Molly Seidel was 2nd at the Oly Trials in a time 13 minutes off the world record held by Brigid Kosgei. In Tokyo she got bronze ten seconds behind Kosgei. Would BA have sent such a "no-hoper"?
Great point. I ridiculed her medal chances right before the race and she proved me wrong.
if the Olympics are only about medals let’s scrap about 80% of the countries.
It seems that every time British Athletics has a new Chief Executive, a statement is put out about its poor finances, swiftly followed by a statement that "only genuine medal hopes will be sent to future championships".
Everyone knows its a hopeless, short sighted and potentially discriminatory policy that favours more privileged athletes whose career trajectories have been nurtured early and ideally.
Its more a problem of management than athletes. Poor management besets Britain now. Its expensive and wasteful. There is a funding problem of course but management should be looking into other ways to get these athletes to championships rather than deterring them from the outset. Maybe even self funding or part self funding if not considered a medal hope.
Some crazy decisions have been made in recent years and I'd hoped we had moved away from them. Andy Vernon being asked to run not 1 but 2 qualifying times in the 5000m and 10000m for the Worlds one year after coming quite close to defeating Mo Farah in the Europeans the previous year being one. Another is Eilish McColgan being denied funding because her event was considered too competitive (fortunately she was granted lower level funding on appeal). Imagine if the Norwegians had decided not to bother sending athletes to championships because the event was too competitive due to the African nations' success...
British Swimming have already been doing this for years.
Do we really want athletics to be like swimming? A BBC article from 2016 said "As the popularity of swimming has fallen over the past decade sports including athletics and activities such as fitness and conditioning have seen participation levels increase by more than 70%."
Though a good chunk of the issues with swimming in the UK come down to local governments shutting down community pools because they don’t want to pay to keep operating them. That was a huge complaint when I was lurking on a UK swimming message board about ten years back.
Still think their international selection policy is whack in part because it contributes to the downward spiral of the sport. Harder to close a pool if a local team can say ‘but we had two swimmers who got started at South Ipswich go on to make the Tokyo Olympic team’.
The Olympics are more than about wins and losses. You should send everyone that you can. If $ are an issue, I've got a simple solution - let the athletes (or their sponsors) pay their own way.
I've never believed that not sending the guy lucky to make the 10k team has any impact whatsoever on a star like Mo Farah.
This is a bit of straw man argument no?
The theory behind the decision is to 'raise the bar' and standards of athletes by raising the threshold for qualification for international meets. Not finance / getting in the way of star athletes.
There is quite a lot of evidence (albeit anecdotal) behind that idea, and when asked about developments in the sport athletes will almost always quote competitive standards (whether that is the field having sped up, or qualification standards).
I actually disagree with the decision - I too think sports is about more than just wins and losses. But this organisation is (sadly) setup purely for those wins.
UK Athletics chairman Ed Warner has called time on Britain's win-at-all-cost approach, saying the focus on medals has become unhealthy and the entire elite funding structure for sport needs reviewing.
The 'win at all costs' attitude in some UK sports has led to a lot of damaging revelations about coaching malpractice and abuse.
More to the point, investing in talent that doesn't look competitive at the moment can help them develop. Prior to last year, British women's steeplechase was a joke. By the end of the year, two women were 9:15 or under, which is getting into competitive range. Athletes like that need financial support to give them a chance at a medal, even if it is quite remote.
However, British men's sprinting needs entirely de-funding. Those guys have under-performed for nearly two decades. Relay medals are OK, but individually, we're still not seeing anyone regularly breaking 10 seconds.
British Swimming have already been doing this for years.
How much money are you saving? What does it cost to send someone to the Olympics? It shouldn't be more than $5,000 max. I bet it's a lot more but all you need is a plane ticket and few days food as everything is pretty much covered in the village.
So we're talking about saving 100k (20 x 5k)? Meanwhile, if you take those people to the Olympics, their teachers, relatives, club mates, neighbors all become fans. They get stories put up on the local tv about them. And that's just for the people that make it. Think of all the storiesin the US about the people just getting to go to the Trials.
So to save 100k you are killing the interest in the event for tens if not hundreds of thousands.
I don't think this is correct. In my country there are standards (certain amounts) that the national committee need to pay olympic athletes. So the savings will be more than the flightticket. It will be a monthly amount for xx years.
