Sheila Reid added to Olympic team
07/12/2012 9:25:21 AM
Power User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 176
Brown and Harris, too. http://www.athletics.ca/display_news.asp?newsid=1387
Brown and Harris, too.
http://www.athletics.ca/display_news.asp?newsid=1387
07/12/2012 11:09:22 AM
User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 349
@Stingersxc Very proud of Athletics Canada for these 5 additions. They are worthy of competing in London and Athletics Canada has done well by supporting these athletes. "OTTAWA - Athletics Canada announced five additional nominees today to the 2012 Olympic Games team. Daundre Barnaby of Brampton, Ont., Aaron Brown of Toronto, Ont., Tremaine Harris of Markham, Ont., Kerri-Ann Mitchell of Pickering, Ont., and Sheila Reid of Newmarket, Ont., were nominated to the Canadian Olympic Committee for inclusion on the 2012 Olympic Games team. This brings the total nominees to the Olympic Games team by Athletics Canada to 45, the largest in recent history. Daundre Barnaby will compete in the 400-metres; he was on Athletics Canada's original nomination list but was held back as he didn't yet have a Canadian passport. His final nomination was pending acquiring a Canadian passport which he has now done. Aaron Brown submitted an appeal for Rising Star consideration in light of a minor injury that kept him from running at full capacity in the 100-metres at the Canadian Track and Field Trials, and forced him to scratch from the 200-metres. Aaron is only 20-years old, has a history of international success and over the course of the season ran one Olympic A standard in the 100-metres and two in the 200-metres. The National Team Committee was comfortable in nominating him in the 200-metres as a "truly exceptional" Rising Star pending the completion of a competitive readiness test which will be determined by Head Coach Alex Gardiner and relay / sprints coach Glenroy Gilbert. This readiness test will consist of a 200-metre race in Ottawa at the Ontario Senior Track and Field Championships this weekend." Tremaine Harris was nominated by the National Team Committee in the 200-metres as a Rising Star under the "truly exceptional circumstances" clause following his outstanding performances at the NACAC under-23 Championship. Harris won the Canadian Track and Field Trials as a 20 year old, ran two Olympic A standards at the NACAC U-23 Championship, including posting a time of 20.22 seconds which ranks him ninth in the World, and third all-time amongst Canadian athletes. Harris also had the required two B standards within the Qualifying period. Kerri-Ann Mitchell was added to the team as a result of Phylicia George of Markham, Ont., scratching out of the 100-metres in London to concentrate on the 100-metre hurdles. This opened a spot for Mitchell to be named under Athletics Canada's Rising Star policy as she met all stated requirements. Sheila Reid submitted an appeal for Rising Star consideration based on winning the Canadian Track and Field Trials in the 5000-metres and having an Olympic B standard in the event. Sheila also has two Olympic B standards in the 1500-metres. Reid was the national champion in the 1500-metres in 2011 and is a five time NCAA champion demonstrating her ability to compete on demand in championship races. The National Team Committee was willing to nominate her in the 5000-metres pending a competitive readiness test which she successfully completed earlier this week.
@Stingersxc

Very proud of Athletics Canada for these 5 additions. They are worthy of competing in London and Athletics Canada has done well by supporting these athletes.

"OTTAWA - Athletics Canada announced five additional nominees today to the 2012 Olympic Games team. Daundre Barnaby of Brampton, Ont., Aaron Brown of Toronto, Ont., Tremaine Harris of Markham, Ont., Kerri-Ann Mitchell of Pickering, Ont., and Sheila Reid of Newmarket, Ont., were nominated to the Canadian Olympic Committee for inclusion on the 2012 Olympic Games team. This brings the total nominees to the Olympic Games team by Athletics Canada to 45, the largest in recent history.

Daundre Barnaby will compete in the 400-metres; he was on Athletics Canada's original nomination list but was held back as he didn't yet have a Canadian passport. His final nomination was pending acquiring a Canadian passport which he has now done.

