't move out of the inside lane. They aren't actually tripped by that runner personally, but the field is having an awkward time getting around her and this has a ripple effect back through the pack, causing their crash.

I somehow forgot how gruesome this fall was, geez.

In 2012 D'Agostino misses the Olympics by .19

In 2016 this happens

This sport is brutal sometimes

JJahzJH wrote:

On the back 9 wrote:

Nick Willis has had plenty of opportunities in his running career. Willis will never earn another Olympic medal or World Championship medal as a track & field athlete. He has come to Winter Olympics time in his life. If he can shoot a rifle well, maybe biathlon or curing in winter.

Spoken like a true idiot

Thank you for the comments from Nick Willis' fan club.

You know Willis washed up as a middle distance runner. Name calling me changes nothing.

You must feel Willis' upperbody strength is too weak to curl. You must feel Willis' upperbody strength is too weak for biathlon.

You must feel Willis is too much of a girl to shoot a rifle well.

Nick, just hit the standard.

New Zealand athletics have a history of behaving in the same way they are apparently being treated. Poor communication and difficult to follow procedures and policies are integral to their inner workings.

What is amusing, is that NZ shouldn't even be selecting Willis if they actually followed their own policy...

http://www.athletics.org.nz/DesktopModules/EasyDNNNews/DocumentDownload.ashx?portalid=24&moduleid=11291&articleid=1015167&documentid=1009

Returning athletes need to be ranked in the top 24 to be selected.

4.2 c) Returning athletes (i.e. athletes that have previously competed at an IAAF Senior World

Championships or Olympic Games in the event in which they are seeking selection) that achieve a

result at the competitions listed in Appendix 1 that ranks them in the Top 24 on a 3 athletes per

Nation basis on the IAAF Top Lists

FAIL. Willis is number 42.

After the qual period, it is relaxed to top 32 if there are any spots left.

4.4 b) Returning athletes (i.e. have previously competed at an IAAF Senior World Championships or

Olympic Games in the event in which they are seeking selection that:

i. Achieve a result that ranks them in the Top 32 on a 3 athletes per Nation basis on the IAAF

Top Lists;

FAIL. Willis is number 42.

ripvanwink wrote:

...you don’t remember the race where she fell and had to limp to the finish?

I don't recall it being because of a lapped runner or a gift runner. Thought it was rando carnage in the pack.

I think it's time that Willis retire. He couldn't get the standard this year. I saw him run in early July and he struggled to break 1:50 in the 800m with a pacer. If he can't run fast enough to meet the standard, how can you feel sorry for him. As a professional runner, that is his job.

You're clueless, he just WON the 5th Avenue Mile in 3:51. How much more professional can you be than that?

The 800m....look at his history, never faster than 1:48-1:49 in years at his best in the 1500m.

He ran 3:35 days outside the window and 3:36 (inside the top 45 on the list as required).

Do you not understand the issue here? They aren't adding "gift" athletes in the decathlon, pole vault, javelin, hurdles, etc. It's random, subjective, there is nowhere written how this is decided.

Bad for the sport regardless of if it's Willis or YOU.

Supertramp wrote:

I'm getting tired of "objective rules" making our sport worse.

They should start scoring track races more subjectively.

You get points for crossing the line first.

You get points for who looks the most relaxed.

And you get points for popularity and past performances.

Add those points up to determine the winner.

A good example of the everyone's a winner mentality. Nick thought "Oh I won because I'm the last person on the descending order list so I don't have to work hard and I'll still make the World Champs." Sorry, Nick. To be successful in distance running you have to work hard all the time.

On the back 9 wrote:

JJahzJH wrote:

Spoken like a true idiot

Thank you for the comments from Nick Willis' fan club.

You know Willis washed up as a middle distance runner. Name calling me changes nothing.

You must feel Willis' upperbody strength is too weak to curl. You must feel Willis' upperbody strength is too weak for biathlon.

You must feel Willis is too much of a girl to shoot a rifle well.

I am not a Kiwi but just stop. These four "gifted" guys wont even break 3'50"... go pontificate elsewhere....

Everyone's a winner mentality? What are you talking about. Willis was listed #42 out of the 45 guys on the list. Willis along with three other athletes got screwed out a spot on the starting line.

This isn't middle school. These guys train their tails off. You don't have a clue what it takes to compete at an international level.

Its all about current form. Not about life membership.

Its a race, not an all star exhibition. Nick Willis will be on any list of all stars.

This really sucks for Nick. A class act who is losing put on one of the last world champs opportunities of his career because of administrators.

I think it unlikely he contends for a medal, although he has suprise before. But he is a very likely finalist and the guys replacing him likely aren't. Way to go IAAF, you kept an Olympic medalist and one of the best milers of a generation out of worlds. This will help the sports popularity.

I did say earlier that the 4 gifted additions should not count towards the field size of qualifiers.

Nick should not be given special treatment for past year's performances, but none the 45 should lose a spot for this random reason.

This thread should not be just about Nick Willis missing out, but for the other three qualifiers as well.

A lot of whining and entitlement in the thread. You don't get in based on your previous successes.