Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

positive weed test for Richardson (split)

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Originally posted by jazzcyclist View Post

    Aside from swimming and cycling, there are no other sports in which performances are judged as objectively as they are in track and field.
    Good point. But why can't making the Olympics be based on more than just one objective performance in one moment of time? Why can't recent body of work be somehow included along WITH the Trials results which take place in a single moment of time, where a single temporary unforeseen factor may severely affect results? Rhetorical question.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Blues View Post

      Good point. But why can't making the Olympics be based on more than just one objective performance in one moment of time? Why can't recent body of work be somehow included along WITH the Trials results which take place in a single moment of time, where a single temporary unforeseen factor may severely affect results? Rhetorical question.
      And discussed a million times...and the present system is still here....

      The Trials are a big money maker for USATF. No way they are going to mess with that.
      Last edited by Conor Dary; 07-16-2021, 10:24 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Blues View Post

        But why can't making the Olympics be based on more than just one objective performance in one moment of time? Why can't recent body of work be somehow included along WITH the Trials results which take place in a single moment of time, where a single temporary unforeseen factor may severely affect results? Rhetorical question.

        That's pretty much the way USA Cycling does it and it works pretty well for them. Kristin Armstrong a perfect example in 2016, when she won a third straight time trial gold after being selected by committee. Mara Abbott, who led the Rio road race until the final meters, was also a discretionary selection.

        https://cyclingtips.com/2016/06/cont...n-is-left-off/

        There are no strings on me

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Conor Dary View Post

          And discussed a million times...and the present system is still here....
          But that doesn't mean that the present system can't EVER be changed to become even better, or fairer overall in the eyes of some, or to ensure that America's BEST athletes overall are on the Olympic team. I don't think the system will be changed, but because it hasn't been changed after it's been "discussed a million times" doesn't mean that nobody should ever discuss a possible change again... I wouldn't have mentioned it here if it weren't for the recent Sha'Carri Richardson uproar and the frequent accompanying condemnation (unfair and unwarranted in my opinion) of USATF and/or, WADA, and/or the US Olympic qualifying rules by the general public....
          Last edited by Blues; 07-17-2021, 12:22 AM.

          Comment


          • Richardson is a pretty poor example to even think of changing it. Of all the tragic tales of the Olympic Trials, on a scale of 0-10, I'd rank Richardson as 0.1.

            I'm sure the general public has already moved on to the next subject they know little or really care about....
            Last edited by Conor Dary; 07-16-2021, 10:42 PM.

            Comment


            • This is a pretty amazing twitter thread from Nick Butler, who works with Hajo Seppelt, a German guy, and the two basically seek out doping scandals. But here they have shown how the system can work against the athlete - very unlike them - https://twitter.com/NickJMButler/sta...09358249451522 - Its about a 17 tweet thread.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Blues View Post

                Good point. But why can't making the Olympics be based on more than just one objective performance in one moment of time? Why can't recent body of work be somehow included along WITH the Trials results which take place in a single moment of time, where a single temporary unforeseen factor may severely affect results? Rhetorical question.
                I would be okay with that as long as the criteria and formula for making the team was predetermined, just keep selection committees out of it.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Conor Dary View Post



                  The Trials are a big money maker for USATF. No way they are going to mess with that.
                  I'm not saying that it's feasible, but would a qualifying system such as top 2 finishers at trials, plus one more chosen based on a point system that includes both trials performance and some category of recent body of work, really affect the money USATF makes from trials?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by bambam1729 View Post
                    This is a pretty amazing twitter thread from Nick Butler, who works with Hajo Seppelt, a German guy, and the two basically seek out doping scandals. But here they have shown how the system can work against the athlete - very unlike them - https://twitter.com/NickJMButler/sta...09358249451522 - Its about a 17 tweet thread.
                    Can you imagine what some anti-capitalist, anarchist types might do with this information?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Blues View Post

                      Understood... But most other sports don't use a one and done trials meet format like track and field, right?. Athletes are selected in other ways in many sports (often by necessity as in team sports), or else there are contingency plans involving certain criteria that may allow a top athlete to still make the Olympic team even if they don't qualify in the trials meet, like in gymnastics.
                      Using a sport built nearly completely on subjectivity as a comparison to a sport nearly completely on defined results such as track and field just doesn't work.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Blues View Post
                        I agree with all of you who are saying that the current method of USATF Olympic team selection is comparably free of politics and probably results in a lot less grievances and lawsuits... What I don't like is that if something crazy happens (like, for example, a current world record holder getting tripped well into a trials race by no fault of his or her own, or a current USA top ranked athlete getting a severe acute illness right before the trials, or any number of other unforeseen and unavoidable unfortunate situations, etc, etc, etc), there's no option for the involved athlete to still make the Olympic team and compete, even if he or she may be the consensus best in the nation or best in the world.
                        We survived Dan and Dave and Harrison Dillard didn't we?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Blues View Post

                          But that doesn't mean that the present system can't EVER be changed to become even better, or fairer overall in the eyes of some, or to ensure that America's BEST athletes overall are on the Olympic team. I don't think the system will be changed, but because it hasn't been changed after it's been "discussed a million times" doesn't mean that nobody should ever discuss a possible change again... I wouldn't have mentioned it here if it weren't for the recent Sha'Carri Richardson uproar and the frequent accompanying condemnation (unfair and unwarranted in my opinion) of USATF and/or, WADA, and/or the US Olympic qualifying rules by the general public....
                          I really think the Richardson situation is a horrible choice to fit in to what you're trying to accomplish. She wasn't ill. She didn't have a bad day. She didn't trip. She violated a doping rule. Whether we agree with that rule or not, the situation was caused by the athlete and not some unforeseen event.

                          edit: didn't see Conor Dary's previous post saying essentially the same.

                          Comment


                          • Holding a single trials, with objective performances defining the team members, and that replicates the Olympic Games is by far the most sensible solution. I, for one, would not want to endure the endless kvetching of athletes/coaches/agents about being treated unfairly.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NotDutra5 View Post

                              We survived Dan and Dave and Harrison Dillard didn't we?
                              Steve Williams in 1976 ....Greene and Johnson in 2000...the list is endless...and we still have the fairest system.

                              Besides a system where the best athlete in each event can sit out the Trials hardly sounds like a marketing winner.

                              And what if both McLaughlin and Muhammad didn't run the Trials....how would you choose between them for the third spot on their form coming into the Trials..
                              Last edited by Conor Dary; 07-17-2021, 01:43 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Blues View Post

                                So you're saying that gymnastics has so many problems in their Olympic selection process? (which is the only thing about gymnastics being discussed)... If that's not what you're saying, then your comment would seem to be a straw man argument.
                                Mykaela Skinner finished 4th in the 2016 Olympic Trial, and was not chosen for the team. The team was made up of Biles (1st), Hernandez (2nd), Raisman (3rd), Douglas (7th) and Kocian (8th). Why were Douglas and Kocian chosen for the team? Because they had the two highest scores in uneven bars, which was the weakest event for the top three gymnasts.

                                Because this decision was so controversial, the selection committee chose the top four in the Trial this year, although only the top two were guaranteed their spots. This may not be the best combination of gymnasts in terms of point contribution (too much overlaps in strong events). But they will win the team title anyway, so they made the least controversial picks.

                                By the way, Skinner is going to Tokyo, but as an individual entry, and thus not eligible for the team medal.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X