Should Catriona Jennings have ran the Olympic Marathon knowing she was injured??

Middle Distance

Just wondering what other people's views on this are and if you thought it was right for her to toe the line knowing she was carrying an injury for the last 5 weeks or so???? Will it not take her longer to recover both physically & mentally after hobbling around in agony over 26.2 miles???

RayCun

I don't think she started the race expecting to finish like that. She thought she had it under control.

myflipflops

It would be tough to criticise a person in the that situation and suggest they should have given up their spot. How many people would voluntarily give up the chance to compete in the Olympics on their doorstep?

You do have to question, considering how close the selection decision was, why nobody was required to prove fitness or undergo a medical test in the training camp or in the lead up to the Games. You could easily have named the 4th athlete as a reserve and brought her. We saw Radcliffe out herself through a fitness test that led to another athlete getting the chance to compete.

YoungTrouble

I think she made it up to be honest.Let's face facts.She came last.

Middle Distance

That's what I believe too should have been the case! I'm sure it was a huge decision for Radcliffe & Co to pull out of the Games especially with it been in London and probably her last chance of competing in the Olympics Games but she knew she wasn't able to compete at the level she needed to and therefore gave up her spot to Freya Murray who more than deserved her chance to be there after her great run in the London marathon last April! I'm sure Maria McCambridge would have been a good replacement for Catriona seeing as there was very little between there times when the selection process took place! I know it would be a huge decision to give up her place but was it worth putting herself through what she did! Maybe she thinks it was!

tunguska

myflipflops wrote: »

You do have to question, considering how close the selection decision was, why nobody was required to prove fitness or undergo a medical test in the training camp or in the lead up to the Games. You could easily have named the 4th athlete as a reserve and brought her. We saw Radcliffe out herself through a fitness test that led to another athlete getting the chance to compete.

Yeah was wondering this aswell. I think some bad decisions were made all around.

dernipper

Should this not have been verified by a medical assessment/fitness test ? and if it was why has there not been a simple statement to state when the injury occurred, how it was treated and the medical advice that the athlete was passed fit to compete,,, at the moment it seems to be the athlete in isolation left to face the press and the questions being raised,,, personally for the athlete a tough situation to be in and a tough decision to make

RayCun wrote: »

I don't think she started the race expecting to finish like that. She thought she had it under control.

stargazer 68

Had this discussion last night with someone. Regularly hearing 'plagued by injuries the last few months', 'not at 100%' etc etc. Why do we send these athletes who have absolutely no chance of coming in the top 10 let alone win a medal? Fine, I understand they want the chance to compete in the Olympics etc but if you aren't up there with the best of them stay at home! I would rather we sent 10 athletes who have some hope of a medal than 65 who don't!

Seres

Middle Distance wrote: »

I'm sure Maria McCambridge would have been a good replacement for Catriona seeing as there was very little between there times when the selection process took place!!

Jennings was replacement for McCambridge who couldnt go

I know it would be a huge decision to give up her place but was it worth putting herself through what she did! Maybe she thinks it was![/QUOTE]

It may well have been a once in a life time opportunity for her , its every athletes dream , she was never gonna turn it down and i for one wouldnt expect her to . She shouldnt have been put in that position . Lots of us here can relate to what she did on a lesser scale , ie running that race that we shouldnt because we are injured.

myflipflops

Dovies wrote: »

Had this discussion last night with someone. Regularly hearing 'plagued by injuries the last few months', 'not at 100%' etc etc. Why do we send these athletes who have absolutely no chance of coming in the top 10 let alone win a medal? Fine, I understand they want the chance to compete in the Olympics etc but if you aren't up there with the best of them stay at home! I would rather we sent 10 athletes who have some hope of a medal than 65 who don't!

Great point.

We should use this thought process for all international sport and immediately stop entering the football World Cup and European Championships. Every second rugby world cup can be scrapped too. Maybe 16 or 20 counties should be binned from the GAA as they have no chance of winning every year.

Pherekydes

myflipflops wrote: »

Great point.

