Calendar
Retailers
Stack & Reach
Custom Geometry Calculator (beta)
More To Come...
MAIN
INDEX
RULES &
LEGEND
LOG
IN
Search
this forum
this category
all forums
for
All words
Any words
Whole Phrase
(
options
)
Newsletter Signup
Slowtwitch Forums
:
Triathlon Forum
:
Major political storm brewing at US Olympic Trials - Eugene
1
2
3
4
View All
Tri Forum
Classifieds
Lavender Room
Jobs
The Womens
Print Thread
NYCTri
Jul 5, 08 7:36
Post #76 of 84 (283 views)
Re: Major political storm brewing at US Olympic Trials - Eugene [mag900]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I think your missing the point. The college athlete would be seen as University X/athlete vs USATF (Nike). There goes University X nike sponsorship money.
JW
styrrell
Jul 5, 08 7:53
Post #77 of 84 (271 views)
Re: Major political storm brewing at US Olympic Trials - Eugene [mag900]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Take a breath, actually read the previous posts. I didn't originally say that schools were pressuring athletes not to protest, another did. You asked why a school would do that and I responded with a possible scenario. As far as facts go, NIKE donates millions (or has contracts worth millions) with at least Oregons and U Mich.
I follow runing pretty closely, which is why I've been able to correct quite a few of your factual mistakes regarding rules, contracts etc in previous posts.
Sell just missed the team in 2004? He was I believe the third guy from Hansons in the race. He was one of 5-6 guys favored to make the 2008 team, but no one is picking him for a medal chance, whereas Meb obviusly has proven to be a medal prospect. Injuries and age got in the way this year, but golly who else does injury and age getting in the way of there OG chances describe? Just like Meb shouldn't be named to the team based on passed performance, Goucher shouldn't be let into the 10 at trials.
Also while Goucher ran his ass off in the race, he in no way proved he should have been let in with his performance. He added nothing, the race was between Abdi, Torres and Rupp, from early on. Goucher was 7th.
styrrell
Jul 5, 08 7:59
Post #78 of 84 (267 views)
Re: Major political storm brewing at US Olympic Trials - Eugene [Uncle Phil]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
But thats not the point. US trials have always been based on the fact that an athlete knows:
A) Hit the time standard and you are in
B) Top 3 and you go
When the IOC added standards it muddied the water a bit about if you really get to go if you were top 3, but the precedent of coaches or corporations getting to pick the team or even who gets to compete is the debate.
I wouldn't have been shocked if Goucher made the team, but now I don't know what the rules are for getting to trials.
Styrrell
Gandalf
Jul 5, 08 8:41
Post #79 of 84 (249 views)
Re: Major political storm brewing at US Olympic Trials - Eugene [JimVance]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
It's quite amazing how this kind of situation even arises. You want to send a your 3 top athletes in each event to the Olympics. The places should be open to anyone carrying the nationality, and they should be given equal opportunity to compete.
- Minimum qualifying standard by date XX/XX/XXXX gets you into the national olympic trials which consist of a qualifying pool and a final to determine the top 3.
- You should not be using the trials for speedwork and if you do that, and do not run in the finals then you should be DQ'd from the olympic squad.
- Events should be scheduled to give those competing for mutiple events and even shot. e.g. the schedule of the qualifying rounds and finals mirror the schedule of the olympics as much as possible.
As far as I'm aware we had this kind of system in GB. I remember in the early 80's they introduced a controversial scheme which I do support. Exceptional medal contenders were given automatic selection. I'm talking about, Seb Coe, Steve Ovett, Daly Thompson etc. I have no disagreement with major Gold Medal prospects being allowed to peak for the Olympics and not go through the trials. Having seen this kind of system, I was staggered to see the US track and field trials for Barcelona '92 I believe where Carl Lewis failed to qualify. I remember it made big news on french TV (I was living in France at the time). My first reaction was how BRUTAL the US system was, my second reaction was that it was just BRUTALLY FAIR.
On that score, I also remember Seb Coe failing to qualify for Seoul in 1988 through the British system. An 800 double Olympic champion didn't get the chance to defend his title. Well actually he did... he just failed at the first hurdle. Anyway, I think at the Oympics themselves should reserve a slot for double gold medalists. That would have solved the Carl Lewis and Seb Coe situations.
Anyway it seems the US selection system has either changed a bit or is not as fair all the way down the line through the qualifying rounds as one might have deduced. It's a pity. These situations just shouldn't be allowed to occur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 - Ping Pong is coming home - Boris Johnson
You can do a lot of damage on Wall St. with a pen and a piece of paper - Warren Buffet
.
