The ridiculously stupid Canadian Standards for Worlds
09/03/2011 1:06:31 AM
User
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 40
Here are some examples: Malindi Elmore and Hillary StellingWerff Actually 3 women (Nicole Sifuentes) who ran this year within 2 seconds of the winning time and within 4 seconds of the best time of the woman who won it - Jenny Simpson. And this is without the Canadian girls being able to get into any big meet in Europe. Anyone who understands anything about distance running would realize that these women, who are at their prime right now, could have made the final and possibly won a medal. This is distance running, don't look too hard at the times. I notice Megan Wright with a time one second slower than American Amy Hastings, who ran in the final of the women's 5000m Hastings wouldn't have made Canada's team. Athletics Canada also hasn't realized that kickers often medal at championships. Matt Centrowitz, who ran one time faster than Nate Brennan this year, has an outside chance at a medal going in. If the race was slow, Nate could have had a top 5 finish. Of course, Nate also couldn't get in races in Europe. In the US, the top 3 go to the Championships if they have the World Champs standard. Athletics Canada with their ridiculous standards, are making young Canadian track athletes evaluate whether they should keep pursuing this sport. When the Saskatchewan Roughriders lose, they get rid of their coach. When the Prime Minister doesn't perform, we vote in a new one. Who is on the Board of Canadian Athletics and how do we get them to fire some of our ineffective leaders and start over.
Here are some examples:

Malindi Elmore and Hillary StellingWerff
Actually 3 women (Nicole Sifuentes) who ran this year within 2 seconds of the winning time and within 4 seconds of the best time of the woman who won it - Jenny Simpson. And this is without the Canadian girls being able to get into any big meet in Europe. Anyone who understands anything about distance running would realize that these women, who are at their prime right now, could have made the final and possibly won a medal. This is distance running, don't look too hard at the times.

I notice Megan Wright with a time one second slower than American Amy Hastings, who ran in the final of the women's 5000m Hastings wouldn't have made Canada's team.

Athletics Canada also hasn't realized that kickers often medal at championships. Matt Centrowitz, who ran one time faster than Nate Brennan this year, has an outside chance at a medal going in. If the race was slow, Nate could have had a top 5 finish. Of course, Nate also couldn't get in races in Europe.

In the US, the top 3 go to the Championships if they have the World Champs standard. Athletics Canada with their ridiculous standards, are making young Canadian track athletes evaluate whether they should keep pursuing this sport.

When the Saskatchewan Roughriders lose, they get rid of their coach. When the Prime Minister doesn't perform, we vote in a new one. Who is on the Board of Canadian Athletics and how do we get them to fire some of our ineffective leaders and start over.
09/03/2011 3:59:46 AM
User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 349
@Canrunner2662 This is a comment from LetsRun.com about the men's 1500m. "Eduar Villanueva of Venezuela. The feel good story of the meet, he didn't even have the "B" standard coming in, but is in the final." This could not ever happen to a Canadian, as Canada would never send the athlete.
@Canrunner2662

This is a comment from LetsRun.com about the men's 1500m.

"Eduar Villanueva of Venezuela. The feel good story of the meet, he didn't even have the "B" standard coming in, but is in the final."

This could not ever happen to a Canadian, as Canada would never send the athlete.
09/03/2011 7:25:47 AM
User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 163
@Canrunner2662 Centrowitz just got bronze with 3:36.08. A proven fast finisher like Brennan is always a good team pick when there are multiple rounds and tactical finals.
@Canrunner2662

Centrowitz just got bronze with 3:36.08. A proven fast finisher like Brennan is always a good team pick when there are multiple rounds and tactical finals.
09/03/2011 4:03:31 PM
User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 349
@CoachFaulds I agree. Nathan Brannan could have been right in that race.
@CoachFaulds

I agree. Nathan Brannan could have been right in that race.
09/04/2011 11:37:10 AM
User
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 61
@Canrunner2662 Wasn't AC simply asking for IAAF 'A' standards, unless you fit the rising star criteria (ie. Martinson in the 1500m) where you could go with a couple of 'B' standards. That doesn't seem like too much to ask and is in fact much more lenient than many selection criteia we've seen in the last 8 years.
@Canrunner2662