We should use this thought process for all international sport and immediately stop entering the football World Cup and European Championships. Every second rugby world cup can be scrapped too. Maybe 16 or 20 counties should be binned from the GAA as they have no chance of winning every year.

+1. I wish all countries would follow that lead and only send possible medallists. We could then hold the Olympics in a single afternoon and avoid all this spectacle.

Bah humbug. :mad:

Seres

Dovies wrote: »

Had this discussion last night with someone. Regularly hearing 'plagued by injuries the last few months', 'not at 100%' etc etc. Why do we send these athletes who have absolutely no chance of coming in the top 10 let alone win a medal? Fine, I understand they want the chance to compete in the Olympics etc but if you aren't up there with the best of them stay at home! I would rather we sent 10 athletes who have some hope of a medal than 65 who don't!

Linda Bryne and Ava Hutchinson got the qualifing standards for the marathon but came in the sixties in the marathon . Should they have stayed at home ?

BobMac104

The amount of sheer ignorance and disrespect shown towards our athletes in the last week or so has been horrifying.

GetWithIt

Dovies wrote: »

Had this discussion last night with someone. Regularly hearing 'plagued by injuries the last few months', 'not at 100%' etc etc. Why do we send these athletes who have absolutely no chance of coming in the top 10 let alone win a medal? Fine, I understand they want the chance to compete in the Olympics etc but if you aren't up there with the best of them stay at home! I would rather we sent 10 athletes who have some hope of a medal than 65 who don't!

The reason we send injured athletes seems to be because they have achieved the qualification time and no one else has. You don't tend to hear bad luck stories from, say GB, because the injured athletes are dropped in favor of someone equally good who isn't injured. Jenny Meadows would be an example.

The one and only event where we had more than 3 athletes with A standards was the woman's marathon and if, and only if McCambridge was able to take the place, I feel Jennings was desperately selfish in running. Maybe the decision should have been taken out of her hands with some sort of credible fitness test.

Personally, I'd send more B standards qualifiers, but that's a different discussion.

Krusty_Clown

Dovies wrote: »

Had this discussion last night with someone. Regularly hearing 'plagued by injuries the last few months', 'not at 100%' etc etc. Why do we send these athletes who have absolutely no chance of coming in the top 10 let alone win a medal? Fine, I understand they want the chance to compete in the Olympics etc but if you aren't up there with the best of them stay at home! I would rather we sent 10 athletes who have some hope of a medal than 65 who don't!

The answer is that the athletes are the pinnacle of Irish performers in their specific event, so we send them to compete against the world's best performers. Only the top three in the world get to medal in each event. The rest are there to participate as strongly as they can and try (typically against the odds) to outperform the other participants. If they come last (and I may be wrong, but AFAIK we've only had one injured runner finish in last position*) then that's a pretty good reflection of where we are at the moment at that specific event (bearing in mind we had two other runners in the marathon who competed well).

Why did we send the Irish soccer team to Poland? Despite the fact that they met the qualifying criteria, they came a poor last place and were never in with a chance (at considerable cost to the Irish economy). While we're on the subject, why did we send Jedward to the Eurovision? Twice?! True, they outperformed the Irish soccer team, but didn't do nearly as well as some of our track and field athletes.

*By the way, Catriona Jennings finished 11 places up on all of the runners who didn't manage to finish the event, so she was far from last.

Pherekydes

myflipflops wrote: »

You could easily have named the 4th athlete as a reserve and brought her. We saw Radcliffe out herself through a fitness test that led to another athlete getting the chance to compete.

I don't think this has been stressed enough. McCambridge could have been named as a sub, and could have replaced Jennings, but the OCI wouldn't have any of that. No subs, no 'B' standard athletes, with an eye on the future.

Jennings probably felt honour bound to run the whole thing.

The OCI must take a lot of the blame for that.

rom

Radcliffe did not decide not to run. It was decided for her that she was not fit enough. She failed a fitness test according to marathon talk.

average_runner

Dovies wrote: »

Had this discussion last night with someone. Regularly hearing 'plagued by injuries the last few months', 'not at 100%' etc etc. Why do we send these athletes who have absolutely no chance of coming in the top 10 let alone win a medal? Fine, I understand they want the chance to compete in the Olympics etc but if you aren't up there with the best of them stay at home! I would rather we sent 10 athletes who have some hope of a medal than 65 who don't!