Aaron Brown submitted an appeal for Rising Star consideration in light of a minor injury that kept him from running at full capacity in the 100-metres at the Canadian Track and Field Trials, and forced him to scratch from the 200-metres. Aaron is only 20-years old, has a history of international success and over the course of the season ran one Olympic A standard in the 100-metres and two in the 200-metres. The National Team Committee was comfortable in nominating him in the 200-metres as a "truly exceptional" Rising Star pending the completion of a competitive readiness test which will be determined by Head Coach Alex Gardiner and relay / sprints coach Glenroy Gilbert. This readiness test will consist of a 200-metre race in Ottawa at the Ontario Senior Track and Field Championships this weekend."

Tremaine Harris was nominated by the National Team Committee in the 200-metres as a Rising Star under the "truly exceptional circumstances" clause following his outstanding performances at the NACAC under-23 Championship. Harris won the Canadian Track and Field Trials as a 20 year old, ran two Olympic A standards at the NACAC U-23 Championship, including posting a time of 20.22 seconds which ranks him ninth in the World, and third all-time amongst Canadian athletes. Harris also had the required two B standards within the Qualifying period.

Kerri-Ann Mitchell was added to the team as a result of Phylicia George of Markham, Ont., scratching out of the 100-metres in London to concentrate on the 100-metre hurdles. This opened a spot for Mitchell to be named under Athletics Canada's Rising Star policy as she met all stated requirements.

Sheila Reid submitted an appeal for Rising Star consideration based on winning the Canadian Track and Field Trials in the 5000-metres and having an Olympic B standard in the event. Sheila also has two Olympic B standards in the 1500-metres. Reid was the national champion in the 1500-metres in 2011 and is a five time NCAA champion demonstrating her ability to compete on demand in championship races. The National Team Committee was willing to nominate her in the 5000-metres pending a competitive readiness test which she successfully completed earlier this week.
07/12/2012 11:24:12 AM
User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 280
[quote=bryano]Very proud of Athletics Canada for these 5 additions.[/quote] Hardly. No way can you justify leaving the marathoners off the team and putting Reid on. Good for Reid but pride is not what I feel. Far from it.
bryano wrote:
Very proud of Athletics Canada for these 5 additions.


Hardly. No way can you justify leaving the marathoners off the team and putting Reid on. Good for Reid but pride is not what I feel. Far from it.
07/12/2012 11:38:24 AM
User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 37
Does anyone know what Sheila Reid's "proof of fitness" test was earlier this week?
Does anyone know what Sheila Reid's "proof of fitness" test was earlier this week?
07/12/2012 1:10:01 PM
User
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 27
@bryano http://villanovarunning.blogspot.ca/2012/07/reid-to-london-second-appeal-success.html - According to this, AC didn't make this decision, so I'm not sure there's a reason to be proud of them. @SI10 [quote] Hardly. No way can you justify leaving the marathoners off the team and putting Reid on. Good for Reid but pride is not what I feel. Far from it.[/quote] I don't see Sheila being selected as either justifying or failing to justify the decision on Lanni and Krista. They are different situations. The marathoners had one standard, which is the A+, and they didn't hit it. Sheila hit three B standards in two different events and demonstrated competitive championship ability through her various successes over the last year and a half at NCAAs and her victories at nationals. She also had to prove fitness, however that was done, and did so. Brown will race at AOs this weekend to prove fitness. Harris ran two A standards at NACAC. Mitchell had the B standard and is the top finisher at nationals going in her event now. The marathoners did not have a designated national selection race to compete in, did not have a Rising Star designation (which it seems certain they would have run, had it existed), did not have a B standard, and prior to Rotterdam had not demonstrated Olympic caliber competitive ability. If there was a B standard and they could prove fitness by running a half marathon or something then I would imagine Krista and Lanni would have been selected as well, but that isn't the case. Aside from the notwithstanding clause, there doesn't really seem to be a basis for selecting them, and whoever is in charge of this decision doesn't seem interested in applying that for some reason.
@bryano

http://villanovarunning.blogspot.ca/2012/07/reid-to-london-second-appeal-success.html - According to this, AC didn't make this decision, so I'm not sure there's a reason to be proud of them.

@SI10
Hardly. No way can you justify leaving the marathoners off the team and putting Reid on. Good for Reid but pride is not what I feel. Far from it.


