Tweet
Originally posted by rasb
-
But that result is dictated by the concept of sending more athletes. Under the IAAF/IOC rules, if more than one athlete is entered in event, they must all have the A standard. If you send the winner who has only a B, you can't send anyone else. It's not that the B winner is less worthy--it's that the principle of giving more athletes the chance to compete in the Olympic Games is considered most important. -
It's not JUST 'more is better'; it's the practical reality that 2 A's have a higher probability of success than 1 B, regardless of their OT finish. On any given day, the order could have been different, but that doesn't mean the 1 B is the better choice. As we have belabored ad infinitum (and absurdum?), the USA selection system is not a particularly GOOD way of choosing the BEST team, but it's the ONLY fair way.Originally posted by tandfmanComment
-
I disagree with your statement as being something that is true most of the time.Originally posted by tafnut
1) the "A" mark could be only marginally better than the "B" (and in some cases other marks might be far superior, although "B", such as a LJ into the wind);
2) the "A" mark could be pretty old and not backed up by recent performance (e.g., at the beginning of the Q period);
3) marks are important but racing is even more important, saying racing should have nothing to do with the selection in these situations is just plain wrong; and
4) it goes against a bunch of tradition in a manner that is unnecessary.
BTW, I think that I am really opposed to an "A" that does not make the final/does not compete, although I have some sympathy for unusual circumstances.Comment
-
Yes, I understand both sides of the debate.
My point would be that an athlete comes in and wins the Trials. How logical is it to not send them to the Games, because they beat MORE athletes with the A standard, rather than LESS? That is not in their control, they just came in and won the Trials. If the A standard is to be significant, then I think A standard achievers need to go...perhaps with a proviso that they show up at the Trials and race well, whatever that means. It can be defined, I think.Comment
-
J. Dope with only a B qualifier beats an athlete with an A standard to win the Trials and the rest of the top eight are all Bs( highly unlikely!!); then J.Dope goes to the Olympics, and the A athlete,F. Bloggs, in second place, does not go.
The same situation as above, but the athletes in second, fourth and fifth , for example, have all achieved the A standard, so, as I read this thread , the A athletes go to the Olympics, but not the Winner, with his B standard,. Is that meant to be a reasonable, ethical rule.?
Just so the Americans have a greater chance with their As of winning the Olympics, and bugger the poor winner of the Trials.!!!
Seems unfair, especially since the Winner has always been so highly regarded in your Trials. Thats my reading, after flogging thru the last umpteen threads.
If an athlete with only a B the day before the Trials, looks at his competitors and sees a group of athletes with As he is under a lot more pressure knowing that winning may well NOT be enough to give him a place on the Team.Comment
-
I'm not sure that 'fairness' is the right word here. If the criteria are laid out, and the necessity of an A is clearly emphasized, anybody with only a B should not be too surprised that they weren't chosen. It's only in the case where it's one A and one B that it's 'logical' (i.e., fair) that the winner goes. Two or three A's in lieu of one B seems eminently 'fair' to me.Originally posted by bennygComment
-
Actually, if there is a group of A's, the B knows that the only way he can be on the team is by finishing in the top 3 and getting his A mark in the process. But that B athlete had the same opportunity as the A's to achieve the A. He's had a year and a half to do it, and if he hasn't done it by then, he has put himself in that situation.Originally posted by bennygComment
-
Except USATF has different rules for OG and WC (and has years w/ no rules). Instead of all the complicated verbiage, why not simply have a chart that lists all the possible permutations for those of us who comprehend at an elementary school level? It's not as if it would require something the size of the Rosetta Stone to spell out.Originally posted by tandfmanComment
-
Actually, with the exception of this year, when the IAAF changed the rules, I believe the USATF procedures have been consistent. Perhaps I should have stated the principle differently. USATF sends the most athletes it can in each event. If they can send only one, they send the A or B qualifier who finishes highest in the Trials. If they can send more than one, they send the A's who finish highest. I agree that the verbiage on their web site seems complicated, but the procedure really isn't that complicated.Originally posted by gh
The bad news is, of course, that the IAAF seems likely to stick with that A+B business that they used in Osaka. And that system does complicate things, especially when chasing a standard is possible.Comment
-
I don't think this year's rules complicated things at all! Indeed, there were fewer events in contention than ever before. It was a great advance.
USATF complicated things w/ a complicated explanation system, and one that wasn't announced until the eve of the meet.Comment
-
I concur with gh. I liked the flexibility of having one B in the mix, which might have made the number of truely unique permutations larger in some methods of enumerating the possibilities but was actually easy to figure out.Originally posted by gh
Also, I think that it is a mistake to say that a rule that is more complicated is worse than a simple rule. The ease of explicating a rule tells you little about how good a rule it is, although we know that in many situations simple rules throw the baby out with the bath water. Finally, what was complicated about the rule is, in part, people's incomplete understanding of the rule and hence a lot of back-and-forth (e.g., if only one A, does BA imply A or A?, which was a factual element that was stated incorrectly not at a complication of the rule, per se).Comment
-
I do think that adding a B to one or more A's makes it a little more complicated. But I agree with gh that the USATF explanation was not timely and was not well done--it made things more complicated than they needed to be. I also agree with 26mi385--I said it was more complicated, but I never said it was worse. It's not.Originally posted by 26mi235Comment
-
One perhaps radical thought about "chasing" in '08 (much as I hate the concept):Originally posted by Bob H
I haven't seen the Eugene schedule, but somebody in Lane County could probably do somebody(ies) a favor by setting up an all-comer's meet or two for the second half of the OT (say at South Eugene High?) and at least those who had events in the first 4 days (well, heck, even days after that in some/most events) and they could make one last try at it.
That's assuming that the USATF protocol is written as "as of the end of the Trials" and not "as of the end of your event."Comment
-
It's at the end of the athlete's event, not the end of the Trials.Comment
-
Time for an update. Lagat still lacking in the 5,000, Kara Goucher missing it in the 10,000.
We should expect Cardinal, Pre, etc. to be barnburners, no?Comment
Comment