Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'09 London GP m4x1

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by texas_speed
    And this is what I'm trying to explain...the policy also said they must sign an agreement and return it by July 10th. That didn't happen.

    It also said they must be in London unless there was a medical or outstanding circumstance approved by USATF. That didn't happen.

    It also said the pool would be announced a week after USAs. That didn't happen.

    And so on and so forth.

    So you're right to a degree toyracer.

    But with you being right you're now able to see some of our frustration...what USATF says "must" happen isn't always what ultimately does happen...
    Yes, I do understand your frustration. Nothing is happening with much transparency.

    I've also realized where I erred earlier when I asked if the coach had only one spot that he could name for the team. It is two. I erred in counting Gay as one of the people who must be named to the team. I overlooked the fact that Gay did not run in the final and that even though he is defending 100m WC with a spot reserved for him by the IAAF he is not by extension counted automatically in the relay team. Strictly speaking, only four spots are guaranteed, but Gay did not qualify for one of those four spots, so he and Dix would be the two that the coach could name, if everything was done as per the policy.

    Originally posted by Speedfirst
    Of course this is a procedure, not a policy, which means there can and will be ammendments to the procedure.
    Perplexing; the title of the page with the relevant info is: World Championships Relay Team Selection Policy, which is why I used the word in the first place, http://www.usatf.org/events/2009/IAAFWo ... edures.asp I hear you about amendments, it seems that the selection policy/procedure/whatever-they-want-to-call-it is in a constant state of flux.

    texas_speed, I see the source of your frustration.
    Regards,
    toyracer

    Comment


    • Texas Speed. Stop having a seizure every time you hear a contrary opinion to yours. You're abysmal at debate. Perhaps you should go and start a blog instead of polluting a message board with your narcissistic solipsism. I'm sure your mates will hold your hand and sing kumbaya with you in the comments section.

      Or answer the question. What justifies the USA being co-favourites when they have slower runners and their relay camp is a mess?

      I know you're very impressed by your own voice and your delusions of authority but nobody else is.

      Comment


      • I'm not having a seisure at all. We were discussing US relay selection and all the sudden you interject pitting them against others. That wasn't what was being discussed which is why I asked you to bow out as it seems you have an agenda. We get it. You think the US is subpar...be it in performance or preparation. Duely noted. Thanks for your contribution.

        I just don't feel the need to go back and forth with you as you interject on something not relevant to the topic of the discussion. And if you'd notice...no one else really seems to be responding either.

        I could care less that an opinion is contrary to mine. I could care less how you feel about me being "abysmal at debate."

        To answer your question, I'm of the opinion the USA is the "co-favorite" in the sense that they are 1B to Jamaica's 1A. That is to say...in my mind...the Jamaican men are the favorite and the only one that MAY rival them is the US if we get our house in order.

        Why Trinidad has become such an issue of debate with you or bringing up what past relays have done with superb passes is beyond me.

        Hopefully that will suffice for you this time around. If not I'm sure you'll have plenty more whitty remarks to come. It seems you're more impressed with your voice than anyone at this point, not I.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by toyracer

          Originally posted by Speedfirst
          Of course this is a procedure, not a policy, which means there can and will be ammendments to the procedure.
          texas_speed, I see the source of your frustration.
          toyracer...if you look at the 1st paragraph last sentence, you will see where this is a procedure, it has been a procedure for awhile.

          This way it can be subject to amendments.
          on the road

          Comment


          • Originally posted by texas_speed
            I'm not having a seisure at all. We were discussing US relay selection and all the sudden you interject pitting them against others. That wasn't what was being discussed which is why I asked you to bow out as it seems you have an agenda. We get it. You think the US is subpar...be it in performance or preparation. Duely noted. Thanks for your contribution.

            I just don't feel the need to go back and forth with you as you interject on something not relevant to the topic of the discussion. And if you'd notice...no one else really seems to be responding either.

            I could care less that an opinion is contrary to mine. I could care less how you feel about me being "abysmal at debate."

            To answer your question, I'm of the opinion the USA is the "co-favorite" in the sense that they are 1B to Jamaica's 1A. That is to say...in my mind...the Jamaican men are the favorite and the only one that MAY rival them is the US if we get our house in order.

            Why Trinidad has become such an issue of debate with you or bringing up what past relays have done with superb passes is beyond me.