Because if you send these athletes and a 10 year old kids see these running, they could believe they could get there and maybe do better!

GetWithIt

Pherekydes wrote: »

I don't think this has been stressed enough. McCambridge could have been named as a sub, and could have replaced Jennings, but the OCI wouldn't have any of that. No subs, no 'B' standard athletes, with an eye on the future.

Jennings probably felt honour bound to run the whole thing.

The OCI must take a lot of the blame for that.

If that's the case Jennings should never have been left in that position. I think she would have been better off not running and letting the OCI deal with the consequences of McCambridge not being able to use the place.

ultrapercy

Dovies wrote: »

Had this discussion last night with someone. Regularly hearing 'plagued by injuries the last few months', 'not at 100%' etc etc. Why do we send these athletes who have absolutely no chance of coming in the top 10 let alone win a medal? Fine, I understand they want the chance to compete in the Olympics etc but if you aren't up there with the best of them stay at home! I would rather we sent 10 athletes who have some hope of a medal than 65 who don't!

Why send the Irish soccer team to the world cup? why does any county except Kilkenny and Tip play hurling? As for our rugby team traipsing accross the world to embarrass me,me Joe. My dole is taxed for this Joe its a disgrace.

Pisco Sour

One of the sad side effects of our great sport being the focus of the entire planet for 9 days every 4 years is that you get complete muppets spouting absolute w@nk on these forums in their droves!

ultrapercy

myflipflops wrote: »

Great point.

We should use this thought process for all international sport and immediately stop entering the football World Cup and European Championships. Every second rugby world cup can be scrapped too. Maybe 16 or 20 counties should be binned from the GAA as they have no chance of winning every year.

Sorry didnt see your post before I ulled the trigger!

Luis21

Gavin Nolan finished 23rd in the triathon. Hes been injured for ages. Why was he even there ?

IOC are a joke. Its no wonder the boxing crowd seperate themselves from them.

Pisco Sour

Luis21 wrote: »

Gavin Nolan finished 23rd in the triathon. Hes been injured for ages. Why was he even there ?

IOC are a joke. Its no wonder the boxing crowd seperate themselves from them.

IOC? If you are going to talk sh1te then at least get your facts right!

Burgman

Seres wrote: »

Jennings was replacement for McCambridge who couldnt go.

Just to be precise: Jennings was selected ahead of McCambridge. Four athletes had the A standard and only three could be selected. To McCambridge's great credit, she declined to appeal what must have been a very close call.

sideswipe

Gavin Nolan finished 23rd in the triathon. Hes been injured for ages. Why was he even there ?

IOC are a joke. Its no wonder the boxing crowd seperate themselves from them.

Pisco Sour wrote: »

IOC? If you are going to talk sh1te then at least get your facts right!

And his name!

BobMac104

ok there is alot of troll feeding going on at the moment i think.

catweazle

Luis21 wrote: »

Gavin Nolan finished 23rd in the triathon. Hes been injured for ages. Why was he even there ?

IOC are a joke. Its no wonder the boxing crowd seperate themselves from them.

Noble qualified by finishing in the top 55 of world ranking for triathletes. He actually did well, was in the top group coming off the bike but triathlon at this level is all about the run and he finished just over 3 minutes down on Brownlee. Brownlee ran a 29 minute 10k so a 32 minute 10k is no shame after a 1500m dip in the lake and a 40k spin around London

But definitely outperformed on this race so no shame there

Good to see Britton getting a pb in the 5k as well this morning, thats all I ask - that our Olympic athletes do themselves justice

Luis21

The OCI then.

This not letting themselves down stuff is utter nonsense. If your PB is nowhere near good enough then you shouldn't go. The money splaffed on athletics is a joke. Look at the mullet the other day, disgraceful carry on, he could barely run, went for the free tracksuit and then threatens to quit afterwards.

woodchopper

Luis21 wrote: »

The OCI then.