Wasn't AC simply asking for IAAF 'A' standards, unless you fit the rising star criteria (ie. Martinson in the 1500m) where you could go with a couple of 'B' standards. That doesn't seem like too much to ask and is in fact much more lenient than many selection criteia we've seen in the last 8 years.
09/04/2011 12:26:34 PM
User
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 112
I do recall in an interview on Flotrack where Brannen stated that if he doesn't hit that A standard, he believes that he won't be fit enough to do well at worlds and that he would not feel comfortable being a part of the field! Even though his best was 3:34 a couple years ago, you gotta make the standard right? Now we might argue that he could not get into any meets but he got into some pretty good meets in the end and he happened to get real close to the standard at a really small meet in some town in Belgium (which is where O'Lianard got his standard) so it doesn't have to be at some huge Diamond League event, if you got the fitness you will run what you need to run. 3:35.00 is not something out of reach for Brannen and if he hits that standard for London then that will show that he is fit and ready to compete in the heats and the final. 3:35.00 is the average time for senior 1500m runners and Brannen certainly isn't an average runner. He'll be back for London. We also got to remember this is Brannens first season in 2 years. In my opinion I'd say he has had a pretty successful season coming back! This season shows that he will improve next year. As for the women, reading their blogs I can see the frustration of not getting into the meets they wanted to be in but again rules are rules, if you don't hit the standard then you don't go regardless of the circumstances. We can call it stupid, we can call it whatever we like, it won't change for us so we might as well get used to these rules. AC is our governing body and whatever they say goes. I remember this summer at junior nationals I had to run in the slow heat for the 5000m because when I ran my standard time, I wasn't a part of AC and they only allow AC members' times to count as standards so they used a time I ran in a 3000m from 2 years ago (which was the last time I ran a 3000m as an AC member), and I ended up in the slow heat. I was extremely annoyed with AC and I let it get to my head that because I was in the slow heat I could not run fast so I had already defeated myself before I got to the line. If we let simple things like these bother us, it'll effect other things later on. In conclusion, we have to adapt to whatever situation we are put in no matter what or else things will not go well in the long run. I noticed many of the athletes we are talking about have not complained much about AC standards nor have they really said much about the subject. They understand that they must make the best of their situation.
I do recall in an interview on Flotrack where Brannen stated that if he doesn't hit that A standard, he believes that he won't be fit enough to do well at worlds and that he would not feel comfortable being a part of the field! Even though his best was 3:34 a couple years ago, you gotta make the standard right? Now we might argue that he could not get into any meets but he got into some pretty good meets in the end and he happened to get real close to the standard at a really small meet in some town in Belgium (which is where O'Lianard got his standard) so it doesn't have to be at some huge Diamond League event, if you got the fitness you will run what you need to run. 3:35.00 is not something out of reach for Brannen and if he hits that standard for London then that will show that he is fit and ready to compete in the heats and the final. 3:35.00 is the average time for senior 1500m runners and Brannen certainly isn't an average runner. He'll be back for London. We also got to remember this is Brannens first season in 2 years. In my opinion I'd say he has had a pretty successful season coming back! This season shows that he will improve next year.

As for the women, reading their blogs I can see the frustration of not getting into the meets they wanted to be in but again rules are rules, if you don't hit the standard then you don't go regardless of the circumstances. We can call it stupid, we can call it whatever we like, it won't change for us so we might as well get used to these rules. AC is our governing body and whatever they say goes. I remember this summer at junior nationals I had to run in the slow heat for the 5000m because when I ran my standard time, I wasn't a part of AC and they only allow AC members' times to count as standards so they used a time I ran in a 3000m from 2 years ago (which was the last time I ran a 3000m as an AC member), and I ended up in the slow heat. I was extremely annoyed with AC and I let it get to my head that because I was in the slow heat I could not run fast so I had already defeated myself before I got to the line. If we let simple things like these bother us, it'll effect other things later on. In conclusion, we have to adapt to whatever situation we are put in no matter what or else things will not go well in the long run. I noticed many of the athletes we are talking about have not complained much about AC standards nor have they really said much about the subject. They understand that they must make the best of their situation.
09/04/2011 1:26:41 PM
User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 349
@ksully330 It is true that these standards are slightly better, but the idea that Canada will be better if we make our standards higher than the meet standards is an idea that does not promote development. There are many athletes at the World Championships who have only hit the "B" standard once and are in the mix in the finals. The entire idea that our tougher standards will make us better hasn't worked. It does not promote the sport. Centrowitz barely got under the "a"standard once in the men's 1500 once, yet got the bronze. Typically the middle distance races are tactical, yet the standards are based on world rankings where there might be 25 Kenyans in the top 100, but only 3 at the championships. I believe that there is no good reason why we should not send one athlete with the "b" standard. This standard is there for a reason and Canada should stick with the IAAF standards rather than making up our own. As for the athletes not complaining, many of them are classy individuals who understand that it would make them look self-serving. It is up to the rest of us to debate the issue. My assertion is that the more we get in this meet, the better.
@ksully330

