|
|
|
|
CoachCraig
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Dec 2003
Posts: 276
Location: Eugene, OR
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 08/04/04 - 11:35 Post subject: Olympic Qualifying
The convoluted combination of USATF and IAAF rules, along with the fact that the US Olympic Trials were unusually close to the Olympics themselves, has left some odd scenarios about who will make the team and who won't in the distance events.
Most notable is perhaps the case of Suzy Favor-Hamilton. She and her coach did not pay much attention to the rules, and now it is most likely she will be left off the Olympic team in favor of a slower runner who better met the technical requirements to be named to the team.
In another odd development, Dathen Ritzenhein is on the team in spite of finishing last in the 10K.
What do you think of the qualifying procedures? Do you think this is the best way of doing things, or should be use a more subjective process like some other countries and sports?
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/04/04 - 11:41 Post subject:
I wouldn't like the "naming" method used by many countries. There's just too much chance for corruption and like we need another opportunity for that in this country..not.
Even though it is convoluted, it's like the NFL season with three games left. The scenarios twist and turn like spaghetti on who will make the playoffs, but it all comes down to numbers, performance and really, from the word go, everyone controlled their own destiny.
I wouldn't change the current setup.
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/04/04 - 11:57 Post subject:
Can someone give a layman's explanation of the current setup for those of us uninformed? Is this the A and B qualifying thing?
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/04/04 - 13:06 Post subject: Re: Olympic Qualifying
| CoachCraig wrote: | The convoluted combination of USATF and IAAF rules, along with the fact that the US Olympic Trials were unusually close to the Olympics themselves, has left some odd scenarios about who will make the team and who won't in the distance events.
Most notable is perhaps the case of Suzy Favor-Hamilton. She and her coach did not pay much attention to the rules, and now it is most likely she will be left off the Olympic team in favor of a slower runner who better met the technical requirements to be named to the team.
In another odd development, Dathen Ritzenhein is on the team in spite of finishing last in the 10K.
What do you think of the qualifying procedures? Do you think this is the best way of doing things, or should be use a more subjective process like some other countries and sports? |
With the current rules in place, it is the responsibility of both Favor Hamilton and her coach to know what she needs to do to make the team. Is there a time she needs to run? They should work to get that well before the Trials. Is there a place she needs to get at the Trials? She should work to get that place having run the time. If she can't, or doesn't, or just plain forgets that she had to hit a Standard, then as bad as this will sound: too bad.
I like her as a runner, but not paying attention to the rules doesn't fly with me for a reason a runner doesn't make the Olympics. If she can check and double check her food and liquid intake to not accidently ingest a banned substance, she can make sure that she knows what she needs to do to make the squad.
To answer your question about the qualifying procedures, i think i'm in favor of having an honest Trials where the individuals who come in first, second, and third (or however many are to make the team) should make the team. No matter if someone run faster two months ago and thus makes the team even though he met the standard and the person in second place didn't. All that matters to me is what can you do when it counts? Can you run a race well enough to place in the top three at the Trials? If so, you made the team. If not, you didn't. The medals at the Olympics are not given out to whomever has the best time that year, but whomever wins the race...even if that person barely qualified for the games and is nowhere near the top of the rankings.
What i don't know is why there are the A and B standards and how the Standards came about. I'm sure there are very good reasons why the Standards exist...and probably have something to do with having a guy run one exceptional race to qualify for the Olympics but not being able to run that time on a fairly consistent basis and making a more competitive Olympic Games...but that's my guess.
|
|
|
|
|
spongebob
Former FFL Champion
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 3602
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/04/04 - 13:41 Post subject:
SFH has enough issues. This is just the icing on the cake.
As for the current system, I really don't get it. I don't think Rocky Balboa would have beaten Apollo Creed to become heavyweight champion of the world under similar guidelines.
I really don't like, or understand, how someone with an A standard that finishes top 3 at the Trials can get left behind if the person that won the trials can only manage a B standard.
They have to fix this. Right now, it is too complex and creates too many unusual situations. I would bet the advisors that put this all together also consult with the BCS.
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/04/04 - 15:02 Post subject:
A person should not get a berth on the team just because they're a known commodity. A spot has got to be earned. And if you're injured when the Trials come, and you can't compete, I'm sorry, but you should not get any special consideration.
