I think the best case for both is a top-8 finish, and they'd need a decent dose of luck. I'd also take both, but if UKA decided to take Norman now, based on his ranking, it would be unfair to other athletes who may have structured their seasons differently if they'd known ahead of time that qualifying by rankings was an option. In principle, athletes should be able to qualify by ranking but for the sake of fairness, that has to be known at the start of the qualification period, you can't change it part way through.
I think that'd be a tremendous stretch for Eilish:
Needs a Miracle to Beat: -3 Kenyans in sub-29:30 shape -3 Ethiopians in sub-29:50 shape -Hassan
Sub-31' tier: -Cheptoyek (30:03 in Valencia) -Chelangat (30:24 at Pre) -Kelati -Lauren Ryan -Megan Keith -Schweizer -Valby -Van Es -Battocletti (might only be running the 5,000)
Then there's a host of athletes (Japanese, XC qualifiers et al), who have shown similar/better form. I think something like top 12 would be a possible result, but would require many DNFs.
The steepler meanwhile is about 10 seconds from being competitive for the medal hunt. McColgan is more like 90 seconds in her current fitness.
Yeah, it's a stretch. But she's getting fitter and could be in 31 shape by the Olympics. And a fair few African athletes essentially give up and save themselves for future races if they're out of the medals because they aren't incentivised to run minor places. That let Jess Judd into 8th place in Budapest. I don't think top 8 is likely, but it's not out of the question, and it will be very hot in Paris so they'll be a bit of carnage in the race
I expect this post will be deleted, but LOL at Rojo wasting Gault’s time writing an article about a time trial that took place 16 (!) years ago. Who would want to read such an article?
If you actually followed UK track, you would be aware that there was more to this case than is being discussed in this thread. I will post a link to an article; this is public knowledge so perhaps the mods can avoid going overboard.
I think it's time that, if we're really going to go to points based qualifying standards, that World Athletics and the IOC ditch the country federations and allow the top 3 in the rankings in each event in each country to compete regardless of what federations have to say.
They did the same crap back in 2012 (the year they even hosted the Olympics) and tried to leave a third spot in the men's marathon empty despite Lee Merrian being under the Olympic standard and being their top finisher at the London marathon. So the running community came together, made the public aware and the news involved. They put enough pressure on the UKA to add him and guess what? He was their top finisher in the 2012 London Olympic Games. Go figure.
UKA sucks. So much drama and politics.
That's the only way anything changes. Organizations in positions of power need to feel scrutiny by public and media. Otherwise they are content to sit back behind their little pronouncements.
Duplantis should speak out in Sweden. I doubt it means enough to him. Hodgkinson has enough weight to do the same in Britain, along with Adam Peaty. More than anything it would be glorious if Phoebe Gill took the lead on this at 17. She would be a beloved legend before running an Olympic race.
The United States never would have reversed course on that world U20 championships later this summer without feeling the heat.
Mondo has said to Swedish media that he thinks everyone who qualifies according to World Athletics should go, but that's not enough because he doesn't have that kind of sway.
The Kate Reed story is a bit more complicated than presented here. The rest of the story doesn't make UKA look any better though. She has a minor injury, press asked her how she cleared it up, she joked back "morphine" it got reported in the press. UKA decided to search her room and give her a drug test (a little duplicative because everyone gets tested at the Olympics but whatever). Then they decided she must be lying about the injury after there was no morphine in her room or in her blood/urine sample. That's when they decided that to "make sure we don't have serious questions about our 10,000m Runner, we're going to make her run a 2k fitness test the day before the race."
I think the best case for both is a top-8 finish, and they'd need a decent dose of luck. I'd also take both, but if UKA decided to take Norman now, based on his ranking, it would be unfair to other athletes who may have structured their seasons differently if they'd known ahead of time that qualifying by rankings was an option. In principle, athletes should be able to qualify by ranking but for the sake of fairness, that has to be known at the start of the qualification period, you can't change it part way through.