It is true that these standards are slightly better, but the idea that Canada will be better if we make our standards higher than the meet standards is an idea that does not promote development. There are many athletes at the World Championships who have only hit the "B" standard once and are in the mix in the finals. The entire idea that our tougher standards will make us better hasn't worked. It does not promote the sport. Centrowitz barely got under the "a"standard once in the men's 1500 once, yet got the bronze. Typically the middle distance races are tactical, yet the standards are based on world rankings where there might be 25 Kenyans in the top 100, but only 3 at the championships.

I believe that there is no good reason why we should not send one athlete with the "b" standard. This standard is there for a reason and Canada should stick with the IAAF standards rather than making up our own.

As for the athletes not complaining, many of them are classy individuals who understand that it would make them look self-serving. It is up to the rest of us to debate the issue.

My assertion is that the more we get in this meet, the better.
09/04/2011 2:05:02 PM
User
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 61
[quote=bryano]@ksully330 It is true that these standards are slightly better, but the idea that Canada will be better if we make our standards higher than the meet standards is an idea that does not promote development.[/quote] @bryano Not sure what your arguement is. Other than the M&W Marathon, M 50k walk, and M 400mH, ALL of the standards AC "set" were IAAF standards so they were not even "slightly better". As for promoting developement, AC has the "Rising Star" criteria to promote developement which allows for athletes who haven't been on a Worlds/Olympic to go to worlds on B standards thereby gaining valuble experience at the World Level. Also, IAAF only allows one athlete with a B standard to compete, so of the three 1500m girls, only one would have been eligible, and of our three 1500m guys only one would have been eligible.
bryano wrote:
@ksully330

It is true that these standards are slightly better, but the idea that Canada will be better if we make our standards higher than the meet standards is an idea that does not promote development.


@bryano

Not sure what your arguement is. Other than the M&W Marathon, M 50k walk, and M 400mH, ALL of the standards AC "set" were IAAF standards so they were not even "slightly better". As for promoting developement, AC has the "Rising Star" criteria to promote developement which allows for athletes who haven't been on a Worlds/Olympic to go to worlds on B standards thereby gaining valuble experience at the World Level.

Also, IAAF only allows one athlete with a B standard to compete, so of the three 1500m girls, only one would have been eligible, and of our three 1500m guys only one would have been eligible.
09/04/2011 7:04:59 PM
User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 349
@ksully330 So my argument is "send them", as the US and many other countries do. Keeping them at home doesn't help them in my opinion.
@ksully330

So my argument is "send them", as the US and many other countries do. Keeping them at home doesn't help them in my opinion.
09/04/2011 7:51:37 PM
User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 163
@bryano But if you send one athlete per event that has the B standard then how could we afford to send the 19 officials?
@bryano

