Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

AAI released WC standards

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    ecoli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,762 ✭✭✭✭ecoli


    I know from a statistical point of view yes the marathon might sound a little easier but there are alot of factors which can result in this

    1) amount of races - you can get maybe 2 or three top chances at it so very little margin for error

    2) Remember unlike other events there are 5 able to run per country meaning peaking right and prep for the Moscow rather than the qualifying time should be paramount. This is more than any other event even with the extra place alotted for World Champions

    Woodchopper made an excellent point regarding the nature of championship racing in a marathon. Our athletes are spending all there time focusing on trying to hit these standards with sustained level paced only to have to try and revert back would it not make sense to not have such dramatic increases (not saying B standards but a middle ground like 2.15 or 2.33/34) and allow these athletes to try prepare properly for a progressive championship race rather than an all out TT


  • Options
    #33
    Krusty_Clown
    Registered Users Posts: 19,500 ✭✭✭✭Krusty_Clown


    Pisco Sour wrote: »
    To be fair the 800 standard leaves the top 1 Irish male of all time. Same with the 400. As standards go the marathon is still one of the easier ones.
    It is certainly more achievable than the 400m and 800m times. You've got to bear in mind though that the 400m and 800m qualification times are established by the IAAF and have nothing to do with the AAI. They are the minimum qualification times required to compete in the event.


  • Options
    #34
    TJC
    Registered Users Posts: 211 ✭✭TJC


    woodchopper wrote: »
    I disagree with Ecoli with regards to the walks. The 50k standard is 3.55 which is over 17 minutes slower than Rob Heffernan's pb!. However 2.12 is needed to qualify for the marathon which is in theory fine if they want to raise standards but theres a big BUT here.

    Athletics Canada and Athletics UK set similiar standards in the marathon so as not to send athletes who would be out of their depth in a world class calibre field. Yet to bridge the gap they set up altitude training camps and funding for top aspiring marathon athletes and in the UK scenario in consultation with the London marathon. This involved athletes been funded to compete and train full time, sponsers ( Canada with New Balance and UK with Adidas) , 5-6 week stints in Kenya twice a year, camps in Font Romeu during buildups etc along with top class support.

    Yet over here we expect Paul Pollock and Sean Hehir to carry the flag and try to reach these lofty standards yet they have to work full time to even survive. It is ridiculous to think these guys under current circumstances through no fault of their own can realistically run a 2.12. Paul's training revolves running to and from work and likewise Im sure for Sean.

    The marathon mission might as well be scraped because what exactly is the point of it now?

    Is it to raise standards?

    How to they plan to get guys running 2.12 with full time jobs and no viable support?

    Irish distance running is dead if they think you can compete on any stage never mind the world stage against the East Africans if all the guys are working 40 plus hours a week.

    Anyone on boards fancy been ridiculed in the media for not beating the Africans when you have to work 40 hours a week.

    Very good post.

    Anothere thing the AAI are doing is preventing these athletes from picking up a bit of Sports Funding. If they were to send a few of these runners to the Worlds they would qualify for a 12k grant (if i'm not mistaken). So not only do they have to train full-time and work full-time, they also have to do so without the financial support that others get. Only 7 Irish people to run under 2.13 according to that list above. Are they seriously being realistic?? I feel sorry for these athletes and also for the marathon mission. A lot of their hard work being undone. Some of these guys may be sick of running marathons and not making big finals by the time the europeans come around. I know other athletes train hard, but getting out and running over 100 miles a week is as tough as it comes..
    As mentioned, championship races are usually slower than the big races, so our guys could actually do ok.

    These guys are being treated disgracefully.
    Yhe AAI clearly do not have a clue.
    If they invested their money in athletes instead of settling court cases they might have some hope of improving Irish athletics....but even if they did have the money they'd find some other way to F*** things up!!

    (Rant over)


  • Options
    #35
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    TJC wrote: »
    I know other athletes train hard, but getting out and running over 100 miles a week is as tough as it comes..


    This bit I would take issue with. Training at a high level is equally tough for all events. There seems to be a bit of entitlement with regards the marathon here. All the AAI have done is bring the standard more in line with that of other events (it is still easier). I've no issue with this at all, and plenty of other countries do this aswell (Australia, Canada). As I've said before I don't think it's fair that somebody like Mark English or Jessie Barr could miss out on selection while somebody running 2:16 or 2:39 gets to go to Moscow.

    However this information should have been communicated a long time ago. Anybody with half a brain cell could predict that the IAAF standards would be the roughly the same for Moscow as they were for London (and in fact they were easier for the marathon), so why didn't they inform athletes immediately after the Olympics that they were going to raise the selection standards? This would have given everyone ample notice and they could plan their year's accordingly. Instead we have another massive cock-up, just 7 months before the World Championships.

    No problem with tightening the standards (I would support it being honest) but the way they have done it is unfair and athletes can rightfully feel aggrieved at that.


  • Options
    #36
    endswell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 304 ✭✭endswell


    outside of the 12k grant, how much does it cost to send an athlete to a wc marathon?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Krusty_Clown
    Registered Users Posts: 19,500 ✭✭✭✭Krusty_Clown


    Pisco Sour wrote: »
    There seems to be a bit of entitlement with regards the marathon here.
    :confused: I don't get it. If you hit the 800m IAAF standard, you get to go. If you hit the IAAF standard for the marathon, you don't. It's kind of like the opposite of entitlement.


  • Options
    #38
    TJC
    Registered Users Posts: 211 ✭✭TJC


    Pisco Sour wrote: »
    This bit I would take issue with. Training at a high level is equally tough for all events. There seems to be a bit of entitlement with regards the marathon here. All the AAI have done is bring the standard more in line with that of other events (it is still easier). I've no issue with this at all, and plenty of other countries do this aswell (Australia, Canada). As I've said before I don't think it's fair that somebody like Mark English or Jessie Barr could miss out on selection while somebody running 2:16 or 2:39 gets to go to Moscow.

    However this information should have been communicated a long time ago. Anybody with half a brain cell could predict that the IAAF standards would be the roughly the same for Moscow as they were for London (and in fact they were easier for the marathon), so why didn't they inform athletes immediately after the Olympics that they were going to raise the selection standards? This would have given everyone ample notice and they could plan their year's accordingly. Instead we have another massive cock-up, just 7 months before the World Championships.

    No problem with tightening the standards (I would support it being honest) but the way they have done it is unfair and athletes can rightfully feel aggrieved at that.

    I totally agree with what ur saying about the likes of Barr and English...The way they have been treated just shows how inept the AAI are.
    But you dont get 20/21 year olds running marathons. The guys in their late 20s and early 30s are the marathon equivalent. They too should be given a chance to develop as marathon runners.
    The Team GB qualifying standard was 2.12 for London. They had 1 man from over 60 million people get it. While the IAAF times might be a bit 'soft' in some people's eyes, the AAI A standard is a joke. This is not the right way to go about raising standards.. Why not change all the standards if they want us to medal???


  • Options
    #39
    ecoli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,762 ✭✭✭✭ecoli


    Dick Hoopers opinion on the matter;

    http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/hooper-hits-out-at-hike-in-a-standard-3372028.html


  • Options
    #40
    rom
    Registered Users Posts: 5,135 ✭✭✭rom


    "Britton's burning desire to have a team supporting her at the World Cross-Country championships in March has taken a sudden turn for the better.

    AAI had been lukewarm about sending a team to Poland, but it seems the excellent form shown by North Sligo's Mary Cullen last weekend, in her first race in 18 months, has forced a major rethink by AAI."

    That would be sweet


Advertisement