I don't see Sheila being selected as either justifying or failing to justify the decision on Lanni and Krista. They are different situations. The marathoners had one standard, which is the A+, and they didn't hit it. Sheila hit three B standards in two different events and demonstrated competitive championship ability through her various successes over the last year and a half at NCAAs and her victories at nationals. She also had to prove fitness, however that was done, and did so. Brown will race at AOs this weekend to prove fitness. Harris ran two A standards at NACAC. Mitchell had the B standard and is the top finisher at nationals going in her event now. The marathoners did not have a designated national selection race to compete in, did not have a Rising Star designation (which it seems certain they would have run, had it existed), did not have a B standard, and prior to Rotterdam had not demonstrated Olympic caliber competitive ability. If there was a B standard and they could prove fitness by running a half marathon or something then I would imagine Krista and Lanni would have been selected as well, but that isn't the case. Aside from the notwithstanding clause, there doesn't really seem to be a basis for selecting them, and whoever is in charge of this decision doesn't seem interested in applying that for some reason.
07/12/2012 2:28:09 PM
User
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 82
Great news, and all justified. Tremaine Harris definitely has a shot at the finals the way he is running, and Aaron Brown may be the missing piece of the 4x1. Sheila deserves to go, but its pretty tough sledding in that event.
Great news, and all justified. Tremaine Harris definitely has a shot at the finals the way he is running, and Aaron Brown may be the missing piece of the 4x1.
Sheila deserves to go, but its pretty tough sledding in that event.
07/12/2012 2:33:06 PM
User
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 82
One more NTL meet comment. The Olympians really showed their class. Melissa ran a perfectly controlled 800. Harris ran an equally smooth 800, but topped it off with a fantastic 1100 m of pace work in the 1500, where he was clearly looking over his shoulder a couple of times to see where everyone was. Brannen finished the 1500 off with a great last 100. Warner's 10.15 was great too. The meet was very good this year.
One more NTL meet comment. The Olympians really showed their class. Melissa ran a perfectly controlled 800. Harris ran an equally smooth 800, but topped it off with a fantastic 1100 m of pace work in the 1500, where he was clearly looking over his shoulder a couple of times to see where everyone was.
Brannen finished the 1500 off with a great last 100.
Warner's 10.15 was great too.
The meet was very good this year.
07/12/2012 2:51:12 PM
User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 280
[quote=benjaminburr]did not have a Rising Star designation (which it seems certain they would have run, had it existed)[/quote] That's the point. One was promised in the earlier versions of the criteria. I am not, by the way, in any way shape or form, taking anything away from Reid here. [quote=benjaminburr]and prior to Rotterdam had not demonstrated Olympic caliber competitive ability[/quote] With all due respect, one could make the argument(which I assume AC did) that neither had Reid based on: "Wherever possible given IAAF entry restrictions, to select athletes identified as “rising stars” who have demonstrated the competitive abilities to achieve a top 24 (top 12 for relays) and top 1/2 of field placing in London, and top 8 (top 3 for relays) finish in a future Olympic Games" [quote=benjaminburr]If there was a B standard and they could prove fitness by running a half marathon[/quote]@benjaminburr In actual fact, based on the IAAF tables, Krista beat Gillis straight up in their last two races(which they both trained through). [quote=benjaminburr]Aside from the notwithstanding clause, there doesn't really seem to be a basis for selecting them, and whoever is in charge of this decision doesn't seem interested in applying that for some reason.[/quote] This screamed for the application of this clause.
benjaminburr wrote:
did not have a Rising Star designation (which it seems certain they would have run, had it existed)


That's the point. One was promised in the earlier versions of the criteria. I am not, by the way, in any way shape or form, taking anything away from Reid here.

benjaminburr wrote:
d prior to Rotterdam had not demonstrated Olympic caliber competitive ability


With all due respect, one could make the argument(which I assume AC did) that neither had Reid based on:

"Wherever possible given IAAF entry restrictions, to select athletes identified as "rising stars" who have demonstrated the competitive abilities to achieve a top 24 (top 12 for relays) and top 1/2 of field placing in London, and top 8 (top 3 for relays) finish in a future Olympic Games"

benjaminburr wrote:
If there was a B standard and they could prove fitness by running a half marathon@benjaminburr

In actual fact, based on the IAAF tables, Krista beat Gillis straight up in their last two races(which they both trained through).

benjaminburr wrote:
Aside from the notwithstanding clause, there doesn't really seem to be a basis for selecting them, and whoever is in charge of this decision doesn't seem interested in applying that for some reason.