But if you send one athlete per event that has the B standard then how could we afford to send the 19 officials?
09/04/2011 8:09:51 PM
User
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 168
@bryano Exactly right! The USA tried to take absolutely as many athletes as they can, within the borders of International Standards of course. Canada, exactly the opposite. What is the message being sent? While trying to meet a ridiculous goal of Owning the Podium, we may be turning off dozens, hundreds, or thousands of potential Canadian team members in our Sport. I would like to see at least the National Champion in every event, with at least B standard, sent to represent Canada. And if someone achieves an A, then we can take 2 (A + B) in an event, and so on. Standards that are good enough for the rest of the World should be good enough for us. It's not exactly like Canada is providing such excellent programming and support for our athletes!!! By the way, how is that Own the Podium program going, heading towards London/2012? With absolutely no disrespect to any of our athletes who were in Daegu giving it their best, have we ever had a weaker showing at the World level than this year? Where is the accountability? Speak to, and write to your local AC Board member!
@bryano Exactly right! The USA tried to take absolutely as many athletes as they can, within the borders of International Standards of course. Canada, exactly the opposite. What is the message being sent? While trying to meet a ridiculous goal of Owning the Podium, we may be turning off dozens, hundreds, or thousands of potential Canadian team members in our Sport. I would like to see at least the National Champion in every event, with at least B standard, sent to represent Canada. And if someone achieves an A, then we can take 2 (A + B) in an event, and so on. Standards that are good enough for the rest of the World should be good enough for us. It's not exactly like Canada is providing such excellent programming and support for our athletes!!! By the way, how is that Own the Podium program going, heading towards London/2012? With absolutely no disrespect to any of our athletes who were in Daegu giving it their best, have we ever had a weaker showing at the World level than this year? Where is the accountability? Speak to, and write to your local AC Board member!
09/04/2011 11:14:27 PM
User
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 61
[quote=bryano]@ksully330 So my argument is "send them", as the US and many other countries do. Keeping them at home doesn't help them in my opinion.[/quote] @bryano It's funny because the title of the thread is about "ridiculous " standards despite our standards being the same as IAAF standards. Are you seriously comparing us to the US. They probably have less b standards at worlds than we did. If you can't make A standard in the US you aren't going, period, becusae they almost always have 3+ A standards. Very few countries send all of their B standard athletes so your arguement is weak at best and certainly not well researched.
bryano wrote:
@ksully330

So my argument is "send them", as the US and many other countries do. Keeping them at home doesn't help them in my opinion.


@bryano

It's funny because the title of the thread is about "ridiculous
" standards despite our standards being the same as IAAF standards.

Are you seriously comparing us to the US. They probably have less b standards at worlds than we did.

If you can't make A standard in the US you aren't going, period, becusae they almost always have 3+ A standards. Very few countries send all of their B standard athletes so your arguement is weak at best and certainly not well researched.
09/04/2011 11:23:31 PM
User
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 61
"Exactly the opposite?" Didn't we send all our A standard athletes and have provisions to send rising star b standard athletes to get the develpment exprience you are all arguing that r as lacking. [quote=traveller]@bryano Exactly right! The USA tried to take absolutely as many athletes as they can, within the borders of International Standards of course. Canada, exactly the opposite. What is the message being sent? While trying to meet a ridiculous goal of Owning the Podium, we may be turning off dozens, hundreds, or thousands of potential Canadian team members in our Sport. I would like to see at least the National Champion in every event, with at least B standard, sent to represent Canada. And if someone achieves an A, then we can take 2 (A + B) in an event, and so on. Standards that are good enough for the rest of the World should be good enough for us. It's not exactly like Canada is providing such excellent programming and support for our athletes!!! By the way, how is that Own the Podium program going, heading towards London/2012? With absolutely no disrespect to any of our athletes who were in Daegu giving it their best, have we ever had a weaker showing at the World level than this year? Where is the accountability? Speak to, and write to your local AC Board member![/quote] @traveller
"Exactly the opposite?" Didn't we send all our A standard athletes and have provisions to send rising star b standard athletes to get the develpment exprience you are all arguing that r as lacking.

raveller wrote:
@bryano Exactly right! The USA tried to take absolutely as many athletes as they can, within the borders of International Standards of course. Canada, exactly the opposite. What is the message being sent? While trying to meet a ridiculous goal of Owning the Podium, we may be turning off dozens, hundreds, or thousands of potential Canadian team members in our Sport. I would like to see at least the National Champion in every event, with at least B standard, sent to represent Canada. And if someone achieves an A, then we can take 2 (A + B) in an event, and so on. Standards that are good enough for the rest of the World should be good enough for us. It's not exactly like Canada is providing such excellent programming and support for our athletes!!! By the way, how is that Own the Podium program going, heading towards London/2012? With absolutely no disrespect to any of our athletes who were in Daegu giving it their best, have we ever had a weaker showing at the World level than this year? Where is the accountability? Speak to, and write to your local AC Board member!


@traveller
09/05/2011 1:50:51 AM
User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 349
@ksully330 Nobody is arguing the rising star program. It is good. The US does send B standard athletes as long as they got top 4 in the US Championships. In fact, the US had quite a few athletes that made it on "B" standard. To quote the USATF: "If after August 8, 2011 any of the top four (4) rank order finishers have not achieved the “A” standard, USATF may, in its discretion, enter one (1) athlete who has not achieved the “A” standard, provided that said athlete has achieved the “B” standard in that event during the qualifying period." The big question that is never answered is "How does this hurt Canada to send athletes with B standard."
@ksully330

Nobody is arguing the rising star program. It is good. The US does send B standard athletes as long as they got top 4 in the US Championships. In fact, the US had quite a few athletes that made it on "B" standard.