Hawaii Qualification Analysis
mag900
Jul 5, 08 8:52
Post #80 of 84 (246 views)
Re: Major political storm brewing at US Olympic Trials - Eugene [styrrell]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
there's a BIG difference between donating money and contractually engaging a school with a contract. you clearly don't see the difference but one is legal contract and the other is just done out of the goodness of nike's heart. 4 of the 7 aren't even in school so clearly this phantom force doesn't apply to them. the 2 schools you listed aren't even the 3 that the other 3 go to. so nike has contracts with oregon and michigan (i'm not sure what the puerile term "big bucks" means in this context either). how does that have any relevance to a guy who goes to another school? moreover, the argument that was being made by little was that if goucher gets in, then the other 7 should get in AS WELL AS -- NOT instead of goucher. there were several anonymous quotes from yesterday that several of the 7 thought that it was a good thing for them that goucher was let in because they thought that they too were going to get let in. so the conspiracy theory is that if the other 7 got let in WITH goucher, then nike is going to get mad and attempt to rescind its basketball and football contracts with michigan and oregon (despite the fact that none of the 7 goes to them)? please, there is no grassy knoll here.
factual mistakes? excuse me?
you clearly don't follow running that closely if you have no idea what happened in 2004. sell led for MUCH of the race by himself and was in the lead at mile 21. yes, he faded badly in the final couple of miles to 13th, as leading that long solo took its toll, but yes, if you are in the lead mile 21, you very nearly made the team in my book.
why are you comparing letting goucher into the oly trials 10k where he still had to come in the top 3 and break 27:50 to just naming meb to the marathon team despite not qualifying. that's ridiculous. nobody has argued that goucher should just be named to the 10k team (like how many countries do it) -- only that he should run in the trials and then be able to earn it. the fact that you are confusing the 2 baffles me.
did you watch the race? goucher "added nothing?" he was in the chase pack for the entire 2nd half of the race and was doing a lot of work in it. i don't know how someone who comes in 7th, is within 10 seconds of 3rd and making the team, and who did a lot of the work with 4, 5 and 6 "added nothing." as soon as abdi, rupp and torres broke away by 5 seconds, should everyone else have stepped off the track? there was a lot of drama in that race -- particularly when torres fell off the back -- and it really wasn't over until the last lap. torres sure didn't look like he thought goucher was a "nothing" when he got dropped and then started worrying about getting caught by the chase pack.
mag900
Jul 5, 08 9:10
Post #81 of 84 (239 views)
Re: Major political storm brewing at US Olympic Trials - Eugene [styrrell]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
once again, you are stated completely incorrect information. the us trials have not "always been based" on anything. the standards and rules change from olympiad to olympiad. this is the first time that you need the A before or during the trials. in the past, it wasn't that big of a deal because if you came in the top 3 without the A, you could scurry off to europe and try and nail it over the next month. some got it and some didn't, whereby the highest finisher with the A would be named to the team and the top 3 B person would be removed (hello joe lemay). moreover, in past years, the usatf has guaranteed the winner a spot on the team even if the winner didn't have the A and it meant that we would leave As at home and go with only 1-person in the event (see the men's marathon in i believe 2000).
what has come out of gouchergate is that the rules are quite byzantine. however, the usatf did follow its rules because there is a clause that allows it to put a non-A person into a field to make it more competitive. that is so ridiculously vague that the usatf really has free reign to do what it wants. however, i believe that the spirit of that rule is to protect our truly best runners from not being able to even contend for a spot on the team. the 10k is the most exceptional of races because there are so few fast ones run in north america and it takes a lot out of a runner to run 27:50. i don't think that the usatf would have done this with someone in the 1500 because there are fast 1500s run every weekend in the spring of an olympic year and there really isn't any excuse not to have the A by oly trials if you should be on the oly team.
my big problem with the usatf here is that it acted in the most sneaky and backhanded way possible. it granted goucher's entry 2 weeks ago but then went silent until 2 days before the race. there really is no excuse for that. the start lists should have been release at the start of the trials. moreover, it has come out that at least some of the 25-31 did appeal and in at least one case, the usatf didn't even read it! that's simply not acceptable. in the end, the usatf made the right decision in letting in one of america's best distance runners of all time and he didn't let them down with an impressive 27:59.
styrrell
Jul 5, 08 12:40
Post #82 of 84 (206 views)
Re: Major political storm brewing at US Olympic Trials - Eugene [mag900]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
there's a BIG difference between donating money and contractually engaging a school with a contract. you clearly don't see the difference but one is legal contract and the other is just done out of the goodness of nike's heart.