This screamed for the application of this clause.
07/12/2012 3:08:28 PM
User
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 16
@powerboy Harris has been a beast all year, I agree, not sure his pacing was "fantastic" though, as it was slower than the pace that Brannen wanted/asked for, the field was bunching up pretty badly at some points
@powerboy

Harris has been a beast all year, I agree, not sure his pacing was "fantastic" though, as it was slower than the pace that Brannen wanted/asked for, the field was bunching up pretty badly at some points
07/12/2012 3:33:01 PM
User
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 82
I was referring more to his effort rather than the actual pace. He ran through about 2:27 at 1k and was looking back, so If Nate had initially wanted to go faster, I think he was content with the pace. But this reminded me of how good Willis looked in Windsor when he went 1:47 and the 2:59 30 min later. Harris looked every bit as good.
I was referring more to his effort rather than the actual pace. He ran through about 2:27 at 1k and was looking back, so If Nate had initially wanted to go faster, I think he was content with the pace. But this reminded me of how good Willis looked in Windsor when he went 1:47 and the 2:59 30 min later. Harris looked every bit as good.
07/12/2012 3:34:34 PM
User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 135
completely off topic but come on Canada.... [u]this year......[/u] Harris 20.22 Harper 45.60 Daundre 45.67 Osei 45.51 You put these 4 together at any point of the year, Penn, Drake, anywhere....and they would have ran 3:02 or faster......we should have a 4by4 team at the Olympics this year!
completely off topic but come on Canada....

this year......
Harris 20.22
Harper 45.60
Daundre 45.67
Osei 45.51

You put these 4 together at any point of the year, Penn, Drake, anywhere....and they would have ran 3:02 or faster......we should have a 4by4 team at the Olympics this year!
07/12/2012 4:18:18 PM
User
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 27
@kingwwc I know you asked about how relay teams are selected on a previous thread so you may have already looked, but in case you haven't: Relay Team Athlete Selection All of the following factors (not listed in priority order) will be considered in relay team selection:  Placing at the Selection Trials in his/her individual event;  Health and fitness levels that indicate optimal competitive readiness;  Individual performance ranking as determined by 2012 Athletics Canada rankings;  Commitment to the National Relay program as determined by attitude, attendance, participation, and performance at national team camps, competitions, and events;  Performance on previous relay teams; and,  Assessment of relay skills and position suitability. The decision on relay team selection and positioning of relay team members will be made by the AC Relay Coordinator (in consultation with AC Head Coach). 4x400 Standard: "Best 16 National Teams (and other AC relay specific guidelines)." From that, I gather you have to have identified yourself or have been identified as someone who is interested in running on a national relay team. Then you have to have participated in the training camps and selected team events. Then it looks like the team you're on has to have run a time that ranks top 16, presumably at the time of selection. I'm not sure if the guys you've listed have been involved in the relay team thus far, but if not then maybe it would be good if they got involved in the future. I'm guessing if we don't have a team selected for London then there's no 4x400m result from the selection period that suggests a top 16 finish. It could just be that the guys who run 400m just didn't get involved in the program or didn't realize that was something they could do because they're all focused on their individual events.
@kingwwc

I know you asked about how relay teams are selected on a previous thread so you may have already looked, but in case you haven't:

Relay Team Athlete Selection
All of the following factors (not listed in priority order) will be considered in relay team selection:
 Placing at the Selection Trials in his/her individual event;
 Health and fitness levels that indicate optimal competitive readiness;
 Individual performance ranking as determined by 2012 Athletics Canada rankings;
 Commitment to the National Relay program as determined by attitude, attendance, participation,
and performance at national team camps, competitions, and events;
 Performance on previous relay teams; and,
 Assessment of relay skills and position suitability.
The decision on relay team selection and positioning of relay team members will be made by the AC
Relay Coordinator (in consultation with AC Head Coach).

4x400 Standard: "Best 16 National Teams (and other AC relay specific guidelines)."

From that, I gather you have to have identified yourself or have been identified as someone who is interested in running on a national relay team. Then you have to have participated in the training camps and selected team events. Then it looks like the team you're on has to have run a time that ranks top 16, presumably at the time of selection.