Gold medals aren't just earned by one person in one year. It takes years of building up knowledge, learning about competition and coaching.
Maybe you send someone to the Olympics that has no chance to medal, but they learn what it takes and four years later they have a better chance. Or maybe 12 years later they are a coach who is able to get their athletes to that level. Or maybe they go to Jamaica and develop a bobsled team.
Sports are a process, great athletes are not a lucky phenomenon.
For all the reasons we have to rag on USATF, the one thing you can say in their favor is that they always took the biggest team they could. Back when we had A and B standards, and the world championships would let you take two A’s and a B if you wanted, USA would always do that if applicable and would never say sorry B standard person, you may be qualified, but we don’t think you’re good enough, so you’re not going. But over the decades, I’ve read about countries like Canada with their higher A+ standards before they’d send an athlete, or I believe it was Sweden that once said if they didn’t think you were likely to get top eight they wouldn’t send you. And now this from UK Athletics, which has always been weirdly run, and has always made some odd selection decisions leaving lanes open when they had qualified athletes available.
A population weighted Summer Olympics of approximately 10,000 athletes is a fair way to have an Olympics that is truly representative of humanity. Each country and territory would be allotted a number of athletes in accordance with their percentage of global population. Among the largest countries, China would have 1790 athletes, India 1750, the US 420, Indonesia 345, Pakistan 290, Nigeria 270, Brazil 270, etc.
Under this plan, the UK would have an Olympic team of 85 athletes.
The UK (resident here) is/has been stuck in a cost-cutting death spiral, run as it is by a bunch of vandals/crooks who genuinely have me looking up the definition of 'terrorist organisation' from time to time, such is their commitment to bringing the country to its knees.
Just replace UK with US (and substitute a 'z' for the 's'). :-)
South Korea figured this out a long time ago. They don't bother sending anyone unless there is a chance of a good performance. I don't think they even bother even sending anyone to T&F events outside of marathon. Sometimes they won't even send a full squad for that either. "If not gonna medal, we don't care."
This policy will just drive those who have potential to be medal contenders away from what is already an unforgiving sport, and as other posts have pointed out it deprives those of valuable championship experience where lessons are learned through failure. It really shows how tone deaf the top level of the sport is in the UK. The sub elite level of the sport is thriving with many attractive, spectator friendly races like night of the 10ks where as the top level British championships have become a stale and boring spectacle with empty stadiums, hollow sponsorship and a none-existent atmosphere. Even 15 years a go when I was competing it was in decline, now I’d rather compete in one of the evening 5k races that have beer and pizza at the venue rather than the boring British champs 5k. UKA should be capitalizing on this and funneling athletes through, giving them opportunities to bridge the gap between sub-elite and elite not putting up blockers that are going to turn people away. There needs to be a sensible discussion about what the purpose of British Athletics in the UK is. Do we want funding and opportunities to be concentrated on a small few of established athletes whose careers last at the top between 3-8 years max, or do we want to create an inclusive sport that offers hope and opportunity, creates conditions for those who might be late bloomers and hard workers to thrive and mix it with the best. Top level British athletics does nothing for the wider British society and has bread a culture of ‘full time only’ which are symptoms of these sort of policies. When athletes who work are on the cusp and can see the rewards round the corner it pushes them to raise their game. If the policy is now you've got to be an elite to go to a major champs then why would anyone who has a job bother. The Olympic legacy from 2012 has proven to be an abject failure and policies like these will continue to turn people away from the sport.
this policy will do nothing but kill the sport. there are levels to everything, and they are destroying a HUGE level that people aspire to.
think of all the people who aspire for that olympic trials marathon qualifying times. and the people below them who they inspire and on and on. If the only level to aspire to is the very best in the world, the sport will not be better off.
i think their idea is that it sets the bar higher and those people who are satisfied to just make the team will reach higher levels. there is logic to this, but i just think it kills the sport, and you will lose more than you gain
If this policy would kill your sport your sport is pretty meaningless anyway.
Real sports survive despite not sending any athletes to the Olympics. Do you think soccer and Argentina would all of a sudden become irrelevant if they decided not to send an Olympic team?
Any sport that considers the Olympics their peak competition is a hobby not a sport.
So why are you on a track and field message board?