To quote the USATF:
"If after August 8, 2011 any of the top four (4) rank order finishers have not achieved the “A” standard, USATF may, in its discretion, enter one (1) athlete who has not achieved the “A” standard, provided that said athlete has achieved the “B” standard in that event during the qualifying period."

The big question that is never answered is "How does this hurt Canada to send athletes with B standard."
09/05/2011 12:22:02 PM
User
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 61
[quote=bryano]@ksully330 Nobody is arguing the rising star program. It is good. The US does send B standard athletes as long as they got top 4 in the US Championships. In fact, the US had quite a few athletes that made it on "B" standard. To quote the USATF: "If after August 8, 2011 any of the top four (4) rank order finishers have not achieved the “A” standard, USATF may, in its discretion, enter one (1) athlete who has not achieved the “A” standard, provided that said athlete has achieved the “B” standard in that event during the qualifying period." The big question that is never answered is "How does this hurt Canada to send athletes with B standard."[/quote] @bryano First, the USA does have restrictions on sending 'B' standard athletes the first being they must be in the top 4 at USA's. Secondly, they USATF has the left it to their discretion to NOT pick a 'B' standard. So there is not guarantee that even if you finish in the top 4 and have 'B' standard that USATF will send you. AC's puts in the caveat that you must not have been on a previous WC/Olympic team, thereby truly making this a development part of the criteria. Secondly, if you go through the team lists, you will see that Canada sends proportionally MORE 'B' standard athletes than the USA does. On the US team there were 17 athletes of their 129 member team that were there on 'B' standards, or 13% of their team. The Canadian team sent 8 'B' standards of a team of 33 members, or 24% of their team. If you include the fact that Warner was in the DEC based on last years point total, and Effah was in the 100m with 'B' standard but went as part of the 4x1, that increases our team to 10 'B' standards or 30% of our team. Since you seem to think AC is leaving some huge number of athletes at home, I took the time to actually go through the Canadian rankings and look at how many athletes were actually left home who would have qualified based on IAAF standard of allowing one B standard to go...it is a grand total of 4 athletes, all who didn't go because they had been on a WC or Olympic team previously. It is hardly some huge unfair criteria that AC is setting. As I said before, if you are going to start an arguement based on how "unfair" Canadain standards are, at least do the research to back up your claims.
bryano wrote:
@ksully330

Nobody is arguing the rising star program. It is good. The US does send B standard athletes as long as they got top 4 in the US Championships. In fact, the US had quite a few athletes that made it on "B" standard.

To quote the USATF:
"If after August 8, 2011 any of the top four (4) rank order finishers have not achieved the “A” standard, USATF may, in its discretion, enter one (1) athlete who has not achieved the “A” standard, provided that said athlete has achieved the “B” standard in that event during the qualifying period."

The big question that is never answered is "How does this hurt Canada to send athletes with B standard."


@bryano

First, the USA does have restrictions on sending 'B' standard athletes the first being they must be in the top 4 at USA's. Secondly, they USATF has the left it to their discretion to NOT pick a 'B' standard. So there is not guarantee that even if you finish in the top 4 and have 'B' standard that USATF will send you. AC's puts in the caveat that you must not have been on a previous WC/Olympic team, thereby truly making this a development part of the criteria.

Secondly, if you go through the team lists, you will see that Canada sends proportionally MORE 'B' standard athletes than the USA does.

On the US team there were 17 athletes of their 129 member team that were there on 'B' standards, or 13% of their team.

The Canadian team sent 8 'B' standards of a team of 33 members, or 24% of their team. If you include the fact that Warner was in the DEC based on last years point total, and Effah was in the 100m with 'B' standard but went as part of the 4x1, that increases our team to 10 'B' standards or 30% of our team.

Since you seem to think AC is leaving some huge number of athletes at home, I took the time to actually go through the Canadian rankings and look at how many athletes were actually left home who would have qualified based on IAAF standard of allowing one B standard to go...it is a grand total of 4 athletes, all who didn't go because they had been on a WC or Olympic team previously. It is hardly some huge unfair criteria that AC is setting.