I'm not sure if the guys you've listed have been involved in the relay team thus far, but if not then maybe it would be good if they got involved in the future. I'm guessing if we don't have a team selected for London then there's no 4x400m result from the selection period that suggests a top 16 finish. It could just be that the guys who run 400m just didn't get involved in the program or didn't realize that was something they could do because they're all focused on their individual events.
07/12/2012 4:40:04 PM
User
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 27
[quote=SI10] That's the point. One was promised in the earlier versions of the criteria. I am not, by the way, in any way shape or form, taking anything away from Reid here.[/quote] No, I realize that (although you did sound quite bitter about it). And I think there should at least have been a B standard for the marathon when the A+ is that far ahead of the IAAF A. I'm not defending that, I just see what I pointed out as reasons Krista and Lanni weren't successful with their appeals, while Sheila and the others had better luck. [quote=SI10]With all due respect, one could make the argument(which I assume AC did) that neither had Reid based on: "Wherever possible given IAAF entry restrictions, to select athletes identified as “rising stars” who have demonstrated the competitive abilities to achieve a top 24 (top 12 for relays) and top 1/2 of field placing in London, and top 8 (top 3 for relays) finish in a future Olympic Games" [/quote] Not sure I agree, but I see what you mean. [quote=SI10] In actual fact, based on the IAAF tables, Krista beat Gillis straight up in their last two races(which they both trained through).[/quote] That's exactly the kind of thing I would want the selection committee to consider when looking at an appeal, and perhaps it is something they look at. But with the marathon having no alternative selection criteria that may not be something they care to consider. [quote=SI10] This screamed for the application of this clause.[/quote] Agreed. But the way I look at it, Dylan missed standard by around the same amount as they did. The difference is that he did it with enough time to spare, knowing that he might not get it. Then he went back and tried it again. Then he tried again after that didn't work out. He didn't say, "Well, I'm pretty close, so I'll try to appeal my way in." He just went and got it done. The ladies left it to the last possible attempt, knowing or at least having had plenty of opportunity to find out what they needed to run to be selected. They had plenty of time to run several marathons if necessary. That they came that close was great and makes me very excited to see what they do next, but I can't imagine a selection committee looking favorably on the performance when the standards were known from so far out. Edit: Obviously everyone else had similar timelines and much shorter races. All I'm saying is that everyone else had multiple standards and actually hit at least the lower standard (B) to be selected. The marathoners did not have multiple standards and so can't really ask to be selected based on the IAAF A standard, because AC doesn't acknowledge that standard as applicable for selection.
SI10 wrote:
That's the point. One was promised in the earlier versions of the criteria. I am not, by the way, in any way shape or form, taking anything away from Reid here.


No, I realize that (although you did sound quite bitter about it). And I think there should at least have been a B standard for the marathon when the A+ is that far ahead of the IAAF A. I'm not defending that, I just see what I pointed out as reasons Krista and Lanni weren't successful with their appeals, while Sheila and the others had better luck.

SI10 wrote:
With all due respect, one could make the argument(which I assume AC did) that neither had Reid based on:

"Wherever possible given IAAF entry restrictions, to select athletes identified as "rising stars" who have demonstrated the competitive abilities to achieve a top 24 (top 12 for relays) and top 1/2 of field placing in London, and top 8 (top 3 for relays) finish in a future Olympic Games"


Not sure I agree, but I see what you mean.

SI10 wrote:
In actual fact, based on the IAAF tables, Krista beat Gillis straight up in their last two races(which they both trained through).

That's exactly the kind of thing I would want the selection committee to consider when looking at an appeal, and perhaps it is something they look at. But with the marathon having no alternative selection criteria that may not be something they care to consider.

SI10 wrote:
This screamed for the application of this clause.

Agreed. But the way I look at it, Dylan missed standard by around the same amount as they did. The difference is that he did it with enough time to spare, knowing that he might not get it. Then he went back and tried it again. Then he tried again after that didn't work out. He didn't say, "Well, I'm pretty close, so I'll try to appeal my way in." He just went and got it done. The ladies left it to the last possible attempt, knowing or at least having had plenty of opportunity to find out what they needed to run to be selected. They had plenty of time to run several marathons if necessary. That they came that close was great and makes me very excited to see what they do next, but I can't imagine a selection committee looking favorably on the performance when the standards were known from so far out.