Like Pug said, it should just be the top three (with of course, those in fourth, fifth, etc., as alternates in case of injury after the Trials and before the Games). If you're good enough to qualify for the Trials, you're good enough to go to the Games if you place at the Trials.
While we're here, though, it should be as it was previously where a country that has three qualifiers beating the Olympic standard sends all three, not just the top two.
|
|
|
|
|
CoachCraig
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Dec 2003
Posts: 276
Location: Eugene, OR
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/04/04 - 20:49 Post subject:
| cherylpf wrote: | | Can someone give a layman's explanation of the current setup for those of us uninformed? Is this the A and B qualifying thing? |
This is a little complicated, but I'll give it my best shot. There are really two sets of rules. The IAAF / IOC rules govern who is eligible to compete at the Olympics, however the governing body of each country can decide which of the athletes who have met the IAAF/IOC rules will actually get to go.
IAAF / IOC rules say that a country can send one althlete per track event, as long as that athlete has met the "B" qualifying mark. They may send 2 or 3 athletes per event, as long as ALL of them have the tougher "A" mark. The qualifying standards are a relatively recent addition to the Olympics to assure a high standard of competition.
In the case of the 100 meters, all the top US sprinters have made the "A" mark, so the USATF simply names the top 3 finishers at the trials to the team. Unfortunately, in the distance events very few Americans make the "A" standard, or even the "B" for that matter. They will then try to create as big of a team as possible by taking the top 3 finishers from the trials who have the "A" mark. However, if the team will only be one person anyway, they will give the spot to the top finisher with either the "A" or the "B" to give preference to the person who ran the best in the trials.
Suzy Favor Hamilton missed the last point, even though it is clearly in the USATF procedures for picking the team. Since she was the only runner with the "A" mark, when she felt a slight twinge before the race, she thought she could skip the race a still be the first choice for making the team. The only runner who had the "B" standard was Marla Runyan. Marla dropped out of the final, but because she was one spot ahead of Suzy in the semi-finals, she temporarily became the only member of the team.
Now it becomes even more complicated. The window for running a qualifying mark extends past the Olympic trials, so normally runners will head to Europe after the trails to try to get a qualifying mark if they don't have one already. This means the team is not generally set in the distance races when the Olympic trials are over. This year became even more of a mess than usual because the trials were so close to the Olympics themselves, the USATF had to submit a 4 person per event preliminary roster immediately after the trials. Only these 4 people would be eligible to be on the team, no matter who else might run a qualifying mark.
So, as the 1500m final ended at the Olympic trials, the 4 person prelimanary roster would have had Marla Runyan, Carrie Tollefson, Jen Toomey, and Suzy Favor Hamilton. Tollefson and Toomey finished 1-2, but Runyan and SFH were the only ones with a "B" or better, so they made the short list. Marla Runyan, however, had already qualified in the 5K, so she decided to take herself off the list so that 3rd place finisher Amy Rudolph could take the 4th preliminary spot and have a chance to chase a qualifying time. This also had the effect of temporarily shifting the only actual team spot to Suzy.
Now with the preliminary roster set in stone, Suzy could only wait to see if one of the other 3 would knock her off the team. They headed to Europe, and although both Toomey and Rudolph came within a second of the qualifying time (Toomey twice missed by less than a second), Tollefson got the "B" mark. This means as it stands right now, Tollefson is the only member of the team with 5 days left in the qualifying window. The only way for Toomey or Rudolph to make the team is to now get the "A" standard to force a 2 person team with SFH, which would also knock Tollefson back off the list unless she hits an "A" as well.
It's all perfectly clear, right?
Actually, as complex and strange as this sounds, I actually think it is the best possible way of doing it...
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/05/04 - 10:37 Post subject:
Thank you for the explanation, I've been trying to understand since the trials. It does sound like the best way despite it being very complicated.
How would Toomey or Rudolph get the A standard? Do they just have to have someone watching them with a stopwatch? How does that work after the trials? That was my other confusion. They kept saying "Marla Runyan currently has the B standard but has X days to meet the A standard..."
|
|
|
|
  |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
