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

Irish Olympic Marathon selection put on long finger

245

Comments

  • #32
    plodder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,749 ✭✭✭plodder


    T runner wrote: »
    I dont think athletes had any power to disagree with this criteria. An athlete not signing up presumably would mean nothing bar a worry of self exclusion, and at the end of teh day the responsibility is with the governing body not with athletes or not to be buck passed to athletes.

    The fact is that it takes at least 4 months to prepare adequately for an elite marathon. An athlete qualifying for the olympics on May 20th will need 3 weeks recovery minimum and she would need a few weeks working on the aspects of running lost during the latter stages of marathon preparation. If she doesnt do the latter she will be flat at the outset of training. Thats in effect 1st June before marathon preparation can begin only 5 weeks before the olympic marathon.
    If she goes straight into a marathon buildup after 3 week recovery she has 8 weeks. Its not long enough. What were they thinking.

    Now we have 4 athletes training for a marathon without the full stimulus, commitment and determination that knowledge of a definate starting position brings.
    Fair point. End of May seems ludicrously late all right.


  • #33
    macinalli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 907 ✭✭✭macinalli


    There was another interesting point in the article about Barbara Sanchez (dual nationality) hoping to run the A standard in Copenhagen on May 20th. I've no idea if she's likely to make that time, but given that they said the decision would be made in June I guess they have to wait to see if she can do it. Just to make it a bit more complicated!


  • #34
    jeffontour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 930 ✭✭✭jeffontour


    Does anyone know what process was used to agree the June 12th date for nomination of participants? There can't have been much athlete(let me be even more specific, marathoner) input to that decision.

    I was going to write a longer reply but frankly I'm just too p1ssed off to bother. The athletes may have known the dates going into the process but sure they had bigger fish to fry, such as running the bloody times.

    I hope the 3 that go make the most of their chance and are happy with their performance on the day. And for the unlucky 4th runner hopefully they use it as motivation to drive them on further.


  • #35
    TFBubendorfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,340 ✭✭✭TFBubendorfer


    T runner wrote: »
    I dont think athletes had any power to disagree with this criteria. An athlete not signing up presumably would mean nothing bar a worry of self exclusion, and at the end of teh day the responsibility is with the governing body not with athletes or not to be buck passed to athletes.

    Exactly! To then use the fact that they had signed an agreement that they really had no choice about as an excuse is utterly ridiculous. That is extremely bad management, nothing else.


  • #36
    Patrick_K
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 339 ✭✭Patrick_K


    What a ridiculous situation.
    They obviously can't change it at this stage as other athletes may be trying to qualify but if they want to help out those who have qualified they could rank the 4 currently qualified ladies so at least they know where they stand at the moment.

    PK


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Patrick_K wrote: »
    What a ridiculous situation.
    They obviously can't change it at this stage as other athletes may be trying to qualify but if they want to help out those who have qualified they could rank the 4 currently qualified ladies so at least they know where they stand at the moment.

    PK

    But if anyone was to qualify now what race would it be in and should they really be considered suitable for it if they did a time in Cork for instance? No time to get ready, would make for a nice course record round Cork no doubt. :D


  • #38
    Patrick_K
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 339 ✭✭Patrick_K


    Completely agree Robin, chances of it happening now must be pretty slim and would be far from ideal prep but they can't just go and change the dates at this stage.


  • #39
    thirtyfoot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭thirtyfoot


    The key to preventing this happening again is to make the marathon standard in line with all other events, ie, harder. Then, for the foreseeable future, we won't have more than 3 qualifiers in an event.


  • #40
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    thirtyfoot wrote: »
    The key to preventing this happening again is to make the marathon standard in line with all other events, ie, harder. Then, for the foreseeable future, we won't have more than 3 qualifiers in an event.

    In Australia they have made their qualification for the men's marathon sub 2:12. Not sure what the women's is but I'd imagine it would be close to 2:30. Although, I think they are overly strict IMO. The marathon standard is weak, but that's not the athletes fault. Surely they could have done what most nations do and pick the marathon team in early April. Waiting until late May shows a gross lack of knowledge and indeed respect for the event.


  • #41
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    thirtyfoot wrote: »
    The key to preventing this happening again is to make the marathon standard in line with all other events, ie, harder. Then, for the foreseeable future, we won't have more than 3 qualifiers in an event.

    Or just pick some more sensible dates - time must be run by end of April, decision will be made first week in May. It's not like "too many women have run the A standard" is a common problem for Irish athletics.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    pistol_75
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭pistol_75


    04072511 wrote: »
    In Australia they have made their qualification for the men's marathon sub 2:12.

    They did the same for GB but then relaxed it when Lee Merrien didn't make the time in London.

    Makes no sense to keep the athletes waiting as everyone seems to agree on.

    What is the best we can hope from any of them?