There is a big difference legally, but not in my example. Whether or not NIKE giveS a school millions as a donation or as a contract, a school will certainly listen to what they have to say in the future.
4 of the 7 aren't even in school so clearly this phantom force doesn't apply to them.
Never said it applied to any of the athletes Someone else conjectured it as a possibility.
the 2 schools you listed aren't even the 3 that the other 3 go to.
You said in a previous post that you that companies didn't give enough money to universities to matter. I was giving an example to refute that. Never said it was specific to the seven athletes in question.
so nike has contracts with oregon and michigan (i'm not sure what the puerile term "big bucks" means in this context either).
MOst people would consider the amount NIKE gives to either UM or Oregon big bucks
how does that have any relevance to a guy who goes to another school?
Never said it did.
moreover, the argument that was being made by little was that if goucher gets in, then the other 7 should get in AS WELL AS -- NOT instead of goucher. there were several anonymous quotes from yesterday that several of the 7 thought that it was a good thing for them that goucher was let in because they thought that they too were going to get let in. so the conspiracy theory is that if the other 7 got let in WITH goucher, then nike is going to get mad and attempt to rescind its basketball and football contracts with michigan and oregon (despite the fact that none of the 7 goes to them)? please, there is no grassy knoll here.
Little proposed letting in the others as a possible solution. Others conjectured the possibility that some of the athletes were being pressured not to sue because of NIKE. The fact that only Goucher got in and none of the others kinda is the grassy knoll.
factual mistakes? excuse me?
One example is where you said B athletes didn't have to be added into a field under 24 athletes in order of their B qual time. I posted the rule that stated that they do indeed have to fill the field in order.
you clearly don't follow running that closely if you have no idea what happened in 2004. sell led for MUCH of the race by himself and was in the lead at mile 21. yes, he faded badly in the final couple of miles to 13th, as leading that long solo took its toll, but yes, if you are in the lead mile 21, you very nearly made the team in my book.
If you feel leading a marathon at mile 21 and coming in 13th is almost making the team, thats your opinion and your entitled to it. I call it a gutsy run and a huge mistake by a relative rookie. I commend him from learning from that mistake. Since then he has mostly had succcess by klaying back and picking off the front runners.
why are you comparing letting goucher into the oly trials 10k where he still had to come in the top 3 and break 27:50 to just naming meb to the marathon team despite not qualifying. that's ridiculous. nobody has argued that goucher should just be named to the 10k team (like how many countries do it) -- only that he should run in the trials and then be able to earn it. the fact that you are confusing the 2 baffles me.
Reeding Comperhenshun 101: I'm not confusing the two situations. They have rules for qualifying for the trials. If they arbitrari;y break them for Goucher, where does it end. I used the Meb example as what could be next, if the USATF is allowed to ignore the rules, and clearly stated it as such. Look up the term slippery slope.
did you watch the race? goucher "added nothing?" he was in the chase pack for the entire 2nd half of the race and was doing a lot of work in it. i don't know how someone who comes in 7th, is within 10 seconds of 3rd and making the team, and who did a lot of the work with 4, 5 and 6 "added nothing." as soon as abdi, rupp and torres broke away by 5 seconds, should everyone else have stepped off the track? there was a lot of drama in that race -- particularly when torres fell off the back -- and it really wasn't over until the last lap. torres sure didn't look like he thought goucher was a "nothing" when he got dropped and then started worrying about getting caught by the chase pack.
Again your opinion. Had Goucher not been in the race, the first 3 would have been the first 3 and the chase would have been the chase minus Goucher. If Goucher had qualified for the last spot and was a no name, and did exactly what he did, he would not have gotten one single mention during the covereage.
Styrrell
mag900
Jul 5, 08 14:17
Post #83 of 84 (165 views)
Re: Major political storm brewing at US Olympic Trials - Eugene [styrrell]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Quote
There is a big difference legally, but not in my example. Whether or not NIKE giveS a school millions as a donation or as a contract, a school will certainly listen to what they have to say in the future.
how do you know that? were you involved with a ncaa sport? what is this based on? i still don't think that you understand what the difference between a donation is and a contract is.
Quote
Never said it applied to any of the athletes Someone else conjectured it as a possibility.
really? then what is this: "Post #66. As I stated if your a college athlete on scholarship with no real ambition to ruyn after school, the threat to your scholarship is pretty strong. I don't know if thats the exact case here, or even if the article I cited is correct but its plausable." that "someone" was you and, for the life of god, would you please learn the difference between "your" and "you're." it pains me to think that there is a 5th grader on the other end of these posts. you further stated: "Certainly a college athlete being threatened by his school is a pretty big sword. Not saying I agree, but if I had no plans of running post college and was on scholarship I'd be leery of giving that up."
