Primo Numero Uno wrote:
htrbnh wrote:
A lot of whining and entitlement in the thread. You don't get in based on your previous successes.
So you think it's entitlement to feel that someone should get in because of their performance rather than the have a spot they could have filled by a "gift" athlete with a slower time. It seems that Nick's current performance puts him ahead of those 4 individuals setting all past performances aside. You're right, athletes step down and let the IAAF run the show, they've done a great job of managing the sport and have helped it's widely growing popularity. It's an entitled attitude to think our sport should have a professional championship selection process and not an arbitrary one decided by clueless admins. Thank you for correcting me.
"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."
You, and others, have made sure to mention Nick's past accolades as justification as to why this is unfair. That is by definition a sense of entitlement.
I think the gift athlete program is beneficial for the sport. Sure, I think they should have just been tacked on as opposed to subbed in, but that's the rub when you flirt with cutoffs without the standard.
Your ranting about the administrators keeping a double Olympic medalist out is indeed whiny entitlement.