  • #43
    thirtyfoot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭thirtyfoot


    RayCun wrote: »
    It's not like "too many women have run the A standard" is a common problem for Irish athletics.

    Thats because the standard is weak. That is the problem, whoever set the standard made a big mistake and probably didn't properly consider more than 3 would get it. A similar standard in other events would see us over subscribed there too.

    Men 100 - Probably 3
    Men 200 - Probably 5
    Mens 400 - Probably 3
    Mens 110H - Probably 2
    Mens 400H - Probably 5

    Thats just mens sprints. Mens middle distance would be a disaster, 6 or 7 per event in the mens. Harder standards, its the Olympics after all.

    If a harder standard was set though, there probably would have been uproar.

    A good problem to have though all the same.


  • #44
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    thirtyfoot wrote: »
    That is the problem, whoever set the standard made a big mistake and probably didn't properly consider more than 3 would get it.

    It's the Olympic A standard, it wasn't set by anyone in Ireland. AFAIK the last few selections have used the same Olympic A standard, weak as it may be, and didn't have four athletes hitting it.
    The problem is not that four people have the qualifying time, it's that those four have to wait too long to find out who is going. You could have the same problem with a tougher standard if you had the same messing around on the selection committee.


  • #45
    hardCopy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭hardCopy


    Couldn't they at least eliminate one of the four already qualified and call the others a provisional team? That way they can at least have some idea if they're going, unless somebody new hits the standard in the next few weeks.


  • #46
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Having a lot to choose from is only a problem for the selectors. It doesn't matter a bit to the athletes if there are ten other people with a qualifying time, you still have to better than them to give yourself the best chance of getting the spot.

    BoA confirmed that Paula, Mara and Scott Overall had their places last year, now someone could have come along and got a faster time but that wouldn't have changed things greatly. By confirming those people places early enough it give them the best chance of being ready come the important day in August.


  • #47
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    RayCun wrote: »
    It's the Olympic A standard, it wasn't set by anyone in Ireland. AFAIK the last few selections have used the same Olympic A standard, weak as it may be, and didn't have four athletes hitting it.
    The problem is not that four people have the qualifying time, it's that those four have to wait too long to find out who is going. You could have the same problem with a tougher standard if you had the same messing around on the selection committee.

    Each country can come up with their own standards if they like, as long as the qualification mark that they choose is faster than the A-Standard. That is what he is referring to.


  • #48
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    04072511 wrote: »
    Each country can come up with their own standards if they like, as long as the qualification mark that they choose is faster than the A-Standard. That is what he is referring to.

    Yes, I know.
    But the A Standard has been used for the last few Olympics, and hasn't lead to the problem of there being too many qualified athletes.
    And if they set a tougher standard they could still be caught out by having too many qualified athletes, which is why it is important to have the selection process sorted out and reasonable dates for the decisions.


  • #49
    thirtyfoot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭thirtyfoot


    RayCun wrote: »
    It's the Olympic A standard.

    Yes indeed.
    RayCun wrote: »
    , it wasn't set by anyone in Ireland. .

    But someone in Ireland can make it harder if they want. I think they should.
    RayCun wrote: »
    . AFAIK the last few selections have used the same Olympic A standard, weak as it may be, and didn't have four athletes hitting it.
    .

    True, so we have 4 now and when the rest (we could name half a dozen) realise how weak it is they will chase it for Rio unless its toughened. Then we'll have 10!


  • #50
    RayCun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    thirtyfoot wrote: »
    Then we'll have 10!

    Excellent! So the selection committee will have a strong field to choose from. None of the athletes will complain about their 2.36 not being good enough if they're beaten by a 2.34. But they might all complain if they have to wait until a month before the games to find out...


  • #51
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    thirtyfoot wrote: »
    True, so we have 4 now and when the rest (we could name half a dozen) realise how weak it is they will chase it for Rio unless its toughened. Then we'll have 10!

    This is a good point. Compare the marathon A-Standard to equivelent performances in other events:

    10000m - 33:24 (A-Standard is 31:45)
    5000m - 15:51 (A-Standard is 15:20)
    3000m Steeplechase - 10:12 (A-Standard is 9:43)
    1500m - 4:17 (A-Standard is 4:06)
    800m - 2:05 (A-Standard is 1:59)

    The marathon standard isn't just weaker than the others. It is off the planet weaker than the rest. More and more will target the marathon over coming Olympics Games as it provides an easier path. It could be 6-7 next time around.

    Just, as an aside, the 400m equivalent of the marathon qualifier is 53.87. Joanne Cuddihy has run 51.69 so far, and still isn't guaranteed her place. In fact the entire 4x400m team are under the equivalent time of the marathon qualifier. The B-Standards in every other event are significantly tougher than the Marathon A-Standard.