Quote
MOst people would consider the amount NIKE gives to either UM or Oregon big bucks
how much is it? it's beyond bizarre that you make these statements and you have no idea what you are talking about. again, nike doesn't "give" any money to michigan and oregon. in fact, michigan doesn't even have a deal with nike as it went with adidas in 2007:
http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/234571
great example there.
Quote
One example is where you said B athletes didn't have to be added into a field under 24 athletes in order of their B qual time. I posted the rule that stated that they do indeed have to fill the field in order.
do you even read other peoples' posts? i posted it before and i'll post it again. the key phrase is "If there are not enough "A" qualifiers to fill the field size." there were enough As, so the rest of the provision doesn't apply. goucher was getting let in via the byzantine provision that allows the usatf make the field "more competitive" by adding a B person. this isn't rocket science when people are walking you through how the rules work. otherwise that was an excellent example of you correcting my factual mistakes.
Quote
If you feel leading a marathon at mile 21 and coming in 13th is almost making the team, thats your opinion and your entitled to it. I call it a gutsy run and a huge mistake by a relative rookie. I commend him from learning from that mistake. Since then he has mostly had succcess by klaying back and picking off the front runners.
the "your" thing really gets grating after awhile. i do think someone leading a marathon for over half the race and who is in the lead at mile 20 and 21 almost made the team. you made it sound like he was some second rate guy in your rant that meb has a better chance of medaling than sell.
Quote
Reeding Comperhenshun 101: I'm not confusing the two situations. They have rules for qualifying for the trials. If they arbitrari;y break them for Goucher, where does it end. I used the Meb example as what could be next, if the USATF is allowed to ignore the rules, and clearly stated it as such. Look up the term slippery slope.
"Reeding Comprehenshun 101" [sic]. there's nothing like an illiterate condescendingly telling you that you don't read well. regarding your ridiculous comparison that you now are trying to deny, this is what you wrote:
Quote
Just like Meb shouldn't be named to the team based on passed performance, Goucher shouldn't be let into the 10 at trials.
yes, despite your bizarre notions, meb being named to the olympic team without doing anything at the trials is VERY different than goucher being allowed to try and qualify for the olympic team in a race where he has to hit 27:50 and come in the top 3. btw, you have more homophonic damage in that sentence. again, the USATF DID NOT break its rules. it has a provision that it can place someone into the field if it wants to. you might not like and my guess is that it is going to be re-written after the olympics, but it perfect was within its bounds to add goucher and nobody else. what is so difficult to understand?
i have to ask. are you a native english speaker? i sure hope not because your grammar truly is a disgrace to wherever you are from if it is your first language.
slowguy
Jul 5, 08 14:29
Post #84 of 84 (155 views)
Re: Major political storm brewing at US Olympic Trials - Eugene [mag900]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I'm not, nor have I ever been an NCAA track and Field athlete, so take my comments for what they're worth.
"i still don't think that you understand what the difference between a donation is and a contract is. "
Donation or contract, certainly there is a legal difference, but anytime a corporation, or any donor for that matter, gives a significant amount of money over a period of time, the school or program in question will feel an obligation to that donor to do things the way they want. The idea is to keep the money coming in, and there doesn't need to be a legal contract for that pressure to exist.
" nike doesn't "give" any money to michigan and oregon"
"Nike" may not, but Philip Knight certainly has donated a lot of money to Oregon.
"i do think someone leading a marathon for over half the race and who is in the lead at mile 20 and 21 almost made the team."
Obviously the statement "almost made the team" is largely subjective, but my opinion is that you have to make those statements based on finishing standings. If someone led half the race and into the 21st mile, but then finished 5 or 6 places out of the running, then they didn't almost make the team. If they are in that same lead and just barely get passed and miss by one spot, then sure, the term "almost" would apply.
"i have to ask. are you a native english speaker? i sure hope not because your grammar truly is a disgrace to wherever you are from if it is your first language."
You should probably not be calling anyone out on their grammar if you can't be bothered to use capitalization. ;-)
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
1
2
3
4
View All
Print Thread
Off Season
What will you do in the off season?
Bike focus
MTB or 'cross
No training
Run focus
Swim focus
What offseason?
XC ski or snowshoe
MAIN
RULES &
LOG