As I said before, if you are going to start an arguement based on how "unfair" Canadain standards are, at least do the research to back up your claims.
09/05/2011 1:24:45 PM
User
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 51
@ksully330 Word.
@ksully330 Word.
09/05/2011 1:44:47 PM
User
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 31
The OP started out by implying that ALL three 1500m women should be at worlds - when only one would have been eligible as B standard runners, same with the men (Martinson went as a rising star B), and the fault was the "ridiculously stupid standards". Sullivan has stated that in most events AC follows IAAF standards. The US (as Sullivan also pointed out) rarely have to take B level athletes, but they normally have a policy to send as many athletes as possible - that policy has sometimes changed to suit their own purposes however (winner of trials would go with a B, which precluded others from going who had A - when the IAAF restricted participation to ALL A or one B). This year more B level athletes were sent (with the IAAF provision of one B being allowed along with 2 A's), but that is also testament to the lack of depth in some events in the US at the moment (not something to be applauded when it is supposed to be the best Track & Field nation in the World). If the issue is why we don't use B as the "normal" requirement for participation at worlds, then it is simple - it is promoting mediocrity, or at least NOT excellence, which is contrary to the OTP philosophy (whether I totally agree with that philosophy is another matter). I have no problem sending extra athletes (B standard) in an event where an A level standard has been acheived, but to send athletes (apart from rising stars) when NO one has the A standard in an event is saying that No one EVER has to get that A standard (unless you want to send more than one athlete)! Is this what passes for OTP development? I won't address the issues/comparisons of US athletes (Hastings/Barringer-Simpson) with ours except to say that it is definitely not as simple as the OP makes it out to be. To take this to an extreme, it is like saying that Coolsaet could have medalled at Worlds in the Marathon since his PB is only a minute shy of the bronze medal performance (wasn't that the argument used when guys were running 2h16 and not being selected in previous years) even though those guys are 2h05-06 runners who must, consequently, have been having a bad day - and our guy couldn't possibly be subject to that condition. As far As I know there aren't any "B" level standards for World Youth or Juniors (although perhaps they are ALL B equivalents, hard to say, and I wouldn't have a problem with that for these ages)- either you make the standard or you aren't eligible, just winning Nationals isn't necessarily good enough. I would prefer that the IAAF did the same, one standard (even if it was a slightly softer one) for all. The B standard is meant (one presumes) to accommodate those countries who lack the ability (or whatever) to develop A level athletes, and while this may actually BE reflective of the general situation in Canada in SOME events, should it really be policy?
The OP started out by implying that ALL three 1500m women should be at worlds - when only one would have been eligible as B standard runners, same with the men (Martinson went as a rising star B), and the fault was the "ridiculously stupid standards". Sullivan has stated that in most events AC follows IAAF standards. The US (as Sullivan also pointed out) rarely have to take B level athletes, but they normally have a policy to send as many athletes as possible - that policy has sometimes changed to suit their own purposes however (winner of trials would go with a B, which precluded others from going who had A - when the IAAF restricted participation to ALL A or one B). This year more B level athletes were sent (with the IAAF provision of one B being allowed along with 2 A's), but that is also testament to the lack of depth in some events in the US at the moment (not something to be applauded when it is supposed to be the best Track & Field nation in the World).
If the issue is why we don't use B as the "normal" requirement for participation at worlds, then it is simple - it is promoting mediocrity, or at least NOT excellence, which is contrary to the OTP philosophy (whether I totally agree with that philosophy is another matter). I have no problem sending extra athletes (B standard) in an event where an A level standard has been acheived, but to send athletes (apart from rising stars) when NO one has the A standard in an event is saying that No one EVER has to get that A standard (unless you want to send more than one athlete)! Is this what passes for OTP development?
I won't address the issues/comparisons of US athletes (Hastings/Barringer-Simpson) with ours except to say that it is definitely not as simple as the OP makes it out to be. To take this to an extreme, it is like saying that Coolsaet could have medalled at Worlds in the Marathon since his PB is only a minute shy of the bronze medal performance (wasn't that the argument used when guys were running 2h16 and not being selected in previous years) even though those guys are 2h05-06 runners who must, consequently, have been having a bad day - and our guy couldn't possibly be subject to that condition.
As far As I know there aren't any "B" level standards for World Youth or Juniors (although perhaps they are ALL B equivalents, hard to say, and I wouldn't have a problem with that for these ages)- either you make the standard or you aren't eligible, just winning Nationals isn't necessarily good enough. I would prefer that the IAAF did the same, one standard (even if it was a slightly softer one) for all. The B standard is meant (one presumes) to accommodate those countries who lack the ability (or whatever) to develop A level athletes, and while this may actually BE reflective of the general situation in Canada in SOME events, should it really be policy?
09/05/2011 1:55:05 PM
User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 349
@ksully330 Good research, as I was trying to find those US B standard athletes and couldn't. Of course the US would not have too many "B" standard athletes as the size of the country and quality of runners there means they have "A" standard athletes in most events. They still sent 17 vs our 8. The Rising star category is a great improvement over past years for Canada. I agree the title of the post was a little hyperbole. It wasn't mine, but I agree with Canrunner that we should send as many as possible. As you mentioned earlier, in past years, the standards were tougher and I think people like you have probably helped try to soften them a little over the years. In middle distances especially, I think things have changed over the years. Back when you ran, it was probably a little easier for Canadians pushing to get standards to get into races in Europe. In the 80s it was even easier and I remember some of our #4 and 5 runners getting in good races. Nowadays, with the poliferation of Ethiopians, Kenyans and other Africans trying to get in races, combined with the desire to get Americans in, there is little room for our #1 Canadian MD runners in top races in Europe. I would have thought it to be a positive step to let Malindi and Nathan go to Korea and it would have given CBC something to talk about during the 1500s. I believe the US would have sent them if the situation was the same in the US and I have still never been given a good reason why we wouldn't want to send everyone who qualified - as many A standards as possible and 1 B standard if no A standards, and also a second "B" standard in an event where we already have an "A". Why punish "B" standard people who have already run in a championship? Those are the people that often might be able to come up big and maybe coming off an injury or something. most veteran distance runners won't go if they know they are not fit (not sure what Bekele was doing) Are we trying to push them to retire? I have to admit that some of my complaining is from years of seeing these standards that are more difficult than the entry standards and have never agreed with this philosophy. Some believe that it will make us better to have higher standards and I heard this argument many years ago. I think our relatively poor showing in Korea has shown that this philiosophy has not helped develop higher level Canadian athletes. I believe more opportunities is the way to go. It is a good debate and thanks for those numbers. I must improve my googling skills.
@ksully330
Good research, as I was trying to find those US B standard athletes and couldn't. Of course the US would not have too many "B" standard athletes as the size of the country and quality of runners there means they have "A" standard athletes in most events. They still sent 17 vs our 8. The Rising star category is a great improvement over past years for Canada.