Edit: Obviously everyone else had similar timelines and much shorter races. All I'm saying is that everyone else had multiple standards and actually hit at least the lower standard (B) to be selected. The marathoners did not have multiple standards and so can't really ask to be selected based on the IAAF A standard, because AC doesn't acknowledge that standard as applicable for selection.
07/12/2012 5:05:29 PM
User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 280
[quote=benjaminburr]The ladies left it to the last possible attempt, knowing or at least having had plenty of opportunity to find out what they needed to run to be selected. They had plenty of time to run several marathons if necessary. [/quote] Not if you were familiar with their competitive careers. When the criteria first came out, making an Olympic team would have been the last thing on their minds. Krista was pregnant with her third child and Lanni hadn't run a mary yet or had run a 2:49. It makes the rising star point. Reid's case required a certain amount of extrapolation of potential which could have easily have been applied to these marathoners. Idea didn't even strike Krista until ATB. They crushed the IAAF A standard, by the way, and would have easily have met any B if one would have been set.
benjaminburr wrote:
The ladies left it to the last possible attempt, knowing or at least having had plenty of opportunity to find out what they needed to run to be selected. They had plenty of time to run several marathons if necessary.


Not if you were familiar with their competitive careers. When the criteria first came out, making an Olympic team would have been the last thing on their minds. Krista was pregnant with her third child and Lanni hadn't run a mary yet or had run a 2:49. It makes the rising star point.

Reid's case required a certain amount of extrapolation of potential which could have easily have been applied to these marathoners. Idea didn't even strike Krista until ATB.

They crushed the IAAF A standard, by the way, and would have easily have met any B if one would have been set.
07/12/2012 5:30:45 PM
User
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 27
[quote=SI10] Not if you were familiar with their competitive careers. When the criteria first came out, making an Olympic team would have been the last thing on their minds. Krista was pregnant with her third child and Lanni hadn't run a mary yet or had run a 2:49. It makes the rising star point. Reid's case required a certain amount of extrapolation of potential which could have easily have been applied to these marathoners. Idea didn't even strike Krista until ATB. They crushed the IAAF A standard, by the way, and would have easily have met any B if one would have been set.[/quote] @SI10 I was somewhat familiar with their competitive careers beforehand, but I don't think they were on many people's radars as possible 2012 Olympians. I'll be honest, I was expecting them both to be around 2:40 at Rotterdam. Had they come up more gradually (because we know that you must check off all of the little boxes if you want to be selected) instead of "bursting onto the scene," so to speak, maybe there would have been more consideration for their selection based on those hypothetically gradually progressive competitive careers. I really doubt it, though. I don't think any scenario would have resulted in either Lanni or Krista being selected except performances of 2:29:54 or better. I can only assume this is because Canadians do not rise and are not stars when they race 42.2km. I definitely agree that the sort of extrapolation used for Sheila's case could have been applied to Krista and Lanni. But it obviously wasn't. However, on that note, I believe their performances will at least apply as selection criterion number four for next year's Moscow World Championship marathon. Which, let's remember, is how Dylan and Reid both made their first marathon teams (I hope I didn't remember that wrong).
SI10 wrote:

Not if you were familiar with their competitive careers. When the criteria first came out, making an Olympic team would have been the last thing on their minds. Krista was pregnant with her third child and Lanni hadn't run a mary yet or had run a 2:49. It makes the rising star point.

Reid's case required a certain amount of extrapolation of potential which could have easily have been applied to these marathoners. Idea didn't even strike Krista until ATB.

They crushed the IAAF A standard, by the way, and would have easily have met any B if one would have been set.


@SI10

I was somewhat familiar with their competitive careers beforehand, but I don't think they were on many people's radars as possible 2012 Olympians. I'll be honest, I was expecting them both to be around 2:40 at Rotterdam. Had they come up more gradually (because we know that you must check off all of the little boxes if you want to be selected) instead of "bursting onto the scene," so to speak, maybe there would have been more consideration for their selection based on those hypothetically gradually progressive competitive careers. I really doubt it, though. I don't think any scenario would have resulted in either Lanni or Krista being selected except performances of 2:29:54 or better. I can only assume this is because Canadians do not rise and are not stars when they race 42.2km.