This not letting themselves down stuff is utter nonsense. If your PB is nowhere near good enough then you shouldn't go. The money splaffed on athletics is a joke. Look at the mullet the other day, disgraceful carry on, he could barely run, went for the free tracksuit and then threatens to quit afterwards.

I doubt he went for a free tracksuit when he gets plenty of clothes from Nike. Since you are only a temporary visitor to the athletics forum let me remind you that you must address myself as Mr Woodchopper sunshine!

Since your such a big fan of boxing. How would John Joe Nevin fare against Floyd Mayweather? That is the level of athletics in the Olympics compared to the amateur boxing tournament that takes place also.

walshb

woodchopper wrote: »

I
Since your such a big fan of boxing. How would John Joe Nevin fare against Floyd Mayweather? That is the level of athletics in the Olympics compared to the amateur boxing tournament that takes place also.

C'mon, why compare two different sports? Pro and amateur boxing.

BTW, as amatuers Nevin would have given Floyd hell.

You remind me of Jerry Kiernan and his whole, "Athletics is the most deep and competitive sport" crap. Nonsense.

Jerry conveniently forgetting that running is so so so more accessible to many. Easier to compete in too. One foot in front of the other.

There are thousands and thousands of athletes in many sports putting in the effort to get to the games. They are all seriously competitive.

Luis21

woodchopper wrote: »

I doubt he went for a free tracksuit when he gets plenty of clothes from Nike. Since you are only a temporary visitor to the athletics forum let me remind you that you must address myself as Mr Woodchopper sunshine!

Since your such a big fan of boxing. How would John Joe Nevin fare against Floyd Mayweather? That is the level of athletics in the Olympics compared to the amateur boxing tournament that takes place also.

What on earth on you on about ?

woodchopper

Luis21 wrote: »

Gavin Nolan finished 23rd in the triathon. Hes been injured for ages. Why was he even there ?

IOC are a joke. Its no wonder the boxing crowd seperate themselves from them.

Not hard to separate yourself when the best fighters on this planet are in Las Vegas

woodchopper

walshb wrote: »

C'mon, why compare two different sports? Pro and amateur boxing.

BTW, as amatuers Nevin would have given Floyd hell.

.

Floyd was an amateur at 16 for gods sake. He turned pro after Atlanta baby

woodchopper

walshb wrote: »

Jerry conveniently forgetting that running is so so so more accessible to many. Easier to compete in too. One foot in front of the other.

There are thousands and thousands of athletes in many sports putting in the effort to get to the games. They are all seriously competitive.

Running is easier to compete in? What have you been smoking lately?

walshb

woodchopper wrote: »

Floyd was an amateur at 16 for gods sake. He turned pro after Atlanta baby

Did I mention aged 16?

I am speaking about as amateurs. In the amateurs just before 17 all compete at the same year of birth.

Nevin at 16 and Floyd at 16? Well, there is no footage for this for me to make a decison.

Floyd in Atlanta in 1996 aged 19 I think vs. JJN today? Nevin is no pushover.

woodchopper

Luis21 wrote: »

What on earth on you on about ?

Last warning sunshine!

You must address me as Mr Woodchooper. Dont like your tone kid

RayCun

This thread is about to get covered in a rash of yellow cards...

BobMac104

Luis21 wrote: »

The OCI then.

This not letting themselves down stuff is utter nonsense. If your PB is nowhere near good enough then you shouldn't go. The money splaffed on athletics is a joke. Look at the mullet the other day, disgraceful carry on, he could barely run, went for the free tracksuit and then threatens to quit afterwards.

I know you're on a wind up mission here but i'll reply by saying that by your reasoning we should never again spend a penny on irish soccer either. If you got rid of john delaney and giovanni trapatonnis wages alone it would fund fifty irish athletes @ the highest level.

Hell you fund 100 ciaran o lionairds with those two wage bills alone.

woodchopper

walshb wrote: »

Did I mention aged 16?

I am speaking about as amateurs. In the amateurs just before 17 all compete at the same year of birth.

Nevin at 16 and Floyd at 16? Well, there is no footage for this for me to make a decison.