I agree the title of the post was a little hyperbole. It wasn't mine, but I agree with Canrunner that we should send as many as possible. As you mentioned earlier, in past years, the standards were tougher and I think people like you have probably helped try to soften them a little over the years.

In middle distances especially, I think things have changed over the years. Back when you ran, it was probably a little easier for Canadians pushing to get standards to get into races in Europe. In the 80s it was even easier and I remember some of our #4 and 5 runners getting in good races. Nowadays, with the poliferation of Ethiopians, Kenyans and other Africans trying to get in races, combined with the desire to get Americans in, there is little room for our #1 Canadian MD runners in top races in Europe. I would have thought it to be a positive step to let Malindi and Nathan go to Korea and it would have given CBC something to talk about during the 1500s.

I believe the US would have sent them if the situation was the same in the US and I have still never been given a good reason why we wouldn't want to send everyone who qualified - as many A standards as possible and 1 B standard if no A standards, and also a second "B" standard in an event where we already have an "A". Why punish "B" standard people who have already run in a championship? Those are the people that often might be able to come up big and maybe coming off an injury or something. most veteran distance runners won't go if they know they are not fit (not sure what Bekele was doing) Are we trying to push them to retire?

I have to admit that some of my complaining is from years of seeing these standards that are more difficult than the entry standards and have never agreed with this philosophy. Some believe that it will make us better to have higher standards and I heard this argument many years ago. I think our relatively poor showing in Korea has shown that this philiosophy has not helped develop higher level Canadian athletes. I believe more opportunities is the way to go.