I think that'd be a tremendous stretch for Eilish:
Needs a Miracle to Beat: -3 Kenyans in sub-29:30 shape -3 Ethiopians in sub-29:50 shape -Hassan
Sub-31' tier: -Cheptoyek (30:03 in Valencia) -Chelangat (30:24 at Pre) -Kelati -Lauren Ryan -Megan Keith -Schweizer -Valby -Van Es -Battocletti (might only be running the 5,000)
Then there's a host of athletes (Japanese, XC qualifiers et al), who have shown similar/better form. I think something like top 12 would be a possible result, but would require many DNFs.
The steepler meanwhile is about 10 seconds from being competitive for the medal hunt. McColgan is more like 90 seconds in her current fitness.
Miracle sure... but not every champion performs well at the olympics.
That's the beauty of the Olympics, it's the underdogs chance shine. Anything can happen. Even in cases where there is a solid gold winner-- that person may fall, get injured, get jetlagged (rememer even Simon Biles got the twisties and withdrew from a few competitions, imagine competitions not sending someone who can be the 9th best because they assume the top 8 will all be healthy). Prefontaine never medalled, Radcliffe never medalled... other people medalled and were found to dope -helping shalane get a medal years later.
So give them a chance, don't count your eggs before they hatch, if they qualify let them run! Have faith in the athletes and give them the chance of calling themselves what they deserve to be called--- an olympian.
It was still absolutely stupid to have someone run a time trial/fitness test the evening before an Olympic final, irrespective of anything else.
Her coach told her to run it hard. Her coach was a UK selector. This is all public knowledge.
It doesn't really matter. It's still a completely ridiculous thing to do the evening before a final. You want to be preparing for the race/getting into the right mindset, not dealing with all of that.
Bravo!! I can't say I blame them. Please read this article from The Telegraph. Can you imagine being the best Brit in your event in 30-40 years, getting the World Rnaking needed to go to the Olympics but not being sent?
The Telegraph can reveal that at least three athletes are planning to instantly retire after being listed as “qualified” by World Athletics but knowing that they have narrowly missed their federation’s deeply controversial standards in events that will otherwise have no Team GB representative.
They include Jade Lally, who is due an Olympic invite according to her world ranking, but missed the UK’s qualifying standard by just 5cm with a discus throw this year of 63.15m that no other British woman has bettered since 1983.
“I have to retire because of British athletics,” Lally said. “I’m proud to be British … but I’m ashamed to represent British Athletics. If you are a British athlete, and have already missed out on a championship, I would 100 per cent encourage anybody to switch to another country if that is an option. I feel like I have wasted a career trying to prove a federation wrong.”
It's not just field eventers that are being screwed. Zak Seddon, who had the best British steeple in like 30 years, also isn't going to the Olympics despite running 8:20. A Brit hadn't broken 8:20 since 1992 when Phil Norman did at the UK Champs (Norman wasn't selected for the team either).
“Luckily I have had support from my employer, [but] you think, ‘I’m the best in the country, I’ve run the quickest time for like 30 years and yet I’m losing thousands of pounds just to try and qualify for the Games’... I think I owe it my wife and my kid [to retire]. It’s not just my own sacrifice, it’s how much they have to sacrifice for me. I’m proud of what I’ve achieved," said the father of a 2-year-old.
Especially for the Olympics, whose very ethos is that taking part is more important than winning! De Coubertin would be horrified by the behaviour of UKA!
how do the GB athletes feel about Jake Wightman getting a medical exemption to skip their trials? (apologies if it's been discussed ad nauseam in another thread already)
i imagine US athletes would have freaked out if we had given Athing Mu a medical exemption to skip the trials, even though realistically she's still the most talented 800 runner we've got and prob the only US woman who could contend for gold. i still prefer our system, as this sort of exemption would end up being abused/political and lead to further distrust of our governing body
Don't know about GB athletes, but (judging by instagram) sentiment amongst the wider elite and sub-elite community seems more focused on the men's 5000 selection, with a lot of not so subtle jabs in Sam Atkin's direction for skipping the trials (and Euros) and still getting selected over Jack Rowe, who showed up to both, placed at trials and had the standard.