    None of this is the fault of the athletes. It is a smart move targetting a softer standard, but there is a case for strengthening our qualification criteria for the marathon going forward.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Peckham
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,591 ✭✭✭Peckham


    How will they select the three? Some people around a table making a subjective judgment, or something more transparent than that?


  • #53
    RacoonQueen
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,369 Mod ✭✭✭✭RacoonQueen


    thirtyfoot wrote: »
    Yes indeed.

    But someone in Ireland can make it harder if they want. I think they should.

    True, so we have 4 now and when the rest (we could name half a dozen) realise how weak it is they will chase it for Rio unless its toughened. Then we'll have 10!

    But they all knew that the womens team was going to be competitive so even with the 'soft' standard they should have been going all out to get the fastest time possible to ensure they were selected. Unless there is 3 or less capable of hitting A-standard it shouldn't really matter what time Ireland use as a qualifier as the faster you go the more likely you are to get selected.

    To be fair though, didn't they try and secure DCM as the qualifying race and the proposal got rejected?


  • #54
    ecoli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,762 ✭✭✭✭ecoli


    While I know that it is not an ideal situation and team should know by now so they can prepare the AAI/IOC could be looking at it from another angle.

    If team is selected and one gets injured in a month or two time it makes it hard to call up the next person as they will have changed their focus to the 10,000m. It looks as though they are trying to not repeat past mistakes ala Pauline Curley who was called up late with her B standard for Beijing

    Think of the negative press that was generated as a result. By holding off on the choice it is not fully fair on the athletes but it does create best possibility of having full roster in London


  • #55
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    pistol_75 wrote: »
    04072511 wrote: »
    In Australia they have made their qualification for the men's marathon sub 2:12.

    They did the same for GB but then relaxed it when Lee Merrien didn't make the time in London.

    Makes no sense to keep the athletes waiting as everyone seems to agree on.

    What is the best we can hope from any of them?
    The additional complication for the UK mens team was that they had given a place to someone with a time slower than Merrien based on the Daegu finishing position. That is why they then did relax the standard.


  • #56
    Kurt Godel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,361 ✭✭✭Kurt Godel


    thirtyfoot wrote: »
    The key to preventing this happening again is to make the marathon standard in line with all other events, ie, harder. Then, for the foreseeable future, we won't have more than 3 qualifiers in an event.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the women's marathon has a low entry standard in order to increase participation from countries with little history of women's sport- to include more countries in a way that doesn't impact logistically in the same way many more entrants in T&F would.

    (Agree with you that the standard should be in line with other events).


  • #57
    Clum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 629 ✭✭✭Clum


    The real reason the decision date was put in June was so Athletics Ireland could spend half of April and May working out the results for the national 10km championships. One thing at a time...


  • #58
    Goofy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 272 ✭✭Goofy


    From the article in theIndo
    Raheny's Barbara Sanchez is still hoping to get the qualifying standard in Copenhagen on May 20, which may yet throw up another contender.

    This is the key point. The organisers set out a date of June 12. Other athletes, like Sanchez, have planned their season to run marathons between now and then to try and qualify. It wouldnt be fair on them to make the selection now.


  • #59
    shels4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,598 ✭✭✭shels4ever


    Goofy wrote: »
    From the article in theIndo


    This is the key point. The organisers set out a date of June 12. Other athletes, like Sanchez, have planned their season to run marathons between now and then to try and qualify. It wouldnt be fair on them to make the selection now.
    Yep from the Reheny site she has been in France the last few weeks with a couple or races.


  • #60
    Kurt Godel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,361 ✭✭✭Kurt Godel


    Goofy wrote: »
    From the article in theIndo


    This is the key point. The organisers set out a date of June 12. Other athletes, like Sanchez, have planned their season to run marathons between now and then to try and qualify. It wouldnt be fair on them to make the selection now.

    That's the nub of the problem though, anyone who hits the qualifying standard close to June 12 will be suffering performance-wise come the Olympics. (That's no slight on Sanchez; she's perfectly right to suit herself in determining what race to target within the selection criteria). It might not be fair to Sanchez (or other athletes targeting the time before the cut-off), but the late selection cut-off is unfair to all the athletes involved, it will do no-one in the eventual squad of three any favours.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Hard Worker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Hard Worker


    04072511 wrote: »



    None of this is the fault of the athletes. It is a smart move targetting a softer standard, but there is a case for strengthening our qualification criteria for the marathon going forward.

    The background is that no woman had qualified for 20 years I think. Setting a "soft" standard was a good move. It helped to form a good competitive group who will no doubt improve over the next few years. As it stands at the moment, that group would get a team medal in the European Championships.
    You can't really compare sprint and middle distance standards to those of a marathon. You get one chance per year, two at most, to get qualifying standards in the marathon. People might tend to just run for the standard ( Mark Kenneally ), when in fact they may have been able to run quicker.


Advertisement