            Hopefully that will suffice for you this time around. If not I'm sure you'll have plenty more whitty remarks to come. It seems you're more impressed with your voice than anyone at this point, not I.
            Actually Texas Speed you like to make remarks like "You're reaching now..." "Your posts in this thread are becoming increasingly pointless..." "Could you just go start your own thread to pollute it instead of this one?" and then when facts are provided to support the notion that the offending opinion isn't a reach, isn't pointless, isn't polluting, you climb on your supercilious high horse and pretend it was all beneath you and that somehow this means your baseless assertions still stand. You spout weak autocratic nonsense with a pompous tone and it's transparent and sucks the imagination and flavour out of the room but I'll leave you to administer your haughty certainty in your bureaucratic fiefdom as you see fit.

            Comment


            • How eloquently put.

              Since you're obviously light years beyond a caveman such as myself I'll leave you with the only response I'm capable of....

              ....OK.

              Comment


              • Mr. dakota, the theme reverberating in your asseveration appears to greatly reflect the very imperious tone you're associating and faulting in Mr. texas_speed.

                I can't speak of the history between you two, but your last pronouncement furnishes a suggestion of you being a person who *may be* contemptuous rather than one whose actions have aspects to them which could reveal a sense of being reasonable in a discourse which you do not control.

                Perhaps, as this is just a bulletin board, you may want to lighten up?
                Fire Impossible.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Speedfirst
                  Originally posted by toyracer

                  Originally posted by Speedfirst
                  Of course this is a procedure, not a policy, which means there can and will be ammendments to the procedure.
                  texas_speed, I see the source of your frustration.
                  toyracer...if you look at the 1st paragraph last sentence, you will see where this is a procedure, it has been a procedure for awhile.

                  This way it can be subject to amendments.
                  I know I'm going on a bit but... a Policy usually contains a procedure.

                  It is important to note that the first portion of the first paragraph is explicit in saying the first three plus alternate must be included, then says that the other two athletes that make up the relay team are selected using the procedure outlined thereafter. The procedure is specific to the fifth and sixth members of the relay team, and does not include the first four.

                  I agree that it is subject to amendments, but those seemingly affect the fifth and sixth members of the relay team.
                  Regards,
                  toyracer

                  Comment


                  • men's 4x100

                    Justblaze, you are exactly right. What happened to the SMTC or HSI. We need that back if we are to get back to the top of the relay.

                    Comment


                    • men's 4x100.

                      Does anyone know if Waltr Dix will be ready to go if needed in Berlin? Is he running any this summer?

                      Comment


                      • I like how most people have just thrown Michael Frater under the bus for Yohan Blake, and even Steve Mullings...I've got to give credit where credit is due, and Yohan has been rounding out since trials, and he ran a hell of a leg on Saturday, but my question is, what if the US had fielded a team with let's say like the one at Penns, would Yohan's second leg look that impressive? Not taking anything away from the kid, but folks we really have to be honest that that US team that was thrown together was not nearly the best they could have given...My point is, when put with guys better, equalling, or a tad bit under his PR, would you still feel the same way about him being this great 2nd leg runner, and this great top end speed runner?

                        Michael has proven he has mettle, and can run on the big stage, but many of you are as fickle as the Roman crowd, especially some of you Jamaicans...I see no reason as to why Frater should not be on the relay team, hell he's proven he has the flexibility to run anywhere they put him, whether it's on the straight or the curve, that right there is experience and guarantee...
                        ~ I bleed BLACK, GREEN, and YELLOW~

                        Comment


                        • I keep seeing this phrase "thrown together" to describe the US relay team in London.

                          Terrence Trammell - double Olympic silver double World silver 110m hurdler
                          Wallace Spearmon - World silver & bronze + DQ'd Olympic bronze 200m, World gold 4x1
                          Shawn Crawford - Olympic gold and silver + World bronze 200m, 4x1 Olympic silver
                          Rae Edwards - okay Rocket Rae never won anything, but he is on the US individual 100m squad for Berlin.

                          So in individual events, that's one Olympic gold medal, three Olympic silver medals, three World silver medals, two World bronze medals.

                          Thrown together?

                          Comment


                          • yes that is a "thrown together" team, because it's obvious that even though the US team still came 2nd, that was by no means the best team they could have fielded,
                            ~ I bleed BLACK, GREEN, and YELLOW~

                            Comment


                            • by thrown together i think she means havent practice together. So the team lacked chemistry.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tammy_Baby
                                yes that is a "thrown together" team, because it's obvious that even though the US team still came 2nd, that was by no means the best team they could have fielded,
                                That's debatable.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X