Feels like people are more on side with Jake going given his record at major comps and how the 800m trials panned out.
Lots of people also upset that Kilty is in the relay squad over Amo-Dadzie.
To his credit, Ian Beattie has written a piece for Athletics Weekly trying to defend their selection criteria:
In the piece, however, he writes something that while factually true is basically a lie and I've called him out for it on the QOD on the front page.
"The World Athletics ranking qualification system has resulted in much debate. We should be clear that this is not a direct invitation to the athlete to take part nor do we ‘turn down’ invites."
False. Many British atheltes have a ranking that would get them tinto the Olympics and everyone knows it. So it's the equivalent of your neighbor saying, "Hey I"m having a party on Friday and we'd love for you to come. If you want to come, let me know and I'll tell you the details." And then you claiming later you weren't invited to the party.
If you want to defend the policy, do it but do it honestly.
“Setting tough standards helps improve performance levels,” writes UKA chair Ian Beattie as he outlines the reasoning behind the governing body’s strict policy
"there is a demotivational effect on the team as a whole when the first few days of the championship are dominated by athletes failing to qualify from their heat or pool."
If an athletes' psychology is affected by another athlete from their country having a poor performance, then I'm amazed they managed to compete at a high enough level to reach the Olympics.
This sounds like a pretty pathetic excuse - it's not a team sport where someone else's bad day directly impacts your result. UKA should hire a sports psychologist if this is true!
Taking top 8 performers only isn't any protection against someone failing to get out of their heat. Even reigning champions pick up injuries, illnesses or fall.
Arguably someone ranked 31st who doesn't make the final is less likely to be disappointed and have a demotivating effect on the team than someone ranked top 10!
"there is a demotivational effect on the team as a whole when the first few days of the championship are dominated by athletes failing to qualify from their heat or pool."
If an athletes' psychology is affected by another athlete from their country having a poor performance, then I'm amazed they managed to compete at a high enough level to reach the Olympics.
This sounds like a pretty pathetic excuse - it's not a team sport where someone else's bad day directly impacts your result. UKA should hire a sports psychologist if this is true!
Exactly. I find it astonishing that he has come out with something like that. It sounds like he just made it up to justify his decision making.
His comments are far more likely to be de-motivating than another athlete in a different event failing to qualify for a final. You don't get to Olympic level without a well developed ability to focus. Very basic sports psychology tells athletes not to worry about matters outside their own performance.
It blows my mind that with all of the excessive income globally, these federations do not get donations from a few rich folk. It would be great for publicity if the monarchy gave a little endowment or something.
I agree and would like to think I would if I was a rich man. However, you don't get that rich by being a generous person.
Fir the record, many European (and some Asian) countries have such policies or used to have them.
What is completely missing from the discussion is funding. Someone has to pay the bill for an athlete to realize their dream. Why would that dream have an inherent right to be realized over those of other people with talent not in sports within a society? You can't expect the whole society per se to have the (admittedly beautiful) idea of the Olympics as a priority.
Now, my understanding is that the British NOC does not receive direct taxpayer money, they have to raise the money with events and findraising independently? Can someone confirm? So at least no responsibility to the taxpayer here. Other countries' NOC do use taxpayer money to send athletes (I think Sweden does, but not sure).
I'm not saying the UK selection is justified, I am merely pointing out that the outcry here is very one-sided and i would like to know who really foots the bill or if the NOC mismanaged funds before judging this call. Did the athletes get "screwed" or did their Olympic trip not get priority over some other legitimate use of the funds in society? I don't know but this should at least be in this conversation.
The Olympics are in Paris, a short train ride away from the UK. Yes it’s bad as a sport if athletes need to pay their own way but they should at least have the opportunity too.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.