I definitely agree that the sort of extrapolation used for Sheila's case could have been applied to Krista and Lanni. But it obviously wasn't. However, on that note, I believe their performances will at least apply as selection criterion number four for next year's Moscow World Championship marathon. Which, let's remember, is how Dylan and Reid both made their first marathon teams (I hope I didn't remember that wrong).
07/12/2012 5:52:04 PM
User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 280
[quote=benjaminburr]I'll be honest, I was expecting them both to be around 2:40 at Rotterdam. Had they come up more gradually (because we know that you must check off all of the little boxes if you want to be selected) instead of "bursting onto the scene," so to speak, maybe there would have been more consideration for their selection based on those hypothetically gradually progressive competitive careers. [/quote] So did I but shows you we know. I thought to try to run at A pace when Krista didn't run that fast at ATB was a blow up waiting to happen. The fact we were both so wrong also makes the case. Krista has had gradual improvement but is still(based on how she has trained) a huge potential-never ran on a track, low mileage, various pregnancies, etc. Even though she is older than Lanni, she may have been entitled to it even more. Here was her progression: Oct 2002: 3:28:07 (Casino Niagara) May 2003: 3:09:16 (Ottawa) Apr 2005: 3:00:46 (Boston) *Feb 2006 Birth of Child #1 *Mar 2008 Birth of Child #2 May 2009: 2:51:39 (Mississauga) Sept 2009: 2:50:36 (Scotiabank Toronto Waterfront) Nov 2009: 2:46:27 (Hamilton Road2Hope) May 2010: 2:39:09 (Ottawa) *Mar 2011 Birth of Child #3 Apr 2012: 2:32:06 (Rotterdam) And still untapped. Should have been an exciting story with just a bit of extrapolation(which was applied to Reid).
benjaminburr wrote:
I'll be honest, I was expecting them both to be around 2:40 at Rotterdam. Had they come up more gradually (because we know that you must check off all of the little boxes if you want to be selected) instead of "bursting onto the scene," so to speak, maybe there would have been more consideration for their selection based on those hypothetically gradually progressive competitive careers.


So did I but shows you we know. I thought to try to run at A pace when Krista didn't run that fast at ATB was a blow up waiting to happen. The fact we were both so wrong also makes the case. Krista has had gradual improvement but is still(based on how she has trained) a huge potential-never ran on a track, low mileage, various pregnancies, etc. Even though she is older than Lanni, she may have been entitled to it even more. Here was her progression:

Oct 2002: 3:28:07 (Casino Niagara)

May 2003: 3:09:16 (Ottawa)

Apr 2005: 3:00:46 (Boston)

*Feb 2006 Birth of Child #1

*Mar 2008 Birth of Child #2

May 2009: 2:51:39 (Mississauga)

Sept 2009: 2:50:36 (Scotiabank Toronto Waterfront)

Nov 2009: 2:46:27 (Hamilton Road2Hope)

May 2010: 2:39:09 (Ottawa)

*Mar 2011 Birth of Child #3

Apr 2012: 2:32:06 (Rotterdam)

And still untapped. Should have been an exciting story with just a bit of extrapolation(which was applied to Reid).
07/12/2012 8:10:16 PM
User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 349
@SI10 I like what Athletics Canada did, but would have liked it more if the female marathoners would have also been selected. I'm also miffed as to why we aren't running a men's 4 x 400m team. We have more top quality 4 x 400m runners than ever before. Harris is in sub 45.0 shape. We have a guy paid full time to work on relays and he couldn't get these guys together to run one somewhere?
@SI10 I like what Athletics Canada did, but would have liked it more if the female marathoners would have also been selected.

