A and B Qualifiers in Sacramento

I was looking through the voluminous amounts of words about who makes the Olympic team (I thought I was reading my divorce papers again)

http://www.usatf.org/events/2004/Olympi ... res_TF.asp

I was surprised to see that the winner of the Trials isn't protected like they were last time. In other words if you only have a B and you win and there are multiple A's behind you, hte A's supplant you. Isn' t thatthe reverse of lasat time?

[tandfman]

Re: A and B Qualifiers in Sacramento

>I was surprised to see that the winner of the Trials isn't protected like they were last time. In other words if you only have a B and you win and there are multiple A's behind you, hte A's supplant you. Isn' t thatthe reverse of lasat time?<

I think you're thinking of what happened last time in the marathon. That was a marathon rule only and did not apply to other track and field events. The principle in T&F has always been to take the greatest number possible, so that if you won with a B in 2000 and had multiple A's behind you, the A's prevailed. The same will be true again this year.

[gh]

Re: A and B Qualifiers in Sacramento

Forgive poor Realist for just believing what he read in the Bible. The OT Preview issue of T&FN in '00 stated the case incorrectly, saying, "As in the marathon, the OT winner gets precedence...." But it was done correctly in the OT issue itself.

[ycn]

Re: A and B Qualifiers in Sacramento

Isn't the rule that you can only represent the U.S. (or any other country) with a "B" qualifier if you win your event in a true national selection competition?

And that no matter how many "A" qualifiers finish behind you, you can't be bumped from the team?

Please don't tell me that someone can meet the entry requirements for the OG's, win the U.S. Trials, and be bumped from the team!

OK, I need the skinny - and fast.

[MJD]

Re: A and B Qualifiers in Sacramento

>I was looking through the voluminous amounts of words about who makes the
>Olympic team (I thought I was reading my divorce papers
>again)

Uh Realist...let me be the realist here. Your simple selection procedures are 3 pages. Your detailed selection procedures are 7 pages. The Canuck criteria are SEVENTEEN PAGES LONG:

http://www.athletics.ca/cmslib/general/ ... (Athletics)%20Revised%20Feb%202004200433114644.pdf


And to make matters worse, they are still stamped DRAFT which is how they can explain away the errors in the criteria.

[Class Clown]

Re: A and B Qualifiers in Sacramento

Yeah, eh? But with the U.S./Canada conversion rate at what, 65%, those 17 pages become just 11, so it's basically a tie.

[MJD]

Re: A and B Qualifiers in Sacramento

>Yeah, eh? But with the U.S./Canada conversion rate at what, 65%,...

74.18 close today. Hasn't been 65 since Jan of 03. A long bet on the loonie then was a smart move.

[Coach Barnet]

Re: A and B Qualifiers in Sacramento

Uh
>Realist...let me be the realist here. Your simple selection procedures are 3
>pages. Your detailed selection procedures are 7 pages. The Canuck criteria are
>SEVENTEEN PAGES
>LONG:

And to make matters
>worse, they are still stamped DRAFT which is how they can explain away the
>errors in the criteria.



For those who have participated in the Olympics as athlete , fully understand the procedure Canada uses in selecting the National Team. As a proud Olympian , the system is fair , and forthright. Your complaint is understandable , as one who views the process from the outside. Any person who has never had the gifted natural ability to succeed in athletics could not possibly understand the requirements needed to separate the less fortunate average athlete. Don't feel bad for not understanding.

[tafnut]

Re: A and B Qualifiers in Sacramento

Give me an f-ing break.

[Friar]

Re: A and B Qualifiers in Sacramento

Whats so hard to understand-"B"win doesn't go .But what happens when, in a bunched 1500 senario: A "B"wins, followed by 4 "A"'s. The B winner stays home. But, what 3 "A"'s go. The exact order, or the 3 with the best times and races of the season.

[Coach Barnet]

Re: A and B Qualifiers in Sacramento

>Give me an f-ing break.


My advise to you is leave the Olympic discussions to "Olympians", your place is sitting in front of the TV or watching from the sidelines.

[bhall]

Re: A and B Qualifiers in Sacramento

Let me jump in here and say that anyone who wants to limit a meaningful discussion of our sport to Olympians will have a mighty small caucus (and mighty few fans if you ask me).

The belief that somehow "being" an Olympian, world record holder, etc, etc makes one judge, jury, and chief counsel on a related athletic matter is silly, if not stupid. Obviously, one of these special few brings a particular perspective that should be respected but it does not make them the lone voice on the subject.

[MJD]

Re: A and B Qualifiers in Sacramento

For those who have participated in the Olympics as athlete ,
>fully understand the procedure Canada uses in selecting the National Team.

It's a good thing you have something to fall back on then because your writing skills leave a bit to be desired but I think I can decipher what you have written. In actual fact, you are dead wrong and there have been examples cited on this board about the Can situation.


As a
>proud Olympian , the system is fair , and forthright.

Once again, back to English class for you. Did you read them? I doubt it. The fact that they are still stamped draft is fair and forthright? How? The standards haven't even been posted on the COC site. How can you say something is forthright that isn't available? Not to mention that the draft criteria cited includes inaccurate information.

Your complaint is
>understandable , as one who views the process from the outside. Any person who
>has never had the gifted natural ability to succeed in athletics could not
>possibly understand the requirements needed to separate the less fortunate
>average athlete. Don't feel bad for not understanding.

Thanks for at least calling me average. If you knew anything at all about hyperbole, you would better understand my post. Where, pray tell, did I say I didn't understand the criteria? My problem is that I understand the criteria all too well.

I hope you keep posting Coach, whoever you are. The posts speak for themselves.

[Coach Barnet]

Re: A and B Qualifiers in Sacramento

Canada , a country of 30 million, this Olympic qualifying document applies only to a handful of people who are on the "bubble" of qualifying. Your complaint of your lack of understanding should be directed at Athletics Canada. Perhaps they can develop an "easy" to follow web site that you and your intellectual friends can follow.

[MJD]

Re: A and B Qualifiers in Sacramento

>Canada , a country of 30 million, this Olympic qualifying document applies only
>to a handful of people who are on the "bubble" of qualifying.

You really should bone up on the english language. Not to mention that you have understated the population by about 7%


Your complaint
>of your lack of understanding should be directed at Athletics Canada.

I didn't say that I didn't understand it. I said that it was an unacceptable situation that the only public document that is available to the althletes is still in draft form and not accurate. The complaints have already been made to AC.

Perhaps
>they can develop an "easy" to follow web site that you and your intellectual
>friends can follow.


An accurate final website is all I think should be available. Is that too much to ask?