Floyd in Atlanta in 1996 aged 19 I think vs. JJN today? Nevin is no pushover.

Nevin is 23 sunshine! When Floyd was 23 he was strutting his stuff in the Pros baby

walshb

woodchopper wrote: »

Running is easier to compete in? What have you been smoking lately?

I am a big track fan, but running is something pretty much anyone can do, or try to do. It's the most natural physical discipline known to man. Yes, some are better and will excel, but the mechanics and movement and physiology behind running is pretty basic.

Anyway, this is all to do with this attitude from some in track that their sport is somehow the most competitive and deep. Nonsense!

walshb

woodchopper wrote: »

Nevin is 23 sunshine! When Floyd was 23 he was strutting his stuff in the Pros baby

When Floyd was 23 he was competing in a different sport. This little fact seems to be lost on you.

Luis21

RayCun wrote: »

This thread is about to get covered in a rash of yellow cards...

Careful, call him MR.Woodchopper.

walshb

BobMac104 wrote: »

I know you're on a wind up mission here but i'll reply by saying that by your reasoning we should never again spend a penny on irish soccer either. If you got rid of ronnie delany and giovanni trapatonnis wages alone it would fund fifty irish athletes @ the highest level.

Hell you fund 100 ciaran o lionairds with those two wage bills alone.

You mean John Delaney I hope?;)

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

I am a big track fan, but running is something pretty much anyone can do, or try to do. It's the most natural physical discipline known to man. Yes, some are better and will excel, but the mechanics and movement and physiology behind running is pretty basic.

Anyway, this is all to do with this attitude from some in track that their sport is somehow the most competitive and deep. Nonsense!

Any bloody drunk idiot can box also, just go to your local after it shuts!
Its just spraying your left and right and hoping to connect!

Just saying the same thing about boxing as your saying about running. Simple isnt it

BobMac104

walshb wrote: »

You mean John Delaney I hope?;)

hahahhaha!! yup sure did. I have olympics on the brain!

Pherekydes

BobMac104 wrote: »

If you got rid of ronnie delany...

A step too far, especially in this forum. :eek:

Go now, and never return.

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

Any bloody drunk idiot can box also, just go to your local after it shuts!
Its just spraying your left and right and hoping to connect!

Just saying the same thing about boxing as your saying about running. Simple isnt it

No, to the untrained eye it may be simple. Like it or not running is one of the easiest sporting disciplines of all. To do I mean. Boxing as a sport requires a lot more mechanics form the body. Hence only a slecet amount of people can do it, and excel in it. Running is open to the world. It is that easy to do.

BTW, after boxing track is my favourie sport. I love it. Soemthing like the triple jump, high hurdles, pole vault and javelin; now they are difficult. But running is not. Again, to do I mean.

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

No, to the untrained eye it may be simple. Like it or not running is one of the easiest sporting disciplines of all. To do I mean. Boxing as a sport requires a lot more mechanics form the body. Hence only a slecet amount of people can do it, and excel in it. Running is open to the world. It is that easy to do.

BTW, after boxing track is my favourie sport. I love it. Soemthing like the triple jump, high hurdles, pole vault and javelin; now they are difficult. But running is not. Again, to do I mean.

Stop talking ****e will you. Boxing and running are both easy for anyone to do. I mean as a kid growing up, the first thing you learn to do is to run and fight!!!.

Yes only a select a few can make it to the top of their field, but thats the same for all sport. If running was so easy why isnt there loads in 100m etc?

myflipflops

walshb wrote: »

You remind me of Jerry Kiernan and his whole, "Athletics is the most deep and competitive sport" crap. Nonsense..

It is comfortably the most competitive sport in the Olympics (ignoring the football) and the most difficult to medal in.

woodchopper

walshb wrote: »

.

BTW, after boxing track is my favourie sport. I love it. Soemthing like the triple jump, high hurdles, pole vault and javelin; now they are difficult. But running is not. Again, to do I mean.

Since when is throwing a stick difficult? Amateur boxing is only three rounds for god sake. They even hear helmets. GAA players train harder than these amateur boxing folks. GO BACK TO THE BOXING FORUM WITH YOUR NONSENSE