I'm also miffed as to why we aren't running a men's 4 x 400m team. We have more top quality 4 x 400m runners than ever before. Harris is in sub 45.0 shape. We have a guy paid full time to work on relays and he couldn't get these guys together to run one somewhere?
07/12/2012 10:16:29 PM
User
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 64
@SI10 I'm fairly certain one of the reasons behind no "B" standard for the marathon is the ridiculously long qualification window the marathon runners were afforded. Reid (Coolsaet) effectively qualified in fall 2010, just under TWO YEARS before the games. In a fairly conservative program a marathon runner still has 4 - 5 attempts at making a SINGLE standard ONE TIME with this window. The other events are a little more complicated with much shorter windows and repeat performance standards. Also, enough with this gender-table bullshit. You want numbers? Our men are ~2:10 and ~2:04 is about the norm to win a major nowadays. Thats a delta of 6 minutes, or less than 5%. Our women, although they have made big improvements, are 2:32 runners in a world where sub-2:20 is becoming the requirement. A delta of 12 minutes, or about 9%. Further, you are either ignorant or foolish if you believe a 74-75 minute half is as competitive as a 63.
@SI10

I'm fairly certain one of the reasons behind no "B" standard for the marathon is the ridiculously long qualification window the marathon runners were afforded. Reid (Coolsaet) effectively qualified in fall 2010, just under TWO YEARS before the games. In a fairly conservative program a marathon runner still has 4 - 5 attempts at making a SINGLE standard ONE TIME with this window. The other events are a little more complicated with much shorter windows and repeat performance standards.

Also, enough with this gender-table bullshit. You want numbers? Our men are ~2:10 and ~2:04 is about the norm to win a major nowadays. Thats a delta of 6 minutes, or less than 5%. Our women, although they have made big improvements, are 2:32 runners in a world where sub-2:20 is becoming the requirement. A delta of 12 minutes, or about 9%. Further, you are either ignorant or foolish if you believe a 74-75 minute half is as competitive as a 63.
07/12/2012 10:26:25 PM
User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 280
[quote=joshseifarth]I'm fairly certain one of the reasons behind no "B" standard for the marathon is the ridiculously long qualification window the marathon runners were afforded. [/quote] Actually you are dead wrong as to what the reasons are if you would bother to read Guy's take on the issue but I don't think this makes you ignorant or foolish. Just uninformed and wrong. [quote=joshseifarth]Further, you are either ignorant or foolish if you believe a 74-75 minute half is as competitive as a 63.[/quote] First of all, it was 74:02 and 63:55. Your rounding cracks me up. Compare those times to the top times of the year and go and redo your math. They are both "weak". Secondly, I didn't say that. Read what I said. It was in the context of competitive readiness. And note that Reid was able to prove competitive readiness with a performance that was just as weak. Now I don't think that the fact you missed my point makes you ignorant or foolish. [quote=joshseifarth]Reid (Coolsaet) effectively qualified in fall 2010, just under TWO YEARS before the games. [/quote] And I have no idea what you are babbling about here but I am not going to assume you are either ignorant OR foolish because perhaps you are working with some sort of Mayan calendar and I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
joshseifarth wrote:
I'm fairly certain one of the reasons behind no "B" standard for the marathon is the ridiculously long qualification window the marathon runners were afforded.


Actually you are dead wrong as to what the reasons are if you would bother to read Guy's take on the issue but I don't think this makes you ignorant or foolish. Just uninformed and wrong.

joshseifarth wrote:
Further, you are either ignorant or foolish if you believe a 74-75 minute half is as competitive as a 63.


First of all, it was 74:02 and 63:55. Your rounding cracks me up. Compare those times to the top times of the year and go and redo your math. They are both "weak". Secondly, I didn't say that. Read what I said. It was in the context of competitive readiness. And note that Reid was able to prove competitive readiness with a performance that was just as weak. Now I don't think that the fact you missed my point makes you ignorant or foolish.

joshseifarth wrote:
Reid (Coolsaet) effectively qualified in fall 2010, just under TWO YEARS before the games.

And I have no idea what you are babbling about here but I am not going to assume you are either ignorant OR foolish because perhaps you are working with some sort of Mayan calendar and I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
07/12/2012 10:45:00 PM
User
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4
I commend AC on this and agree with all additions except for the 29 year old "Rising Star" in the Women's 100m. Can't see her as a Finalist in 2016. The 21 year-old with a SB .02 slower looks like a better bet!
I commend AC on this and agree with all additions except for the 29 year old "Rising Star" in the Women's 100m. Can't see her as a Finalist in 2016. The 21 year-old with a SB .02 slower looks like a better bet!

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.