It is a good debate and thanks for those numbers. I must improve my googling skills.
09/05/2011 2:08:29 PM
User
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 349
[u][/u]@bryano And yes I realize that Brannan couldn't go as Martinson already was on the team as a "B" and only 1 "B" could go. The rising star category wouldn't be needed if we just sent out top "B" runner, which would have been Brannan instead of Martinson.
@bryano
And yes I realize that Brannan couldn't go as Martinson already was on the team as a "B" and only 1 "B" could go.

The rising star category wouldn't be needed if we just sent out top "B" runner, which would have been Brannan instead of Martinson.
09/05/2011 8:12:52 PM
User
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 4
@ksully330 Good discussion, albeit, very much overdone over the past decade or so. Certainly agree with many of Kevin's comments. As a former AC rep he certainly understands the political nature of the organization and it's relationship with OTP, IAAF, and COA. But remember, Kevin would certainly be somewhat defensive on the organization he has done some very excellent work with though. Would be the same if I was in his position. Especially when there are a few at AC that 'get it' and Kevin certainly knows and respects that. Hope people get that subtle bias. Would love to ask one question though.....if 4 athletes got 'left out' of WC, and that number certainly isn't "huge", is that OK? As much as many are making an argument that is over the top and using words that over emphasize things, the simple argument is still easy to see. I'm hoping the basic argument is seen here. Whether it is 4 or 6 or 10 or 17, are we really happy with anyone being left off that had some sort of standard the IAAF posted (and technically was still able to qualify)? Is it really OK that only 4 were left off? Would it matter more if there were 10? I certainly know that there have to be standards and tough decisions are sometimes made that are open to debate. I get it. But, based on a personal opinion and I think this is the case, I would be making the argument being presented (abeit poorly). I certainly know Kevin made his fair share of teams, and worked for it too (I do know this from an inside perspective too), but I'd be upset if I was in that list of four. Whether we argue for four or twenty three, I think the argument is still fair. If people are missed, there is an argument. Fair to respond, but certainly don't deflect the point and base too much emphasis on the overemphasized comments......the point is there. I would agree that AC has softened and there isn't much to pick apart of them on this one aspect. But, there still is something to make light of. And if that isn't OK to do, then who else will do it in an open forum? Too many don't say what is needed in political forums. I do know AC is not an organization on a rock beyond influence though. They will listen and adapt, albeit slower than some would hope. But, that is what you have to deal with politically with organizations such as this. Certainly keep pushing and asking questions. Just ask questions a little more carefully than many are asked because that ruins the whole intent, which is the right thing. Just thoughts. Alan.
@ksully330

Good discussion, albeit, very much overdone over the past decade or so. Certainly agree with many of Kevin's comments. As a former AC rep he certainly understands the political nature of the organization and it's relationship with OTP, IAAF, and COA. But remember, Kevin would certainly be somewhat defensive on the organization he has done some very excellent work with though. Would be the same if I was in his position. Especially when there are a few at AC that 'get it' and Kevin certainly knows and respects that. Hope people get that subtle bias.

Would love to ask one question though.....if 4 athletes got 'left out' of WC, and that number certainly isn't "huge", is that OK? As much as many are making an argument that is over the top and using words that over emphasize things, the simple argument is still easy to see. I'm hoping the basic argument is seen here. Whether it is 4 or 6 or 10 or 17, are we really happy with anyone being left off that had some sort of standard the IAAF posted (and technically was still able to qualify)? Is it really OK that only 4 were left off? Would it matter more if there were 10? I certainly know that there have to be standards and tough decisions are sometimes made that are open to debate. I get it. But, based on a personal opinion and I think this is the case, I would be making the argument being presented (abeit poorly). I certainly know Kevin made his fair share of teams, and worked for it too (I do know this from an inside perspective too), but I'd be upset if I was in that list of four. Whether we argue for four or twenty three, I think the argument is still fair. If people are missed, there is an argument.

Fair to respond, but certainly don't deflect the point and base too much emphasis on the overemphasized comments......the point is there. I would agree that AC has softened and there isn't much to pick apart of them on this one aspect. But, there still is something to make light of. And if that isn't OK to do, then who else will do it in an open forum? Too many don't say what is needed in political forums. I do know AC is not an organization on a rock beyond influence though. They will listen and adapt, albeit slower than some would hope. But, that is what you have to deal with politically with organizations such as this. Certainly keep pushing and asking questions. Just ask questions a little more carefully than many are asked because that ruins the whole intent, which is the right thing.

Just thoughts.

Alan.

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.